[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27127-27134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11340]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0297; FRL-9927-54-Region 9]


Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for Lead and 
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to address the 
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each State 
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer to such SIP revisions as 
``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are intended to address basic 
structural SIP requirements for each new or revised NAAQS including, 
but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, 
permit programs, monitoring and modeling necessary to assure attainment 
and maintenance of the standards. We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0297, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at [email protected].
    3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 
Francisco, California 94105.
    4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Section 
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, 
San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0297. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which 
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through 
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105. EPA requests that you contact 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947-4152, email: 
[email protected].

[[Page 27128]]


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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
    B. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
    C. Regulatory Background
II. Arizona's Submittals
III. EPA's Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals

    EPA is acting upon several SIP submittals from Arizona that address 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for states to 
make a SIP submittal of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submittals ``within 
3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) 
after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality 
standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submittals are to 
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of 
such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make 
these SIP submittals, and the requirement to make the submittals is not 
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new 
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submittal must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from submittals that 
are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as 
``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals to address the 
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, 
``regional haze SIP'' submittals required by EPA rule to address the 
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to 
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submittals. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submittals provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submittal must meet the list of requirements 
therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the 
statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the 
nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which 
specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ Section 
110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D 
addresses when attainment plan SIP submittals to address nonattainment 
area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to 
establish a schedule for submittal of such plans for certain pollutants 
when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as 
nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in 
some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.\3\ 
This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must 
determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a 
particular infrastructure SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-25165, May 12, 2005 (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submittal of certain types of SIP submittals in designated 
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 
182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submittal of emissions 
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 
necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or 
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submittal, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submittal in a 
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a 
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow 
states to make multiple SIP submittals separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submittals to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submittals either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\4\ Similarly, EPA 
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts 
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submittal for a given 
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submittal. For example, 
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements 
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337, January 22, 2013 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submittal.

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

[[Page 27129]]

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submittal requirements for different 
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) 
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for 
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP 
submittals for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, 
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its 
infrastructure SIP submittal for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could 
be very different for different pollutants, for example because the 
content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal to meet 
this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for 
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submittals required under 
the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submittals, EPA also has 
to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) 
that logically apply to these other types of SIP submittals. For 
example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submittals 
required by part D have to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of 
section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submittals 
must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding 
enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submittals required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the air quality prevention of significant deterioration 
(PSD) program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD 
does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated 
nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this 
example illustrates, each type of SIP submittal may implicate some 
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submittal. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submittal, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submittals against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.\7\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document 
to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 
any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty 
of states to make infrastructure SIP submittals to meet basic 
structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific 
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of 
infrastructure SIP submittals.\9\ The guidance also discusses the 
substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections 
of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) 
and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submittals need to address 
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews 
each infrastructure SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable 
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or 
not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submittals. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to 
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA 
reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's SIP 
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explains EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submittals because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submittals 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and EPA's PSD 
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions 
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and 
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By 
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions 
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the 
state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit 
applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA 
considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic

[[Page 27130]]

structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 
inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate 
minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has a SIP-
approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the 
pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 
infrastructure SIP submittal, however, EPA does not think it is 
necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's 
existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for 
compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that 
pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's 
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current 
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, 
December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (``NSR 
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP 
submittal without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for 
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submittal 
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to 
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submittal 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions 
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision 
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in 
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submittals is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submittal. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submittal. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to 
focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most 
likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a 
new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives simpler 
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect 
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future 
new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in 
order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submittals.\12\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submittal, EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010 
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Statutory Framework and Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    As discussed in Section A of this proposed rule, CAA section 
110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years 
after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision 
thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 
110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally 
relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances, 
procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the 
``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. These 
infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as 
follows:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control 
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data 
system.

[[Page 27131]]

     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international 
pollution abatement.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, 
conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government 
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and 
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal 
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by 
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by 
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are 
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: section 
110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs required under 
CAA part D (nonattainment NSR), and section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to 
the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this 
action does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR 
portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

C. Regulatory Background

2008 Pb NAAQS
    On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.\14\ This 
action triggered a requirement for states to submit an infrastructure 
SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 
within three years. On October 14, 2011, EPA issued ``Guidance on 
Section 110 Infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS'', referred to 
herein as EPA's 2011 Pb Guidance.\15\ 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.\16\ 
EPA issued additional guidance on infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The 1978 Pb standard (1.5 
[mu]g/m\3\ as a quarterly average) was modified to a rolling 3 month 
average not to exceed 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also revised the 
secondary NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and made it identical to the 
revised primary standard. Id.
    \15\ See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division 
Directors, Regions 1-10 (October 14, 2011).
    \16\ ``DRAFT Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' June 17, 2011 version.
    \17\ See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D. 
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 
Regional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (referred to herein as 
``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 Ozone NAAQS
    On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.\18\ 
This action triggered a requirement for states to submit an 
infrastructure SIP to address the applicable requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2) within three years. EPA did not, however, prepare 
guidance at this time for states in submitting infrastructure SIP 
revisions for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\19\ On September 13, 2013, EPA 
issued ``Guidance of Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' which 
provides advice on the development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS (among other pollutants) as well as infrastructure SIPs for 
new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \19\ Preparation of guidance for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS was 
postponed given EPA's reconsideration of the standard. See 78 FR 
34183 (June 6, 2013).
    \20\ See Memorandum dated September 13, 2013 from Stephen D. 
Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 
Regional Air Directors, EPA Regions 1-10, ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (referred to herein as 
``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Arizona's Submittals

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has 
submitted several infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA's 
promulgation of the Pb and ozone NAAQS addressed by this proposed rule, 
including the following:
     October 14, 2011--``Arizona State Implementation Plan 
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 Lead 
NAAQS,'' to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, 
except for section 110(a)(2)(G),\21\ for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (2011 Pb I-
SIP Submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In a separate rulemaking, EPA fully approved 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 62452 (October 15, 2012). Although ADEQ did not submit 
an analysis of Section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements, we discuss them in 
our TSD, which is in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     December 27, 2012--``Arizona State Implementation Plan 
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 8-hour 
Ozone NAAQS,'' to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements 
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (2012 Ozone I-SIP Submittal).
    On February 19, 2015 EPA approved elements of the above submittals 
along with others with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 
(B), (E), (F), (G), (H), (L) and (M).\22\ That action also explained 
that we would separately act on the permitting infrastructure SIP 
elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J), and (K) in a 
subsequent rulemaking. These permitting related provisions are the 
subject of today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Arizona; Infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' 
was signed on February 19, 2015 but, as of April 30, 2015, has not 
yet published in the Federal Register. This action was proposed in 
the Federal Register on November 24, 2014 (79 FR 69796).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above 2011 and 2012 infrastructure SIP 
submittals, ADEQ submitted ``New Source Review State Implementation 
Plan Submission'' on October 29, 2012, and ``Supplemental Information 
to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission'' on 
July 2, 2014 (NSR Submittals). In addition to addressing revisions to 
Arizona's New Source Review (NSR) program, these submissions also 
relate to infrastructure SIP elements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D), (J), and (K), which EPA is proposing action on in today's 
rulemaking.
    As discussed in our November 24, 2014 proposed action, and our 
March 18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona's NSR Submittals,\23\ we have 
found that the submittals we are acting on today fulfill the procedural 
requirements for public participation and other completeness criteria 
described in 40 CFR 51 Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 80 FR 14044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation

    EPA has evaluated the 2011 Pb I-SIP Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I-SIP 
Submittal and the NSR Submittals, as well as existing provisions of the 
Arizona SIP for compliance with the following CAA section 110(a)(2) 
permit-related infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb and 
ozone NAAQS:

[[Page 27132]]

     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources for the 
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prongs 1 and 2: Interstate 
transport--contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere 
with maintenance by, any other State for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prong 3: Interstate transport--
prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 Pb and ozone 
NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Prong 4: Interstate transport--
protection of visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection for the 
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission 
of modeling data for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
    In general, the submittals demonstrate Arizona's compliance with 
most of these permit-related infrastructure requirements by describing 
appropriate existing requirements regarding new and modified stationary 
source permits, interstate transport, consultation and air quality 
modeling. CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 
other applicable requirement of the Act. We propose to determine that 
our approval of these submittals with respect to the permit-related 
infrastructure SIP elements would comply with CAA section 110(l) 
because nothing in this approval would relax any existing SIP 
requirement and the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the 
on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment 
of the NAAQS are met.
    Based upon this analysis, EPA proposes to partially approve the 
submittals with respect to the permit-related infrastructure SIP 
requirements.
    However, we have also identified several infrastructure SIP 
requirements that Arizona has not demonstrated are fulfilled by the 
submittals. EPA proposes to partially disapprove Arizona's 
Infrastructure SIP Submittals with respect to the 2008 Pb and 2008 
Ozone NAAQS, as follows (details of the partial disapprovals and 
partial approvals are presented after this list):
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control 
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     110(a)(2)(D)(i) (in part): Interstate pollution transport.
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): Interstate pollution abatement 
and international air pollution.
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government 
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of 
modeling data.

PSD Programs

    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) Disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 
Ozone Infrastructure SIP for ADEQ and Pinal County because the SIP-
approved PSD programs lack certain ``structural'' PSD program elements 
as identified in our TSD, and (2) disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 Ozone 
Infrastructure SIP for Maricopa and Pima counties, which do not have 
SIP-approved PSD programs. We note that although the SIP remains 
deficient with respect to PSD requirements in ADEQ, Pinal, Maricopa, 
and Pima counties for I-SIP purposes, no further action is necessary 
for these purposes because the Federal PSD program addresses the 
deficiencies in all four areas. However, we do recommend SIP revisions 
consistent with the CAA infrastructure SIP requirements.
    With respect to the first two ``prongs'' of CAA section 
110(a)(D)(i) (regarding significant contribution to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance in any other State), we are proposing 
approval for the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the reasons stated in our TSD. We 
are not proposing any action today on the first two prongs for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS. With respect to the third prong, EPA is proposing to 
disapprove the 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP for the 
reasons discussed in our TSD regarding ``structural'' PSD requirements 
under section 110(a)(2)(C). With respect to the fourth prong, EPA is 
proposing approval for the 2008 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 2011 Pb and 2012 ozone Infrastructure SIP with respect to 
ADEQ and Pinal County, which both implement SIP-approved PSD programs 
that contain the required notice provisions, but to disapprove the SIP 
with respect to Maricopa County and Pima County, which are subject to 
the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21.
    With respect to the requirement in 110(a)(2)(J) to ``meet the 
applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation), 
section 127 (relating to public notification), and part C (relating to 
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility 
protection),'' we propose to find that Arizona meets the requirements 
of sections 121 and 127 of the Clean Air Act but to disapprove it for 
failure to fully satisfy the requirements of part C relating to PSD.
    With respect to the requirement in 110(a)(2)(K) that the SIP 
provide for specified air quality modeling and the submission of data 
related to such air quality monitoring to the Administrator, we propose 
to disapprove the 2011 Pb I-SIP and 2012 ozone I-SIP because ADEQ, 
Pinal, Pima, and Maricopa counties have not submitted adequate 
provisions or a narrative that explain how existing state and county 
law satisfy the requirements of 110(a)(2)(K). For Pima and Maricopa 
counties, the Federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21 addresses this 
deficiency and therefore no further action is necessary. However, we do 
recommend SIP revisions consistent with the CAA infrastructure SIP 
requirements.
    For all the elements that do not meet the CAA Section 110(a)(2) 
requirements in today's proposed rule, there are existing FIPs in place 
with the exception of the modeling requirements under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(K) for Pinal County and ADEQ. We note that to the extent our 
proposed approval or disapproval of an I-SIP element relies on our 
March 18, 2015 proposed action on Arizona's NSR submittals, our final 
action on the I-SIP elements identified in this notice is contingent 
upon our taking final action on Arizona's NSR submittals to approve the 
NSR submittals into the SIP, which may be in the form of a limited 
approval/limited disapproval action, as proposed in our March 18, 2015 
proposed action on those submittals.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains more details about 
our evaluation and is available in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.

IV. Proposed Action

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a partial approval of the submittals with respect to the 
permit-related infrastructure SIP requirements in CAA sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. EPA is 
simultaneously proposing a partial disapproval of the submittals 
because of

[[Page 27133]]

deficiencies summarized above. If this partial disapproval is 
finalized, sanctions will not be imposed under section 179 of the Act 
because infrastructure SIPs are not required under Title 1, Part D of 
the Act.

V. 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve 
certain State requirements, and to disapprove 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 proposed rule, we 
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This 
proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA 
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to 
disapprove 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.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

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 proposed 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 proposes to approve certain pre-existing 
requirements, and to disapprove 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 proposed 
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 proposes to 
approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove 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 proposing 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 proposed action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 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 proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA 
section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but 
simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to 
disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the 
SIP.

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

    This proposed 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

[[Page 27134]]

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 proposed 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 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 proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Lead, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-11340 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P