[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67319-67334]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27785]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187; FRL-9930-43-Region 9]

Revisions to Air Plan; Arizona; Stationary Sources; New Source
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of, and other actions on,
revisions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
portion of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State
of Arizona (State or Arizona) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
These revisions submitted by Arizona are primarily intended to serve as
a replacement of ADEQ's existing SIP-approved rules for the issuance of
New Source Review (NSR) permits for stationary sources, including
review and permitting of major and minor sources under the Act. After a
lengthy stakeholder process, the State submitted a NSR program for SIP
approval that satisfies most of the applicable CAA and NSR regulatory
requirements, and which will significantly update ADEQ's existing SIP-
approved NSR program. It also represents an overall strengthening of
ADEQ's SIP-approved NSR program by clarifying and enhancing the NSR
requirements for major and minor stationary sources. This final action
updates the applicable plan while allowing ADEQ to remedy certain
deficiencies in ADEQ's rules.

DATES: This rule is effective December 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0187 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Some docket
materials, however, may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., voluminous records, maps, 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 in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-
3811<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
    A. What action is the EPA finalizing?
    B. What changes is the EPA making from its proposed action?
    C. Public Comments and Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
    (iii) The initials A.R.S. mean or refer to the Arizona Revised
Statutes.
    (iv) The initials AQIA mean or refer to air quality impact
analysis.
    (v) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control
Technology.
    (vi) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal
Regulations.
    (vii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
    (viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (ix) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
    (x) The initials GHG mean or refer to greenhouse gas.
    (xi) The initials IBR mean or refer to incorporation by
reference.
    (xii) The initials LAER mean or refer to Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate.
    (xiii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
    (xiv) The initials NA-NSR mean or refer to Nonattainment New
Source Review.
    (xv) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    (xvi) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
    (xvii) The initials PAL mean or refer to Plantwide Applicability
Limits
    (xviii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10
micrometers.
    (xix) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers (fine particulate matter).
    (xx) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xxi) The initials PTE mean or refer to potential to emit.
    (xxii) The initials RACT mean or refer to reasonably available
control technology.
    (xxiii) The initials SER mean or refer to significant emission
rate.
    (xxiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (xxv) The initials SMC mean or refer to significant monitoring
concentration.
    (xxvi) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    (xxvii) The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District.
    (xxviii) The words State or Arizona mean the State of Arizona,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (xxix) The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support
document for this action.
    (xxx) The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic
compound.

I. Background

    On March 18, 2015, the EPA provided notice of, and requested public
comment on, our proposed CAA rulemaking to revise certain portions of
the Arizona SIP for ADEQ. See 80 FR 14044 (Mar. 18, 2015). We proposed
action on SIP submittals that comprise ADEQ's updated program for
preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified stationary
sources under ADEQ's jurisdiction in Arizona.\1\ The SIP submittals
that are the subject of this action, referred to herein as the ``NSR
SIP submittal,'' provide a comprehensive revision to ADEQ's
preconstruction review and permitting program for stationary sources
and are intended to satisfy requirements under both part C (prevention
of significant deterioration) (PSD) and part D (nonattainment new
source review) of title I of the Act as well as the general
preconstruction review requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These submittals and our current action also address two
rules and one statutory provision that are not directly related to
NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a component of its NSR SIP submittal, ADEQ also requested the
removal from the Arizona SIP of numerous older rules, as well as one
Arizona statutory provision, which are mostly superseded by the newer
provisions that are the subject of this action or by newer provisions
that have already been approved into the Arizona SIP. Accordingly, our
action also will remove certain provisions from the Arizona SIP.
    The EPA's rulemaking action on the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal is
intended to update the applicable SIP consistent with ADEQ's requests,
while allowing ADEQ to remedy certain deficiencies in

the submittal where ADEQ's rules do not fully meet CAA requirements. In
our proposed rulemaking action, we primarily proposed a limited
approval and limited disapproval, with certain exceptions and additions
with respect to specific statutory and rule provisions, as follows. We
proposed partial disapproval of two specific components of ADEQ's NSR
submittal that we believed were analogous to provisions in the federal
NSR regulations that had been vacated by federal Courts and that we
determined were separable from the remainder of the NSR SIP submittal.
In addition, we proposed a limited approval for a portion of ADEQ's
nonattainment NSR (NA-NSR) program based on requirements of section
189(e) of the Act related to the permitting of major sources of
PM10 and PM2.5 precursors, but did not propose a
limited disapproval on this basis. For two non-NSR rules for which ADEQ
requested SIP approval, we also proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval. For a non-NSR statutory provision for which ADEQ requested
SIP approval, A.R.S. Sec.  49-107, we proposed full approval into the
SIP. Last, we proposed to remove numerous NSR and non-NSR rules from
the SIP as requested by ADEQ.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Table 2, which identifies those rules and statutory
provisions that are being removed from the Arizona SIP. This updated
table corrects certain typographical errors in the preamble of our
proposed action. See our discussion of those errors in our responses
to comments 14-15 in our Response to Comments document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ADEQ NSR SIP submittal was extensive in scope. We prepared a
comprehensive Evaluation of the submittal in light of the requirements
of the CAA and its implementing regulations, and provided a detailed
discussion of our findings in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for
our proposed action. Both the Evaluation and the TSD were available in
the docket for our rulemaking during the public comment period. Our
proposed rule discussed our analysis and findings, but focused
primarily on the issues that formed the basis for our limited approval/
limited disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal, and referenced the
TSD for additional information concerning our analysis. The Evaluation
was an attachment to the TSD.

II. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

A. What action is the EPA finalizing?

    The EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the ADEQ portion of the
Arizona SIP for the rules and statutory provision listed in Table 1.
The SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR 52.120 by incorporating by
reference the rules and statutory provision in ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal
as listed in Table 1.\3\ Certain non-regulatory submittals and
clarifications provided by ADEQ will also be included as part of the
Arizona SIP in 40 CFR 52.120. In this final action, the EPA is relying,
in part, on the clarifications and interpretations provided by ADEQ, as
described in the discussion of our responses to comments in Section
II.C below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We listed an incorrect submittal date for certain rules in
the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal in Table 1 of our proposed action; this
date is corrected in Table 1 here. See response to comment 13 in our
Response to Comments document.

                          Table 1--Submitted Statutes and Rules Approved in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State
              Rule or statute                               Title                    effective       Submitted
                                                                                date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.R.S. Sec.   49-107.......................  Local delegation of state authority       8/18/1987       07/2/2014
R18-2-101 [only definitions (2), (32),       Definitions........................      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
 (87), (109), and (122)].
R18-2-217..................................  Designation and Classification of        11/15/1993      10/29/2012
                                              Attainment Areas.
R18-2-218..................................  Limitation of Pollutants in              08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Classified Attainment Areas.
R18-2-301..................................  Definitions........................      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-302..................................  Applicability; Registration;             08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Classes of Permits.
R18-2-302.01...............................  Source Registration Requirements...      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-303..................................  Transition from Installation and         08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Operating Permit Program to
                                              Unitary Permit Program;
                                              Registration transition; Minor NSR
                                              Transition.
R18-2-304..................................  Permit Application Processing            08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Procedures.
R18-2-306..................................  Permit Contents....................      12/20/1999      10/29/2012
R18-2-306.01...............................  Permits Containing Voluntarily             1/1/2007      10/29/2012
                                              Accepted Emission Limitations and
                                              Standards.
R18-2-306.02...............................  Establishment of an Emissions Cap..      09/22/1999      10/29/2012
R18-2-311..................................  Test Methods and Procedures........      11/15/1993      07/28/2011
R18-2-312..................................  Performance Tests..................      11/15/1993      07/28/2011
R18-2-315..................................  Posting of Permit..................      11/15/1993      10/29/2012
R18-2-316..................................  Notice by Building Permit Agencies.      05/14/1979      10/29/2012
R18-2-319..................................  Minor Permit Revisions.............      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-320..................................  Significant Permit Revisions.......      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-321..................................  Permit Reopenings; Revocation and        08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Reissuance.
R18-2-323..................................  Permit Transfers...................      02/03/2007      10/29/2012
R18-2-330..................................  Public Participation...............      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-332..................................  Stack Height Limitation............      11/15/1993      10/29/2012
R18-2-334..................................  Minor New Source Review............      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-401..................................  Definitions........................      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-402..................................  General............................      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-403..................................  Permits for Sources Located in           08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Nonattainment Areas.
R18-2-404..................................  Offset Standards...................      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
R18-2-405..................................  Special Rule for Major Sources of        08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              VOC or Nitrogen Oxides in Ozone
                                              Nonattainment Areas Classified as
                                              Serious or Severe.

R18-2-406..................................  Permit Requirements for Sources          08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Located in Attainment and
                                              Unclassifiable Areas.
R18-2-407 [excluding subsection (H)(1)(c)].  Air Quality Impact Analysis and          08/07/2012      10/29/2012
                                              Monitoring Requirements.
R18-2-409..................................  Air Quality Models.................      11/15/1993      10/29/2012
R18-2-412..................................  PALs...............................      08/07/2012      10/29/2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this final action removes the rules and appendices
listed in Table 2 from the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP.

                    Table 2--SIP Rules and Appendices Removed From Arizona SIP in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal
              Rule or appendix                              Title                  EPA  approval     Register
                                                                                date          citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R9-3-101 [excluding subsection (20)].......  Definitions........................         Various         Various
R9-3-217(B)................................  Attainment Areas: Classification         04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
                                              and Standards.
R9-3-301, [excluding subsections (I), (K)].  Installation Permits: General......      05/03/1983     48 FR 19878
R9-3-302...................................  Installation Permits in                  08/10/1988     53 FR 30220
                                              Nonattainment Areas.
R9-3-303...................................  Offset Standards...................      08/10/1988     53 FR 30220
R9-3-304, [excluding subsection (H)].......  Installation Permits in Attainment       05/03/1983     48 FR 19878
                                              Areas.
R9-3-305...................................  Air Quality Analysis and Monitoring      05/03/1983     48 FR 19878
                                              Requirements.
R9-3-306...................................  Source Registration Requirements...      05/03/1983     48 FR 19878
R9-3-307...................................  Replacement........................      05/05/1982     47 FR 19326
R9-3-308...................................  Permit Conditions..................      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-310...................................  Test Methods and Procedures........      10/19/1984     49 FR 41026
R9-3-311...................................  Air Quality Models.................      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-312...................................  Performance Tests..................      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-314...................................  Excess Emissions Reporting.........      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-315...................................  Posting of Permits.................      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-316...................................  Notice by Building Permit Agencies.      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-317...................................  Permit Non-transferrable; Exception      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-318...................................  Denial or Revocation of                  04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
                                              Installation or Operating Permit.
R8-3-319...................................  Permit Fees........................      04/23/1982     47 FR 17483
R9-3-322...................................  Temporary Conditional Permits......      10/19/1984     49 FR 41026
R9-3-1101..................................  Jurisdiction.......................      05/03/1983     48 FR 19878
Appendix 4.................................  Fee Schedule for Installation and        09/19/1977     42 FR 46926
                                              Operating Permits.
Appendix 5.................................  Fee Schedule for Conditional             09/19/1977     42 FR 44926
                                              Permits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, this action is primarily a limited approval and limited
disapproval of a SIP submittal from Arizona for the ADEQ portion of the
Arizona SIP that governs preconstruction review and the issuance of
preconstruction permits for stationary sources, including the review
and permitting of new major sources and major modifications under parts
C and D of title I of the CAA as well as review of new and modified
minor sources. The intended effect of our final limited approval and
limited disapproval action is to update the applicable SIP with current
ADEQ regulations, while allowing ADEQ to remedy the identified
deficiencies in these regulations. We are also removing at ADEQ's
request certain rules and appendices from the Arizona SIP, which are
outdated and which are mostly being superseded by this action. In
addition, we are finalizing a partial disapproval of one provision in
ADEQ's NSR program that has been vacated by the courts. We are
finalizing a limited approval of ADEQ's NA-NSR program for certain
nonattainment areas based on requirements under section 189 of the Act
related to PM10 and PM2.5 precursors (without a
limited disapproval on this basis). Last, we are finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of two ADEQ non-NSR rules relating to
test methods and procedures and performance tests, and finalizing the
approval of an Arizona statutory provision relating to local delegation
of state authority.
    We are finalizing the above-described action because, although we
find that the new and amended rules submitted by ADEQ meet most of the
applicable CAA requirements for preconstruction review programs and
other CAA requirements, and that overall the SIP revisions improve and
strengthen the existing SIP, we have found certain deficiencies that
prevent full approval, as explained in our proposed action and in the
TSD for this rulemaking, and in this final action and our Response to
Comments document.
    We reviewed the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal in accordance with
applicable CAA requirements, primarily including those that apply to:
(1) General preconstruction review programs, including for minor
sources, under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act; (2) PSD permit programs
under part C of title I of the Act; and (3) NA-NSR permit programs
under part D of title I of the Act. For the most part, ADEQ's submittal
satisfies the applicable CAA requirements, including those for these
preconstruction review programs, and our approval will strengthen the
applicable SIP by updating the

regulations and adding provisions to address new or revised federal NSR
permitting and other requirements. However, the submitted rules also
contain specific deficiencies and inconsistencies with CAA requirements
that prevent us from granting full SIP approval. These deficiencies
form the basis for our limited approval and limited disapproval action,
and for our partial disapproval of one rule provision.

B. What changes is the EPA making from its proposed action?

    We are largely finalizing our action as proposed. However, in
response to public comments we received, our final action differs in
some respects from our proposed action. For certain deficiencies
identified in our proposal as bases for limited disapproval, we have
changed our determination and no longer find that these are bases for
our limited disapproval. In addition, we have changed our determination
concerning one of the ADEQ rule provisions for which we had proposed
partial disapproval; we are not finalizing our partial disapproval of
this provision.
    Specifically, the following issues that had been identified in our
proposed action as bases for limited disapproval are not a basis for
our final limited disapproval: (1) ADEQ's use of the term ``proposed
final permit'' in its rules for the minor NSR, PSD and NA-NSR programs;
(2) a question concerning whether ADEQ rule R18-2-334(E) requires ADEQ
to review potential impacts on the attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all minor sources
subject to new source review under ADEQ rule R18-2-334;\4\ (3) the lack
of a definition in ADEQ's PSD regulations for the term ``subject to
regulation;'' (4) the lack of a reference in ADEQ's PSD rules to
pollutants subject to regulation in the definition of ``regulated NSR
pollutant,'' per 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(iv); (5) the lack of certain
language in ADEQ's PSD rules concerning condensable particulate matter,
per 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i); (6) potential ambiguity as to whether
references to the undefined term ``Arizona Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' in ADEQ's NSR regulations refer to ADEQ's Article 2 air
quality standards; (7) language concerning the calculation of baseline
actual emissions under ADEQ's plantwide applicability limits (PALs)
provisions for the PSD and NA-NSR programs; and (8) public notice
requirements for alternative or modified air modeling under ADEQ's
rules for the PSD program. In addition, we are not finalizing a partial
disapproval of ADEQ's definition for ``basic design parameter.'' We now
find the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal approvable with respect to these
particular issues. Our rationale for changing our determination on
these issues is included in our Response to Comments document for this
action, and some of these issues are also discussed in the Public
Comments and Responses section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Due to a typographical error, in discussing this issue, the
notice for our proposed action inadvertently referenced subsection
(G) of R18-2-334 instead of subsection (E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we are making three technical corrections to address
typographical errors, as noted by commenters: (1) Correction of SIP
submittal dates listed in Table 1 (listing the rules and statutory
provisions that we are approving into the SIP) so that ``10/29/2012''
is listed instead of ``10/29/2014,'' (2) correction of Table 2 (the
list of rules and appendices that we are removing from the SIP) to
exclude subsection (20) from the provisions of ADEQ rule R9-3-101 that
we are removing from the SIP, and (3) the addition of ADEQ rules R9-3-
310 and R9-3-312 to the list of rules in Table 2. Additional detail
regarding these technical corrections is provided in response to
comments 13 through 15 in our Response to Comments document.

C. Public Comments and Responses

    Our March 18, 2015 proposed rule included a 30-day public comment
period that ended on April 17, 2015. We received 3 written comments,
one each from the Office of Robert Ukeiley, the Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), and ADEQ. Copies of
each comment have been added to the docket for this action and are
accessible at www.regulations.gov. Our Response to Comments document in
the docket for this action contains a summary of all comments received
and the EPA's responses to the comments. Below we provide the major
issues raised by commenters and our responses to those comments.
    Comment 1:
    The Federal Register notice does not make it clear if the Arizona
rules proposed to be approved into the SIP include the PM2.5
increments. The EPA must disapprove this rule if it does not include
the PM2.5 increments.
    Response 1:
    In the EPA's March 18, 2015 Federal Register notice, we proposed to
approve ADEQ rule R18-2-218 into the Arizona SIP, and stated ``ADEQ
adopted the increments, or maximum allowable increases, in R18-2-218--
Limitation of Pollutants in Classified Attainment Areas.'' 80 FR 14044,
14045, 14051. The PM2.5 increments are included in Section A
of ADEQ rule R18-2-218. As such, ADEQ submitted, and we are approving
into the Arizona SIP, ADEQ rule R18-2-218 containing the
PM2.5 increments.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Our proposed action also points out that certain terminology
used in ADEQ's PSD rules with respect to the increments is not
clear, and that ADEQ's rules contain provisions that allow for
exclusions from increment consumption for certain temporary
emissions that do not conform to the analogous federal regulatory
requirements. These issues provided a basis for our proposed limited
disapproval of ADEQ's PSD program. See Section II.C.1 of the
preamble at 80 FR 14051. Neither this commenter nor any other
commenter addressed these specific issues, thus we continue to
believe that these issues are deficiencies that ADEQ must correct
for full approval of the PSD portion of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal,
and these issues provide a basis for our final limited disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2:
    ADEQ states that its methodology for establishing minor NSR
thresholds was valid for all areas under ADEQ's jurisdiction. The CAA
does not impose strict, specific requirements on NSR programs for minor
sources, as it does for major NSR. Rather, section 110(a)(2)(C)
generally requires that each state include a program regulating the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure achievement of the NAAQS. The sizes of minor source facilities,
buildings, structures, or installations are assessed and compared to
threshold levels to determine whether their potential to emit is so
high as to affect the NAAQS. Each state establishes its own threshold
levels to define the limits of its minor NSR regulations to create an
effective pollution control strategy without also creating unnecessary
regulatory burden.
    Citing the EPA's proposed Tribal NSR Rule, ADEQ states that in the
past, the EPA has asserted that threshold levels are appropriate where
``sources and modifications with emissions below the thresholds are
inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.'' \6\ In
creating a federal minor NSR program for Indian Country, the EPA
emphasized the importance of a cost-effective plan, as well as one that
reduces the burden on sources and reviewing authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 71 FR 48696, 48701 (Aug. 21, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ set an adequate, yet cost-effective threshold level of one
half the significant emission rate (SER) for nonattainment areas. Just
as the EPA did in the Tribal Minor NSR Rule, ADEQ identified the level
at which a lower threshold merely creates a larger pool of regulated
minor sources without

substantially reducing emissions. Research data provided by a
consultant was used to make an informed determination which threshold
levels would in fact be most cost-effective, while still achieving the
goals of the minor source program. ADEQ included a table of the results
provided by its contractor for two potential NSR threshold
scenarios.\7\ Scenario 1 illustrates the impact of a minor threshold of
one half the SER and Scenario 2 illustrates the impact of a threshold
set at one quarter the SER. Lowering the threshold beyond one half the
SER essentially doubles the percentage of sources regulated, which
certainly increases the state's ability to reach more minor sources.
However, regulating more sources does not necessarily translate to
effective emissions reductions. Rather there is a diminishing return on
emission reductions as the threshold level is pushed further down to
include sources with fewer emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA provided the same table in its TSD for this action.
See Table 5 of the TSD--Results of ADEQ's Stationary Source
Distribution Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ illustrated this statement through a figure provided in its
comments showing a comparison of potential threshold levels and
relative impact, by pollutant.\8\ The figure compares the percent of
emissions regulated with the percent of sources regulated at the two
NSR exemption scenarios considered by ADEQ. ADEQ states that the slopes
between the significance level points in the graph for each pollutant
illustrate the incremental percentage of emissions that would be
covered when the threshold level is moved from one half to one quarter.
Both possible threshold options would result in a relatively large
percentage of emissions from minor sources becoming subject to
regulation. However, the average emissions covered per source decreases
significantly for all additional sources that fall below one half of
the significant level. The disproportionate effect between the changes
in the amount of sources relative to the change in the amount of
emissions covered provides a firm basis for ADEQ's decision. The
thresholds in ADEQ's minor NSR program meet federal requirements
without creating a system in which the burdens of regulation would
outweigh the benefits to air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ADEQ's April 17, 2015 comment letter at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2:
    As noted by ADEQ, CAA section 110(a)(2) generally requires that
each state include a program regulating the modification and
construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure
achievement of the NAAQS. While we appreciate ADEQ's comments on this
issue, to date, ADEQ has not provided sufficient information about the
nature, scope and emissions that are contributing to nonattainment in
the areas subject to ADEQ's jurisdiction to change our proposed
determination that ADEQ has not provided an adequate basis for its NSR
exemption thresholds as applied in such nonattainment areas.
    The implementing regulations for the minor NSR program make clear
that SIPs must include legally enforceable procedures that enable the
decisionmaking authority to determine whether the construction or
modification of stationary sources will result in a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, and that such procedures
include means by which the decisionmaking authority can prevent such
construction or modification if it will result in such violation or
interference. 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). Further, 40 CFR 51.160(e)
provides:

    The procedures must identify types and sizes of facilities,
buildings, structures or installations which will be subject to
review under this section. The plan must discuss the basis for
determining which facilities will be subject to review.

    Under CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.160(e), we agree with
ADEQ that States are not necessarily required to regulate all
stationary sources under the minor NSR program. States can exempt from
review those stationary sources with emissions that they can
demonstrate would not pose a threat to the attainment or maintenance of
the NAAQS, thereby satisfying the requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) that their minor NSR program regulate the modification and
construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the
plan as necessary to ensure that the NAAQS are achieved. The EPA's
interpretation was discussed in the proposal for our Tribal Minor NSR
Rule:

    A review of several State minor NSR programs indicated that a
number of State programs have established cutoff levels or minor NSR
thresholds, below which sources are exempt from their minor NSR
rules. We believe that such an approach is also appropriate in
Indian country. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires minor NSR
programs to assure that the NAAQS are attained and maintained.
Applicability thresholds are proper in this context provided that
the sources and modifications with emissions below the thresholds
are inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For
each pollutant, only around 1 percent (or less) of total emissions
would be exempt under the minor NSR program.

Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country, Proposed
Rule, 71 FR 48696, 48703 (Aug. 21, 2006); see also Review of New
Sources and Modifications in Indian Country, Final Rule, 76 FR 38758
(finding that sources with emissions below the NSR exemption thresholds
selected by the EPA in the Tribal Minor NSR Rule would be
inconsequential to attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS). We note
that in our Tribal NSR Rule, ``the selected minor source thresholds
distinguish between minor stationary sources of regulated NSR
pollutants located in nonattainment areas and attainment areas,'' with
lower thresholds in nonattainment areas. 71 FR at 48702; see 76 FR at
38758 (finalizing thresholds as proposed).
    In our proposed action on ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal, we found
deficiencies in the basis ADEQ provided for determining which sources
would be subject to review under its minor NSR program under 40 CFR
51.160(e), applying the statutory and regulatory standard discussed
above. 80 FR at 14049. These deficiencies provided a basis (among other
bases) for our proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ's minor NSR
program. As stated in our proposal, we found ADEQ's general approach to
meeting 40 CFR 51.160(e) acceptable. However, we proposed a limited
disapproval for three aspects of ADEQ's minor NSR program under 40 CFR
51.160(e): The adequacy of ADEQ's NSR exemption thresholds for
nonattainment areas; certain exemptions for agricultural and fuel
burning equipment; and the lack of any basis for the PM2.5
NSR exemption threshold in any areas under ADEQ's jurisdiction. None of
the comments on our proposal addressed our proposed limited
disapprovals related to agricultural and fuel burning equipment
exemptions or the missing explanation in the submittal for the
PM2.5 NSR exemption threshold. As such, we continue to
determine that these two issues warrant a limited disapproval, and
further consider ADEQ's comments as they apply to the basis provided
for ADEQ's NSR exemption thresholds for pollutants in nonattainment
areas.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that the reasoning the EPA provides in these
responses to comments concerning NSR exemption thresholds in
nonattainment areas would apply equally to our review of the basis
for NSR exemption thresholds for PM2.5 in nonattainment
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ's comments focus largely on the argument that expanding its
minor

NSR program to cover even smaller sources (i.e., sources with emissions
of approximately \1/4\ of the PSD significant emission rates) would
result in diminishing returns on emission reductions. ADEQ argues that
while more emissions would be regulated under such an approach, in some
instances, this would result in significantly more stationary sources
becoming subject to the program. In the case of VOC, for example, the
percentage of all stationary sources regulated would approximately
double from 8% to 16%. ADEQ appears to reason that while ADEQ would be
able to regulate more emissions with such a lower threshold, the types
of projects brought into the program would be smaller and less likely
to be regulated in a way to achieve useful emission reductions.
However, as discussed above, our determination of whether a minor NSR
program is sufficient to meet CAA SIP requirements is based on whether
the State has provided an adequate basis that the exempt emissions do
not need to be reviewed to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS in the particular geographic areas covered by the program because
they are inconsequential to attainment or maintenance, considering the
particular air quality concerns in such areas. The information provided
by ADEQ to date, including the amount of sources regulated as compared
with the volume of emissions per such source, does not demonstrate that
the adopted thresholds are those necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. For example, if an area happens to have a
large volume of sources in a particular source category that are
typically minor sources but emit the pollutants that contribute to
nonattainment, then regulation of those sources may be necessary to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in that area. The
thresholds established in the Tribal NSR Rule exempted around 1 percent
of total emissions, while exempting from 42 percent to 76 percent of
sources, depending on the pollutant. 76 FR at 68758.
    We recognize that the reference that the EPA made in its proposed
action to ADEQ's submittal not providing a clear basis for concluding
that its NSR exemption thresholds would ensure that a ``sufficient
percentage of minor sources'' would be subject to review in
nonattainment areas, rather than referring to a ``sufficient percentage
of minor source emissions,'' was imprecise and may have led to
confusion about the nature of the EPA's concern. As such, we are
clarifying that our disapproval is related to ensuring that ADEQ's NSR
program exempts from review only those sources with emissions that do
not pose a threat to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS because
they are inconsequential to attainment or maintenance. The particular
percentage of stationary sources that are being regulated would
generally not be an adequate basis under 40 CFR 51.160(e) for
determining the sizes and types of stationary sources that will be
subject to NSR review as necessary to ensure compliance with CAA
section 110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b). As noted, the Tribal
NSR Rule exempted as many as 76 percent of the sources of a pollutant,
but required review of about 99% of total emissions. 76 FR at 38758. In
this case, ADEQ has not shown that the emissions exempt from its NSR
program will not threaten attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in
its nonattainment areas. Accordingly, after consideration of ADEQ's
comments, we continue to find that a limited disapproval of ADEQ's
program under 40 CFR 51.160(e), as it pertains to the NSR exemption
threshold for nonattainment areas, is necessary.
    As stated in our proposal, in addressing this deficiency, ADEQ does
not necessarily have to consider overall lower NSR exemption thresholds
in nonattainment areas, see 80 FR 14049 n. 13, although, as noted, the
Tribal NSR Rule established lower thresholds for nonattainment areas.
76 FR at 38758. For example, ADEQ could provide further analysis to
demonstrate that the adopted thresholds are protective of the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas, or ADEQ could consider a different approach, such
as requiring minor sources in nonattainment areas subject to a pre-
existing SIP requirement for the nonattainment pollutant, or its
precursors, to be subject to review under ADEQ's registration program.
In addressing this limited disapproval issue, we recommend that ADEQ
focus its consideration on the contribution that emissions from minor
stationary sources with emissions below its currently adopted NSR
exemption thresholds are expected to make with respect to attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS in nonattainment areas.
    In addition, we wish to clarify that while the EPA's proposed
rulemaking for the Tribal NSR program discussed cost-effectiveness and
attempted to strike a ``balance between environmental protection and
economic growth,'' it also recognized the need for exemption thresholds
to ensure ``that sources with emissions below the proposed minor NSR
thresholds will be inconsequential to attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.'' 71 FR at 48703. See also 76 FR at 38758. The EPA recognized
the overarching need for standards stringent enough to ensure NAAQS
protection, and agreed to ``consider changing the minor NSR thresholds
as appropriate'' to ensure that they are sufficiently protective. 76 FR
at 38759. Thus, cost-effectiveness is not a relevant criterion for
determining whether a minor NSR program's exemption thresholds will
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and the test is not
whether the benefits of the program outweigh the burdens of regulation,
but whether the state's program meets the requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) to ``assure that national ambient air quality standards
are achieved.''
    Comment 3:
    SRP and ADEQ state that the EPA may not substitute its policy
preferences for ADEQ's in proposing to disapprove ADEQ's minor NSR
program with respect to nonattainment areas. There are no regulatory
provisions or CAA statutory provisions that specify that a State must
regulate a ``sufficient percentage'' of minor sources in nonattainment
areas. The EPA's objection appears to be based on its own policy
preferences, and the EPA simply lacks authority to substitute its
preferences for those of the State. The EPA points to no flaws in the
reasoning behind the analysis, nor does the EPA provide an alternative
analysis demonstrating that modifications or construction of minor
sources of a certain size or type have caused air quality concerns
within ADEQ's jurisdiction.
    Further, each state, region, and control area encounters unique
circumstances that contribute to air quality issues, as well as the
strategies necessary to comply with the requirements of the CAA. At
page 14049 n. 12 of the proposal, which accompanied a generalized
comparison to other states, the EPA referenced threshold levels for
Sacramento, California. It is erroneous for the EPA to compare
Arizona's minor NSR program with that of California, due to the
extraordinary severity of the nonattainment problems in California. The
EPA's implication that ADEQ should create a minor source NSR program
that looks and functions like other states, and particularly
California, is an improper basis for disapproval.
    ADEQ also asserts that the EPA has advanced no reason for
concluding that ADEQ's analysis is any less valid for nonattainment
areas than it is for attainment areas.

    Response 3:
    Contrary to the commenters' assertions, our proposed limited
disapproval of ADEQ's program concerning the NSR exemption threshold
for nonattainment areas was not based on a policy preference by the EPA
to regulate ``more'' sources in nonattainment areas. As explained in
detail in our response to comment 2, the EPA's proposed disapproval
based on 40 CFR 51.160(e) stemmed in part from the lack of sufficient
justification in ADEQ's NSR submittal to support its chosen thresholds
for coverage of the minor NSR program in nonattainment areas as
required by 40 CFR 51.160(e) and CAA section 110(a)(2). It is the
State's obligation to demonstrate that emissions from sources exempt
under its chosen NSR exemption threshold will not pose a threat to
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. We found at the time of our
proposal that ADEQ had not done so with respect to the NSR exemption
thresholds in nonattainment areas, and we continue to find that this is
the case.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We addressed the comment concerning the reference in the
EPA's proposal to regulation of a ``sufficient percentage of minor
sources'' in our response to comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our March 18, 2015 proposed action made clear that ADEQ could
consider various options for addressing this deficiency and we did not
mandate that ADEQ adhere to a particular policy choice of the EPA in
this regard. 80 FR at 14049 and n. 13. See also response to comment 2.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that ADEQ has the discretion to
determine the types and sizes of sources that need to be regulated
under its NSR program to attain and maintain the NAAQS. But ADEQ, like
other States, must provide a reasoned basis for the scope of emissions
(and stationary sources of such emissions) regulated under its program
that demonstrates that exemption of such emissions from NSR review will
not threaten the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas.
    Air quality concerns in nonattainment areas differ from those in
attainment areas and thus the measures necessary to attain and maintain
the NAAQS may be more stringent in nonattainment areas than in
attainment areas. When an area is already in nonattainment with a NAAQS
for a particular pollutant, it is logical to conclude that relatively
low levels of emissions increases of that nonattainment pollutant may
well contribute to nonattainment and interfere with achievement of the
NAAQS, while a source with the same level of emissions in an attainment
area may pose little threat to maintaining the NAAQS. Thus, SIPs may
need to provide greater or more detailed justification for exempting
smaller sources of emissions from NSR review in nonattainment areas,
depending on the particular air quality concerns in the area at issue.
Indeed, as noted, the EPA's Tribal NSR Rule established more stringent
thresholds for minor NSR in nonattainment areas, in most cases at 50%
of the thresholds for attainment areas. 76 FR 38758 (Table).
    ADEQ's jurisdiction covers both attainment and nonattainment areas,
and ADEQ's analysis supporting its NSR exemption thresholds made no
distinction between these types of areas nor did it provide additional
information to support the thresholds in nonattainment areas under
ADEQ's jurisdiction. For example, ADEQ's analysis indicated that it
would exempt approximately 65% of CO emissions, 78% of SO2
emissions, and 40% of VOC emissions from review under its NSR program.
By comparison, the EPA's analysis for the Tribal Minor NSR program,
cited by ADEQ in its analysis, demonstrated that the EPA anticipated
exempting around 1% of stationary source emissions from review under
NSR, based on National Emissions Inventory data for all stationary
point source emissions in both attainment and nonattainment areas. As
such, ADEQ did not provide enough detail to demonstrate that NSR review
of emissions from the exempted sources would not be necessary for
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in nonattainment areas because
sources below the thresholds would be ``inconsequential to attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' 76 FR at 38758. Accordingly, we found
that ADEQ had not provided an adequate basis under 40 CFR 51.160(e) for
its NSR program exemption thresholds as they pertain to nonattainment
areas.
    In the case of attainment areas, the EPA is approving the basis
provided by ADEQ for its selected NSR exemption thresholds. We find it
reasonable to conclude, based on the information and analysis provided
by ADEQ, that expanding the NSR program to cover more emissions in
areas that are already attaining the NAAQS will ensure that those areas
will continue to attain and maintain the NAAQS. We cannot reach the
same conclusion for nonattainment areas where the minor sources in a
particular nonattainment area may, in fact, significantly contribute to
nonattainment in that area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We acknowledge that ADEQ's analysis explained that sources
that contribute to noncompliance with the SO2 NAAQS are
well-defined, large industrial sources already subject to the
permitting program. However, ADEQ's analysis did not provide
information or details to support these statements or otherwise
provide information sufficient to allow the EPA to reach the
conclusion that the NSR exemption thresholds selected by ADEQ exempt
only those stationary sources with emissions that do not pose a
threat to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in nonattainment
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reference in our proposal to the approaches taken by other
permitting programs, including a California agency, with respect to NSR
exemption thresholds in nonattainment areas is not an indication that
the EPA believes that such approaches or thresholds are required for
ADEQ, but simply information showing that it is common for agencies in
nonattainment areas to find it necessary to regulate more emissions. In
providing this information, the EPA was not suggesting that there was a
particular percentage of emissions that should be regulated, but that
other nonattainment areas have found it necessary to exempt fewer
emissions from their programs (including Maricopa County, Arizona,
Colorado, and the EPA's Tribal Minor NSR rule, which were also
referenced in our proposed action).\12\ It was ADEQ's lack of
demonstration that its selected thresholds are adequate to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in light of the specific air
quality issues in the nonattainment areas under its jurisdiction that
led to our proposed disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ There was a typographical error in our FR notice that
referenced a ``Table 3,'' when there was not a Table 3 in the
Federal Register notice. The notice should have referenced Table 3
of our TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the EPA did not conclude that ADEQ's NSR exemption
thresholds are necessarily deficient, or suggest that some other
agency's threshold must be applied. The EPA's proposed limited
disapproval for ADEQ's NSR exemption thresholds for nonattainment areas
under 40 CFR 51.160(e) relates only to the fact that ADEQ had not
provided an adequate basis for the thresholds that were set for these
areas. As discussed in response to comment 2, our final limited
disapproval is also based on this finding.
    Comment 4:
    ADEQ submitted comments related to the EPA's proposed limited
disapproval of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal for its use of the term
``proposed final permit.'' ADEQ explains that the purpose of allowing
sources to construct after issuance of a proposed final permit--the
version of the permit that ADEQ

forwards to the EPA for review under the title V program for title V
sources--is to ensure that Arizona's unitary permit program does not
place restrictions on Arizona industries that they would not face in
jurisdictions with binary permitting programs. Under a binary program,
separate permits are issued to construct and operate, and only permits
to operate are subject to the EPA's review under title V. Thus a source
in a jurisdiction with a binary program ordinarily would have the
authority to proceed with construction under a construction permit
before the EPA's review of the title V permit or permit revision
occurred.
    ADEQ specifically takes issue with the EPA's proposed determination
that the program does not provide ADEQ with clear authority to prevent
construction or modification before it issues a final decision on the
request for authority to construct as is required per 40 CFR 51.160(a)
and (b). 80 FR at 14048. ADEQ states that this objection is invalid for
two reasons. First, 40 CFR 51.160(b) does not require a minor NSR
program to include authority to prevent construction ``before [an
agency] issues a final decision.'' It requires only that the program
include procedures by which the agency ``will prevent . . .
construction or modification.'' The Arizona program manifestly includes
such procedures: ADEQ can prevent construction of a source that
threatens the NAAQS or control strategy by denying the permit
application before a proposed final permit is issued. No more is
required. Second, by ``final'' the EPA appears to mean subject to
administrative and judicial review. See 80 FR at 14053. The EPA
maintains that although ADEQ has issued guidance stating that it ``will
treat [a] proposed final permit as a final, appealable agency action,''
the rule itself is not sufficiently clear to be fully approved. 80 FR
at 14048.
    The EPA, however, has mischaracterized ADEQ's guidance. ADEQ did
not state that it ``will treat'' proposed final permits'' as appealable
agency actions. Rather, the Department stated that it ``must'' do so.
Under Arizona administrative law, an ``appealable agency action'' is
defined as ``an action that determines the legal rights, duties or
privileges of a party.'' A.RS. Sec.  41-1092(3). Because a proposed
final permit or permit revision under the revised rules determines the
applicant's right to construct, it must be treated as an appealable
agency action separate from the issuance of the final permit or permit
revision. ADEQ must therefore issue a notice of appealable agency
action under A.R.S Sec.  41-1092.03 for both the proposed final permit
or permit revision, as well as the final permit or permit revision.
    ADEQ states that there is no ambiguity under Arizona law (which
mirrors the administrative law of most states). Under the clear terms
of ADEQ's regulations, a proposed final permit confers a right to
construct and is therefore appealable.
    Response 4:
    The EPA appreciates ADEQ's comments concerning the question of
whether ADEQ's NSR program provides for the issuance of a final NSR
decision prior to sources being allowed to begin construction. Our
proposed action on ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal stated that certain sources
were allowed to begin construction upon issuance of a proposed final
permit, and that we believed that ADEQ's regulations were ambiguous as
to whether issuance of a ``proposed final permit'' was a final NSR
decision. As a result, we proposed to find that ADEQ's NSR SIP
submittal did not satisfy several related CAA requirements, and those
deficiencies provided some of the bases for our proposed limited
disapproval of ADEQ's PSD program, NA-NSR program, and minor NSR
program.
    The EPA continues to believe that the CAA and its implementing
regulations require that PSD and NA-NSR programs must provide for the
issuance of final NSR permit decisions imposing permit conditions
necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable NSR program
requirements before sources subject to those programs may begin
construction. We also interpret the CAA to require that PSD programs
provide an opportunity for judicial review of PSD permit decisions. See
generally CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 165, 172(c)(5), 173; 40 CFR
51.165(a)(2), 51.166(a)(7)(iii), 166(q)(2)(vii).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The notice for our proposed action noted discussed the fact
that we interpret the CAA to require an opportunity for judicial
review of a decision to grant or deny a PSD permit, whether issued
by the EPA or by a State under a SIP-approved or delegated PSD
program. See 80 FR 14053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA and its implementing regulations also require that minor
NSR programs provide for legally enforceable procedures including means
by which the Agency responsible for final decisionmaking on an
application for approval to construct or modify has authority to
prevent such construction or modification if such construction or
modification will result in a violation of applicable portions of the
control strategy or will interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of a NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), 40 CFR 51.160(a)-(b). We continue
to believe that decisionmaking authorities must make final NSR
decisions for minor sources, as well as major sources, subject to their
NSR program prior to allowing sources to begin construction in order to
satisfy this requirement that the plan provide for such ``legally
enforceable procedures.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We agree that ADEQ has authority to decline to issue a
proposed final permit for a particular source if it finds that the
emissions from such source would result in a violation of applicable
portions of the control strategy or would interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. However, in cases where a
permit requirement would be needed to ensure compliance with the
NAAQS for a particular source, if such a permit decision were not
final, binding and enforceable at the time construction of the
source was authorized, there would not be a legally enforceable
procedure in place to prevent construction of that source in a
manner that could violate the NAAQS as required by 40 CFR 51.160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA acknowledges the interpretation that ADEQ recently provided
to clarify that ADEQ must treat ``proposed final permits'' as
``appealable agency actions,'' which are defined under Arizona law as
actions that ``determine[] the legal rights, duties or privileges of a
party'' pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1092(3). ADEQ Memorandum--
Proposed Final Permits to Be Treated as Appealable Agency Actions,
dated February 10, 2015. ADEQ also provided additional clarifications
after the end of the public comment period, specifically stating that
``[p]roposed final permits are enforceable at the time that the permits
are issued.'' \15\ After further review of this issue and consideration
of ADEQ's comments and interpretation of its regulations, and in
reliance on ADEQ's stated interpretation of its regulations, we have
determined that ``proposed final permits'' constitute final, binding,
and enforceable NSR decisions by ADEQ that are issued before sources
may begin construction and which are immediately subject to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See June 8, 2015 email ``Clarification of ADEQ's Comments
on the EPA's Proposed Action'' from Eric C. Massey, Air Quality
Division Director at ADEQ to Lisa Beckham, Air Permits Office, EPA
Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore conclude that ADEQ's NSR program provides, in all
instances, for the issuance of a final NSR decision prior to sources
being allowed to begin construction, thus this issue no longer provides
a basis for our limited disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal.
Specifically, we agree that: (1) ADEQ's NSR program provides ADEQ with
clear authority to prevent construction or modification before it
issues a final decision on the request for authority to construct as
required by 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b); (2) ADEQ's PSD

and NA-NSR programs do not allow a source to begin construction prior
to issuance of a final PSD or NA-NSR permit; and (3) ADEQ's PSD program
satisfies the CAA requirement for an opportunity for judicial review of
PSD permit decisions. We are also including the clarifying memorandum
from ADEQ dated February 10, 2015 as additional material in our final
rule.
    However, we continue to recommend that ADEQ revise its regulations
to clarify that a proposed final permit is a final, enforceable, and
appealable NSR permit decision in order to minimize confusion among the
public and the regulated community. We reiterate that such a revision
is not a requirement for approval of ADEQ's NSR program into the SIP.
    Comment 5:
    ADEQ disagrees with the EPA's proposed limited disapproval of
ADEQ's program under 40 CFR 51.160(a)(2) and (b)(2) because rule R18-2-
334 does not require ADEQ to evaluate whether the project under review
will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in all
cases, and instead allows sources to apply reasonably available control
technology (RACT) in lieu of such an evaluation. ADEQ also takes issue
with the EPA's determination that R18-2-334(E) allows for too great of
Director's discretion when determining when to require a NAAQS
analysis. ADEQ believes this objection is fundamentally at odds with
the EPA's own approach to air quality impact analysis (AQIA) in the
Tribal Minor NSR Rule. The tribal rule initially imposes a case-by-case
control technology requirement, but gives the ``reviewing authority''
(which may be the EPA or a tribe with delegated authority) discretion
to conduct an AQIA. 40 CFR 51.154(c) and (d). ADEQ also cites to the
EPA's response to comments for the Tribal Minor NSR Rule where the EPA
indicated that reviewing authorities implementing the Tribal Minor NSR
Rule should be allowed the discretion to determine when an AQIA might
be needed from the applicant. See 76 FR 38761. Further, ADEQ argues
that ADEQ's rule is actually stricter and confers less discretion than
the EPA's Tribal Minor NSR Rule. ADEQ must consider the source's
emission rates, location of emission units within the facility and
their proximity to ambient air, the terrain in which the source is or
will be located, the source type, the location and emissions of nearby
sources, and background concentration of regulated minor NSR
pollutants. By comparison, the criteria in the EPA's Tribal Minor NSR
Rule states that if the reviewing authority has reason to be concerned
that the construction of your minor source or modification would cause
or contribute to a NAAQS or PSD violation, it may require the source to
conduct and submit an AQIA. (emphasis added). ADEQ believes that this
comparison demonstrates that ADEQ's discretion is far from being ``too
great;'' ADEQ's discretion under R18-2-334(E) is minimal.
    Finally, ADEQ disagrees with the EPA's determination that R18-2-
334(C)(1)(a)-(b) ``appears to allow sources with lower levels of
emissions to avoid both substantive NAAQS review and RACT
requirements'' and that the state's minor NSR Program therefore fails
to ensure ``that all sources subject to review under its NSR program
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.'' This
objection is incorrect for two reasons. First, R18-2-334(C)(1)(a)-(c)
represents ADEQ's reasonable judgment that the imposition of RACT on
units with low emissions (20 percent of the source threshold) within a
source otherwise subject to RACT is not a cost-effective means of
protecting the NAAQS. Second, this provision does not, as the EPA
contends, allow sources to avoid substantive NAAQS review. This
provision clearly applies solely to sources that elect to comply with
minor NSR through installation of RACT. These sources remain subject to
the obligation to conduct an AQIA on the Director's request under R18-
2-334(E), and there is nothing in the rule to suggest that emissions
from units below the R18-2-334(C)(1)(a)-(b) thresholds would be
excluded from the AQIA.
    SRP also disagrees with the EPA's proposed disapproval based on the
EPA's finding that the Director's discretion under R-18-2-334(E) was
too great, and asserts that the EPA's proposed action conflicts with
the EPA's policy on approving director discretion provisions. SRP
argues that the Director's discretion in this regard is sufficiently
specific in identifying when it applies and what criteria are to be
applied and that therefore the relevant provisions are fully approvable
into the Arizona SIP.
    Response 5:
    Upon review of ADEQ's comments, including clarifications regarding
how the provisions of R18-2-334(E) apply, and in reliance on ADEQ's
stated interpretation of its regulations, we no longer find that ADEQ's
minor NSR program does not satisfy 40 CFR 51.160(a)(2) and (b)(2) based
on the view that rule R18-2-334 does not require ADEQ to evaluate
whether all sources subject to review under that rule may interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.\16\ After the close of the
public comment period, ADEQ provided additional clarifications, stating
that it interprets R18-2-334 to ``require[] ADEQ to consider the air
quality impacts of a project, using the criteria established in R18-2-
334(E)(1) through (6), in each instance where the applicant has not
submitted an AQIA under R18-2-334(C)(2).'' \17\ ADEQ has explained that
it interprets R18-2-334 to require ADEQ to consider, for all sources
subject to R18-2-334, whether there is reason to believe that the
source could interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
Some sources will comply with this requirement by submitting an AQIA
under R18-2-334(C)(2). All other sources will be reviewed by ADEQ using
the criteria in R18-2-334(E), and those criteria will be used to
determine whether a more formal AQIA is necessary. That is, ADEQ does
not have discretion to determine in which instances it will or won't
apply the criteria in R18-2-334(E)(1) through (6); instead, ADEQ
interprets its regulations to require that ADEQ apply such criteria for
all sources subject to R18-2-334 where the applicant has not submitted
an AQIA. Accordingly, this issue does not provide a basis for our final
limited disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The EPA's proposal inadvertently referred to R18-2-334(G)
instead of R18-2-334(E) when describing this issue.
    \17\ See June 8, 2015 email ``Clarification of ADEQ's Comments
on EPA's Proposed Action'' from Eric C. Massey, Air Quality Division
Director at ADEQ to Lisa Beckham, Air Permits Office, EPA Region 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We would also like to clarify that our proposed limited disapproval
was not specifically related to ADEQ's choice to apply RACT for some
sources subject to R18-2-334 while allowing certain smaller sources
subject to the rule to avoid RACT. Rather, our proposed disapproval
action related only to what we understood to be the potential for
sources subject to R18-2-334 to apply RACT (or to proceed without
applying RACT for certain sources with lower emissions) in lieu of any
review by ADEQ of the source's potential impacts on the NAAQS under the
ADEQ NSR program. As discussed immediately above, this is no longer a
concern as ADEQ has explained that it must review all sources subject
to R18-2-334 to consider whether the source could interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Given our revised determination on this issue, it is not necessary
to address all the arguments made by SRP concerning this issue, but we
note that we agree with SRP (and ADEQ) that the

criteria ADEQ will be applying when making its determination under R18-
2-334(E) do not afford undue discretion to the Director.
    Comment 6:
    One commenter takes issue with the EPA's statements that finalizing
its proposed limited disapproval would trigger an obligation for the
EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and impose CAA
sanctions if ADEQ does not correct the alleged deficiencies within 18
to 24 months. The commenter asserts that this contradicts the statutory
limitations on the EPA's SIP-action authority under the CAA.
    Section 110(c)(1) provides the EPA the authority to promulgate a
FIP in only two circumstances: (1) The State failed to make a required
SIP submission, or (2) the Administrator disapproves a SIP submission
in whole or part. Section 179(a) contains similar conditions for
imposing sanctions in nonattainment areas. The commenter claims that
the EPA interprets its authority to impose a FIP or sanctions only when
the disapproval relates to a mandatory SIP submission. In support of
this assertion, the commenter cites to one action from Region 6 of the
EPA that disapproved elements of the Texas Commission of Environmental
Quality's (TCEQ's) major NSR rule to address the 2002 NSR changes
(``[t]he provisions in these submittals . . . were not submitted to
meet a mandatory requirement of the Act. Therefore, this final action
to disapprove . . . the State submittals does not trigger a sanction or
Federal Implementation Plan clock.''). The commenter concludes that
such an interpretations of Section 110(c)(1) and Section 179(a) are
reasonable because the EPA would otherwise, for example, be required to
promulgate a FIP for disapproving a State's request to include odor
provisions in its SIP that are unrelated to NAAQS compliance.
    The commenter further states that ADEQ's current SIP contains
fully-approved, minor NSR and major NSR permitting programs. As such,
the State's requested SIP revisions addressed in the EPA's proposed
action are not mandatory. The commenter further argues that the EPA
referenced no information suggesting that it made a formal call for
plan revision as required by Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA related to
its proposed limited disapproval of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal. As such,
in general, Arizona is not under a mandatory duty to revise its
existing SIP with regards to its NSR programs. The commenter argues
that it is inappropriate for the EPA to replace a fully approved-SIP
with a program that it alleges does not fully satisfy CAA requirements
by using an approach that triggers the FIP clock and potentially
imposes sanctions. ADEQ could withdraw the requested SIP submission and
face no threat of a FIP or sanctions.
    Response 6:
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the EPA's
limited disapproval in this action does not trigger a FIP clock or
potential sanctions, and disagrees that the EPA's action is
inappropriate in light of this result.
    The EPA continues to believe that limited disapproval of ADEQ's NSR
SIP submittal triggers an obligation to promulgate a FIP unless ADEQ
corrects the identified deficiencies and the EPA approves the related
SIP revisions within 2 years, and that sanctions would be triggered by
the EPA's limited disapproval of ADEQ's NA-NSR program revisions based
on deficiencies related to CAA title I, Part D requirements for
nonattainment areas if ADEQ fails to remedy the identified deficiencies
so that the EPA can approve the revisions into the SIP before the
sanctions apply. As stated in the notice for our proposal, we intend to
work with ADEQ to remedy these deficiencies in a timely manner.
Importantly, we note that the EPA's other option would have been a full
disapproval of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal, which would have required ADEQ
to continue to implement the outdated rules in its SIP while also
implementing its newer rules under State law. This would require ADEQ
and permit applicants to continue to implement and comply with two
redundant and sometimes inconsistent sets of NSR rules, contrary to
ADEQ's request to update its SIP to incorporate its newer rules and
remove its older, outdated rules.
    Pursuant to section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, the EPA must promulgate a
FIP within two years after our final limited disapproval of ADEQ's NSR
SIP submittal, unless ADEQ adequately corrects the identified
deficiencies and the EPA approves the corrected program into the
Arizona SIP before that time. The commenter argues that the FIP clock
applies only when a disapproval relates to a mandatory SIP submission,
and asserts that the submitted revisions are not mandatory because
ADEQ's existing SIP contains fully-approved minor and major NSR
programs, and the revisions were not developed in response to a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). The EPA disagrees with the
commenter's argument.
    Even if the EPA has not issued a SIP call under CAA section
110(k)(5),\18\ a FIP is generally required under CAA section 110(c)(1)
when the EPA disapproves a plan submission, unless the State adequately
corrects the basis for the disapproval and the EPA approves a corrected
SIP submittal in a timely manner, or the EPA determines that an
existing plan is in place that meets the relevant CAA requirements. See
AIR v. EPA, 686 F.3d 668, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2012). We note that NSR
programs consistent with CAA requirements are required elements of a
SIP. CAA Sec. Sec.  110(a)(2)(C), 161, 165, 172(c)(5), 173; 40 CFR
51.160-51.166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ There is no existing SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5)
that specifically pertains to the deficiencies with ADEQ's NSR
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the EPA cannot rely on provisions in the existing
Arizona SIP to adequately address the deficiencies with the ADEQ NSR
SIP submittal that we identified in our proposed rule and which form
the basis for our final limited disapproval. ADEQ must address these
deficiencies in a timely manner in order to avoid the requirement for
the EPA to promulgate a FIP. As we made clear in the notice for our
proposed action,\19\ ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal included the removal of
most of ADEQ's existing NSR program elements from the Arizona SIP.\20\
Upon our final action,\21\ there will not be an ``existing plan'' that
could potentially satisfy the specific CAA NSR requirements that the
EPA has determined are not satisfied in ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal.\22\
In general, the

EPA's role in reviewing SIP submittals, including the ADEQ NSR SIP
submittal, is to defer to the State's choices as to how to implement
CAA requirements provided those choices are consistent with the
pertinent CAA requirements, whether or not a program submittal is
considered ``mandatory.'' The EPA's limited approval/limited
disapproval action on ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal, including ADEQ's
request to remove old and largely outdated NSR provisions from the
Arizona SIP, allows us to approve into the SIP the State's choice to
adopt and implement its updated and strengthened NSR program while
giving ADEQ time to remedy certain deficiencies that cause us not to
grant full approval of the submittal. Furthermore, even if one assumed
arguendo that these older Arizona NSR provisions were not being removed
from the Arizona SIP, the commenter has not explained how the old NSR
provisions would, in fact, meet the NSR requirements for which the EPA
has found specific deficiencies in ADEQ's updated NSR program.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 80 FR at 14046-14047.
    \20\ See October 29, 2012 ADEQ submittal at 4 and Table 2-1; see
also ADEQ's February 23, 2015 supplemental submittal at 3-7.
    \21\ We note that the EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval
of ADEQ's NSR SIP submission allows ADEQ to use its updated NSR
rules, to the extent the EPA is granting limited approval in this
action, to carry out the NSR program. Continuing to leave old and
outdated Arizona NSR SIP elements in place would not be consistent
with ADEQ's SIP submission and request to the EPA, and would require
ADEQ and permit applicants to implement and comply with two
redundant and sometimes inconsistent sets of NSR rules. Whether ADEQ
could withdraw its ADEQ NSR SIP submittal and what consequences
would ensue is not relevant; ADEQ has not done so.
    \22\ The commenter asserts that when the EPA disapproved
elements of the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality's (TCEQ's)
major NSR rule, the EPA found that the provisions in the submittals
were not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the Act and
thus noted that its final action to disapprove the State submittals
did not trigger a sanction or FIP clock. The TCEQ example is
inapposite, however, because our action on the ADEQ NSR SIP
submittal approves rules with identified deficiencies into the SIP
where the action in Region 6 did not. The EPA found the deficiencies
in the TCEQ submission to be separable and issued partial
disapprovals for them, resulting in a SIP that did not contain the
deficiencies. In that situation, whether the deficiencies that were
disapproved were contained in ``mandatory'' SIP submissions was
relevant because if they were ``mandatory'' then disapproval likely
would have resulted in TCEQ needing to submit another plan revision
to replace the disapproved plan elements. But because the
deficiencies were found to be separable and contained in plan
elements that were not mandatory, the EPA issued a partial
disapproval of those elements, keeping the deficiencies out of the
approved SIP and with TCEQ under no obligation to submit another SIP
revision because the disapproved plan elements were not
``mandatory.'' In contrast, the provisions including the identified
deficiencies in the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal are integrated parts of
the submittal and are being approved into the SIP as part of our
limited approval/limited disapproval action, so whether the ADEQ
plan revisions containing the deficiencies are ``mandatory'' is not
relevant and is not a basis to avoid a FIP duty or sanctions.
    \23\ ADEQ noted in its submittal that its existing SIP-approved
program did not include the PM10 increments, the
NO2 increments, or updates related to the ``WEPCO'' rule
for determining when a project is a modification at an electric
generating unit. In addition, ADEQ stated that a basis for its
revisions to its minor NSR program was to correct the deficiency
that its program lacked explicit procedures designed ``to assure
that national ambient air quality standards are achieved,'' as
required by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. See Appendix A of
ADEQ's October 29, 2012 SIP submittal at 1546 and 1547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, for deficiencies related to CAA title I, Part D
requirements for nonattainment areas, final limited disapproval of
ADEQ's NSR SIP submission will result in the application of sanctions
under CAA section 179 unless the deficiencies have been adequately
corrected before the sanctions apply.
    As with its arguments concerning the FIP clock, the commenter
argues that CAA sanctions apply only when a disapproval relates to a
mandatory SIP submission, and asserts that the submitted revisions are
not mandatory because ADEQ's existing SIP contains fully-approved NSR
permitting programs, and the revisions were not developed in response
to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). The EPA again disagrees with
the commenter's argument.
    Even if the EPA has not issued a SIP call under CAA section
110(k)(5), sanctions generally will apply under CAA section 179 when
the EPA disapproves a plan submission based on plan deficiencies that
relate to title I, Part D requirements, unless ADEQ adequately corrects
those deficiencies and the EPA takes action to approve a corrected plan
submittal before the sanctions apply, or the EPA determines that the
existing plan meets the applicable Part D requirements. See 40 CFR
52.31. A NA-NSR program that meets CAA requirements is a required
element of a SIP. CAA Sec. Sec.  110(a)(2)(C), 172(c)(5), 173; 40 CFR
51.165.
    As discussed above, ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal included the removal
of most of ADEQ's existing NSR program elements from the Arizona SIP,
so upon the EPA's final action there will not be older NA-NSR SIP
provisions that could potentially meet the CAA NA-NSR requirements that
the EPA has determined are not satisfied in the NA-NSR program in
ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal. The EPA's limited approval/limited
disapproval action on ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal, including ADEQ's
request to remove old and largely outdated NSR provisions from the
Arizona SIP, allows us to approve into the SIP the State's choice to
adopt and implement its updated and strengthened NA-NSR program while
giving ADEQ time to remedy certain deficiencies that cause us not to
grant full approval of the submittal. Furthermore, even if one assumed
arguendo that these older Arizona NA-NSR provisions were not being
removed from the Arizona SIP per ADEQ's request, the commenter has not
explained how the old NA-NSR provisions would, in fact, meet the
specific NA-NSR requirements for which the EPA has found deficiencies
with ADEQ's updated NA-NSR program. For example, ADEQ's old SIP-
approved program did not include NOX as a precursor to
ozone.
    We note that the EPA is also finalizing a partial disapproval--
rather than limited approval/limited disapproval--for a separable ADEQ
NSR program provision that is analogous to a previous federal NSR
provision that a federal Court determined is not a permissible
component of PSD programs--the PM2.5 significant monitoring
concentration (SMC). As there is no deficiency related to this issue in
the approved plan following our partial disapproval, neither a FIP
requirement nor sanctions will result from this partial disapproval
action.
    The EPA's limited disapproval action is based on program elements
in ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal that do not meet CAA requirements and are
not satisfied by the existing Arizona SIP provisions that remain in
place following our final action.\24\ We wish to clarify that all of
the bases for our final limited disapproval action on the ADEQ NSR SIP
submittal must be adequately addressed in a timely manner in order to
avoid a requirement for a FIP or, for Part D deficiencies, the
application of sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In addition, ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal did not address the
regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the PSD program. As
discussed in the notice for our proposed action on ADEQ's NSR SIP
submittal, a FIP is currently in place in Arizona to address PSD
requirements for GHGs. See 80 FR at 14054 n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, our final limited disapproval also addresses some SIP
elements or provisions that are not required (e.g., deficiencies
concerning optional PAL provisions), but were not separable from ADEQ's
NSR SIP submittal as they were an integrated part of that submittal.
Because we are approving these provisions into the SIP, the EPA will be
obligated to implement a FIP and/or sanctions will apply (as
applicable) for such optional program elements that remain in the SIP
if the deficiencies in those elements are not corrected to ensure
consistency with CAA requirements.
    Comment 7:
    SRP states that to proceed using the limited approval, limited
disapproval mechanism, The EPA must make an on-the-record determination
that the disapproved elements are not severable from the approved
elements. The EPA has not made this finding or provided this
explanation in its proposed notice.
    Response 7:
    The EPA disagrees with this comment. The commenter cites no
authority for this unsupported proposition. Under CAA sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) and the EPA's long-standing guidance, limited
approval and partial approval are alternatives to full approval or full
disapproval of a complete plan submission. Limited approval may be
appropriate where a plan submittal contains some provisions that meet
applicable CAA requirements and other provisions that do not, and the
provisions are not separable. Partial approval may be used where a
separable

portion of a plan submittal meets all applicable CAA requirements. The
EPA has discretion under the CAA to choose an appropriate approval or
disapproval mechanism for a plan submission, and there is no required
``finding'' that the provisions are not separable for a proposed or
final limited approval or limited disapproval SIP action. See
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS,
to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992
(www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf).
    Nevertheless, in general, we believe that, with the exception of
the partial disapproval of the PM2.5 SMC that we are
finalizing, the components of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal are interrelated
and not separable from the submittal as a whole and therefore not
appropriate for partial disapproval. ADEQ has not provided us with any
basis to conclude that particular aspects of its NSR SIP submittal for
which we proposed limited disapproval are not integral or interrelated
parts of the submittal or are otherwise separable and appropriate for
partial disapproval. Further, the commenter has not demonstrated that
any portion of the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal for which we proposed limited
disapproval is, in fact, separable and appropriate for partial
disapproval rather than limited disapproval.
    Comment 8:
    One commenter states that the EPA's assertion that ADEQ may not
exclude certain pollutant-emitting activities from PSD misinterprets
the EPA's regulations. The commenter points to 40 CFR 51.160(e) and
states that a State may exclude activities that it anticipates will
have negligible or insignificant environmental impacts from either the
major or minor NSR permit programs. This regulatory approach makes
sense because it allows for a practical integration of the multiple
preconstruction requirements. There is no basis for requiring a State
to regulate activities with the more stringent requirements contained
in the PSD or NA NSR program when those activities fall below the
levels of concern established for the minor NSR program.
    Response 8:
    The regulations governing PSD and NA-NSR SIP programs contain the
fundamental requirement that such programs adopt a specified definition
for ``stationary source.'' 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(i), 51.166(b)(5). The
regulations require the use of the prescribed definition, and state
that deviations from the specified wording will be approved only if
``the State specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is
``more stringent, or at least as stringent, in all respects'' as the
prescribed definition. 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 51.166(b). As explained in
reference to the NA-NSR program in our March 18, 2015 proposal:
    ADEQ must demonstrate that its definition of stationary source is
at least as stringent as the federal definition at 51.165(a)(1)(i) in
all respects.

See 80 FR at 14056; see also 80 FR at 14054 for the PSD program. The
commenter has not addressed how ADEQ's definition would be at least as
stringent as the definitions in 51.165(a)(1)(i) and 51.166(b)(5) in
light of the exemption language referenced in our proposal, see 80 FR
at 14054, nor has ADEQ provided the necessary demonstration that its
definition of stationary source is at least as stringent as the
definition of ``stationary source'' under the federal PSD and NA-NSR
programs. Indeed, ADEQ's comments did not address this basis of our
proposed limited disapproval. We continue to find that this issue
provides a basis for limited disapproval of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal.
    We do not interpret 40 CFR 51.160(e) as allowing states to develop
less stringent definitions for these programs without the necessary
demonstration that the submitted definition is ``more stringent, or at
least as stringent, in all respects'' as the prescribed definition as
required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b). Section 51.160(e) does
not contain any language giving states the discretion to exclude any
type of source from the more specific major source permitting
requirements in section 51.165 and 51.166. Section 51.160(e) does not
say anything about sources that have ``negligible or insignificant
environmental impacts.'' This section simply requires that a state plan
identify the types and sizes of stationary sources that are covered by
the ``legally enforceable procedures'' required under section 51.160(a)
to review construction or modification of stationary sources. Sections
51.165 and 51.166 provide more detailed procedures that must apply to
major stationary sources. These more specific provisions in sections
51.165 and 51.166 make clear that those procedures must cover the type
and size of source covered by the definitions at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(i)
and 51.166(b)(5).
    Comment 9:
    One commenter takes issue with our proposed limited disapproval of
ADEQ's definition of projected actual emissions on the basis that it
does not specifically require malfunction emissions to be included in
the post-change projection. The EPA has not shown how ADEQ's exclusion
of this term from ADEQ's definition makes the definition less stringent
than the Federal rules. Malfunctions, by definition, are emissions
associated with an unpredictable and not reasonably preventable event.
In this respect, it is axiomatic that a source cannot reasonably
project emissions that it cannot predict. By excluding malfunctions
from its projected actual emissions procedure, ADEQ recognizes the
EPA's own interpretation of ``malfunctions'' and is no less stringent
than the federal definition. The EPA's proposed action also is
inconsistent with other Regional Office SIP approvals that have
approved definitions of ``projected actual emissions'' that do not
require inclusion of malfunction emissions.\25\ Moreover, the
comparable paragraph in the Federal definition of ``projected actual
emissions'' merely clarifies that projected actual emissions includes
all post-change emissions. The EPA could approve ADEQ's ``projected
actual emissions'' definition by severing and not acting on paragraph
R18-2-401(20)(b)(iii) and the definition would not lose its intended
meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., The EPA's approval of Georgia's PSD program,
Georgia's PSD program at 391-3-1; and the EPA's approval of South
Carolina's regulation at Chapter 7 Regulation 62.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 9:
    The commenter asserts that the EPA has not shown that ADEQ's
exclusion of malfunction emissions from the definition of ``projected
actual emissions'' makes the definition less stringent. However, ADEQ
has the burden of demonstrating that its alternative definitions are
not less stringent than the ones in the EPA's regulation. See 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1), 51.166(b). ADEQ's definitions under the PSD and NA-NSR
programs warrant a limited disapproval because the EPA cannot
reasonably conclude that ADEQ's definition is at least as stringent as
the definitions in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and/or 51.166(b). We note that
ADEQ's definition for ``baseline actual emissions'' specifically
includes startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions, while ADEQ's
definition for ``projected actual emissions'' includes startup and
shutdown emissions but does not include malfunction emissions. Further,
ADEQ's definition of ``projected actual emissions'' specifically
excludes malfunction emissions associated with a shutdown. Based on the
exclusion of malfunction emissions from the

definition of ``projected actual emissions'', and in the absence of a
response from ADEQ on this issue, we conclude that ADEQ has not shown
that its definition is as stringent as the federal definition. In
addition, without a clearer statement from ADEQ, we cannot determine
that R18-2-401(20)(b)(iii) is separable from the rest of the ADEQ
definition of projected actual emissions without losing the apparently
intended meaning by ADEQ to specifically include startup and shutdown
but exclude malfunction emissions. We note that ADEQ's comments did not
address this basis for our proposed limited disapproval.
    With respect to the claim that the EPA has previously approved PSD
or NA-NSR programs that do not include malfunctions emissions under the
definition for projected actual emissions, we note that the examples
provided by the commenter are not completely analogous. In those
programs, the definition of baseline actual emissions also excluded
malfunction emissions, whereas ADEQ has included those emissions in its
definition of baseline actual emissions. Without further justification
from ADEQ, this inconsistency across definitions makes it difficult for
the EPA to determine the relative stringency of ADEQ's definitions as
compared with those in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166. The commenter has not
provided any information about the nature of the demonstrations that
was supplied by the states that obtained the EPA approval for excluding
malfunction emissions from both the definition of baseline actual
emissions and projected actual emissions.
    Notwithstanding prior action by the EPA in the context of SIPs in
the distinct circumstances noted above, the EPA believes the proper
interpretation of these definitions is that they require that all
emissions, pre- and post-change, including malfunctions, be included in
the definitions included in SIPs, consistent with the regulatory text,
absent a demonstration that the State's regulation is at least as
stringent as the federal definition as required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)
and 51.166(b).
    We note that in reviewing this comment, we also reviewed our
proposed limited disapproval related to the calculation of baseline
actual emissions under ADEQ's PALs program at R18-2-412(B)(2). See 80
FR 14053. Upon review, we determined that our proposed limited
disapproval related to the calculation of baseline actual emissions
under ADEQ's PALs program at R18-2-412(B)(2) was in error because
ADEQ's definition for baseline actual emissions at R18-2-401(2)(i)
specifically includes startup, shutdown, and malfunction emissions.
Therefore, this issue no longer provides a basis for our limited
disapproval of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal.
    Comment 10:
    One commenter asserts that ADEQ's definition of regulated NSR
pollutant is not deficient for not including the final two sentences in
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a). This language addresses issuance of permits
before January 1, 2011. Since this SIP revision applies to changes
after this date, it is not necessary for the definition to address
circumstances that existed before SIP approval. Moreover, absence of
the language, in any case, does not affect the stringency of the
definition.
    Response 10:
    We agree with the commenter that while ADEQ may want to add to its
definition these two sentences that provide additional clarification,
this clarifying language is not necessary for SIP approval. As such, we
no longer find this difference to be a deficiency with ADEQ's NSR
program, and this issue is not a basis for our final limited
disapproval.
    Comment 11:
    The EPA proposes to disapprove ADEQ's major NSR programs because
the SIP submittal does not include a definition for ``subject to
regulation.'' Although the Federal regulations contain a definition for
``subject to regulation,'' the EPA made clear, at the time it adopted
this definition, that states may adopt (or already have) alternative
pathways for defining applicability of the major NSR program--the EPA
did not intend for codification of ``subject to regulation'' to be a
necessary element for SIP approval. See 75 FR 31514 at 31525. The EPA
chose the ``subject to regulation'' pathway because it determined that
this would allow other states to adopt the EPA's definition through
interpretation without the need for a SIP revision.
    ADEQ's major source definition refers to NSR regulated pollutants.
ADEQ's definition of NSR regulated pollutant covers all pollutants ADEQ
is currently required to regulate under its major NSR programs. ADEQ's
program is not currently deficient for failing to include some unknown
air pollutant that the EPA may regulate in the future. Should the EPA
regulate such an air pollutant in the future, the EPA may follow the
pathway it used for GHGs and issue a SIP call at that time. Similarly,
ADEQ's definition of regulated NSR pollutant is not currently deficient
for failing to include some unidentified air pollutant that the EPA
might name in the future.
    Response 11:
    After further review and consideration of the comment, we are not
including the absence of a definition of the term ``subject to
regulation'' as a basis for our limited disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP
submittal. Similarly, we are also not including the omission in ADEQ's
PSD rules of language analogous to that in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(iv) as
a basis for our final limited disapproval of the ADEQ NSR SIP
submittal. We note, however, that contrary to commenters' assertion,
the ADEQ SIP is deficient because ADEQ's definition of regulated NSR
pollutant does not cover all pollutants ADEQ is currently required to
regulate under its major NSR programs, in that ADEQ's program does not
regulate GHGs. However, the EPA has separately taken action to address
this deficiency. The EPA previously established a FIP for GHGs for
Arizona because ADEQ could not apply its PSD program to GHGs due to a
State law prohibition.
    Comment 12:
    One commenter states that we must approve ADEQ's definition of
basic design parameter because the D.C. Circuit made no finding in
State of New York v. EPA that the use of the ``basic design parameter''
definition was ``impermissible.'' This issue was not before the court
in State of New York v. EPA. At the time the EPA codified the
replacement unit provisions, the EPA relied on a previously codified
definition of ``basic design parameter'' to explain how it will
interpret the phrase ``basic design parameters'' in implementing the
replacement unit provisions. The vacatur of the ``basic design
parameters'' definition for purposes of a separate, unrelated
rulemaking has no effect on the EPA's stated interpretation of that
phrase for purposes of the replacement unit provisions. Accordingly,
the EPA's statements in the preamble remain its interpretation for
purposes of implementing those provisions. ADEQ's definition is fully
consistent with the EPA's interpretation.
    Response 12:
    The EPA agrees with the commenter that our proposed partial
disapproval of the definition for ``basic design parameter'' was
erroneous. We note that ADEQ did not adopt any of the other provisions
of the Equipment Replacement Provisions, which were the subject of the
D.C. Circuit Court's decision in State of New York v. EPA. We agree
with the commenter that ADEQ's adoption of a definition for basic
design parameter is acceptable in this case, and consistent with the
EPA's past statements related to this term.

Therefore, we are not finalizing a partial disapproval of ADEQ's
definition for basic design parameter. Our final action includes this
definition as part of ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal for which the EPA is
finalizing a limited approval/limited disapproval, but it is not a
basis for our limited disapproval.

III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA, the EPA is finalizing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of the ADEQ rules listed in
Table 1 above. We are also approving into the Arizona SIP the Arizona
statutory provision relating to local delegation of state authority
identified in Table 1 above. In addition, we are removing from the
Arizona SIP certain rules and appendices, which are outdated and mostly
being superseded by this action. See Table 2 above. We are also
finalizing a partial disapproval of one provision of ADEQ's NSR SIP
submittal concerning the PM2.5 SMC, as the analogous federal
regulatory provision has been vacated by a federal Court.\26\ Last, we
are finalizing a limited approval (but not a limited disapproval) based
on requirements under section 189 of the Act related to PM10
and PM2.5 precursors for ADEQ's nonattainment NSR program
for the Nogales and West Central Pinal PM2.5 nonattainment
areas and the West Pinal PM10 nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The EPA's partial disapproval concerning the
PM2.5 SMC does not require follow-up action by ADEQ.
However, for clarity, ADEQ may wish to remove this disapproved
provision from its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our limited approval and limited disapproval action will approve
the updated rules included in the ADEQ NSR SIP submittal into the ADEQ
portion of the Arizona SIP.\27\ However, ADEQ must correct certain
deficiencies in the approved rules in order to obtain full approval for
its NSR SIP submittal. Our TSD and proposal for this action described
in detail the deficiencies we identified with ADEQ's NSR SIP submittal
which we determined were bases for limited approval and limited
disapproval. With the exception of the changes we are making from our
proposal as described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
finalizing our action as proposed. For some of these disapproval
issues, no adverse comment was received during the public comment
period on our proposed action; where comments were received on these
issues, we addressed the comments in our Response to Comments document.
See section C of this preamble. A list summarizing the bases for our
limited disapproval is included in a memorandum to the file for this
action.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This excludes the PM2.5 SMC provision for which
we issuing a partial disapproval, as discussed elsewhere in this
action.
    \28\ ``List of Bases for Final Limited Disapproval of ADEQ NSR
SIP Submittal,'' Lisa Beckham, Air Permits Office, EPA Region 9,
June 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our limited disapproval action will trigger an obligation on the
EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Arizona corrects the deficiencies that
are the bases for the limited disapproval, and the EPA approves the
related plan revisions, within two years of the final action.
Additionally, for those deficiencies that are bases for our limited
disapproval that relate to NA-NSR requirements under part D of title I
of the Act, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in
the nonattainment areas under ADEQ's jurisdiction 18 months after the
effective date of a final limited disapproval, and the highway funding
sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1) would apply in these areas six
months after the offset sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be
imposed under the CAA if Arizona submits, and we approve, prior to the
implementation of the sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the
deficiencies that we identify in our final action.\29\ We intend to
work with ADEQ to correct the deficiencies identified in this action in
a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In addition, ADEQ must also address our limited approval
under section 189 of the Act related to PM10 and
PM2.5 precursors for the Nogales and West Central Pinal
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the West Pinal
PM10 nonattainment area. However, because this issue is
not a basis for our limited disapproval action, it does not trigger
a FIP clock or the potential for sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ADEQ
rules and the statutory provision described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents available electronically through www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

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.
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.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that
the State is imposing. Therefore, because this action does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on
such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The EPA has determined that this 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 Federal action approves or disapproves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    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 in the distribution of power
and

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order
13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    The 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
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves or
disapproves State rules intended to implement a Federal standard.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (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 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes application of VCS to this action 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.
    The EPA has determined that this rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
change the level of environmental protection for any affected
populations.

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. The 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.
804(2).

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, 2016. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 29, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (c)(27)(i)(C), (c)(43)(i)(C), (c)(45)(i)(D).
0
b. By adding paragraph (c)(47)(i)(A)(1).
0
c. By revising paragraph (c)(50)(i)(C).
0
d. By revising paragraph (c)(54)(i)(E).
0
e. By adding paragraph (c)(54)(i)(H).
0
f. By revising paragraph (c)(56)(i)(C).
0
g. By adding paragraphs (c)(59)(i)(A)(2) and (c)(161)(i)(A)(6).
0
h. By revising the introductory text of paragraph (c)(162)
0
i. By adding paragraphs (c)(162)(i)(A)(3) and (4), and (c)(162)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (27) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(27)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs
and nos. listed), paragraph B of R9-3-217, R9-3-301 (all paragraphs
listed), R9-3-306 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-307 (all paragraphs
listed), R9-3-308, R9-3-310 (Paragraph C), R9-3-311 (Paragraph A), R9-
3-312, R9-3-314, R9-3-315, R9-3-316, R9-3-317, R9-3-318, R9-3-518
(Paragraphs B and C), R9-3-319, R9-3-1101, and Appendix 10 (Sections

A<IP_ADDRESS>, A10.1.4 and A10.2.2 to A10.3.4).
* * * * *
    (43) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(43)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs
and nos. listed), R9-3-301 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-302 (all
paragraphs listed), R9-3-303, R9-3-306 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-
307 (all paragraphs listed), and R9-3-518 (Paragraph A.1 to A.5).
* * * * *
    (45) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(45)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs
and nos. listed), R9-3-301 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-306 (all
paragraphs listed), R9-3-311 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-509, and
Appendix 10 (Sections A10.2 and A10.2.1).
* * * * *
    (47) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Previously approved in this paragraph (c)(47)(i)(A) and now
deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (all paragraphs and nos. listed).
* * * * *
    (50) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Previously approved in paragraph (c)(50)(i)(A) of this section
and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-310 (Paragraphs A and B) and
Appendix 10 (Sections A10.1-A<IP_ADDRESS>).
* * * * *
    (54) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(B) and
(c)(54)(i)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement: R9-
3-101 (all nos. listed except no. 20).
* * * * *
    (H) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(54)(i)(B), (C), and (D)
of this section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-301 (all
paragraphs except paragraphs I and K), R9-3-302 (all paragraphs
listed), R9-3-303 (all paragraphs listed), R9-3-304 (all paragraphs
except paragraph H), R9-3-305, R9-3-306 (paragraph A only), and R9-3-
1101 (all paragraphs listed).
* * * * *
    (56) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Previously approved in paragraphs (c)(56)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-101 (Nos. 135 and
157), R9-3-218, R9-3-310, R9-3-322, R9-3-1101 and Appendix 11.
* * * * *
    (59) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Previously approved in paragraph (c)(59)(i)(A)(1) of this
section and now deleted without replacement: R9-3-303.
* * * * *
    (161) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, ``Environmental
Quality'', chapter 2,''Department of Environmental Quality--Air
Pollution Control'', R18-2-311, ``Test Methods and Procedures,'' and
R18-2-312, ``Performance Tests,'' effective November 15, 1993.
    (162) The following plan revision was submitted on October 29,
2012, and supplemented on September 6, 2013 and July 2, 2014, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, ``Environmental
Quality,'' chapter 2 ``Department of Environmental Quality--Air
Pollution Control,'' R18-2-101, ``Definitions,'' only definition nos.
(2), (32), (87), (109), and (122), effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-217,
``Designation and Classification of Attainment Areas,'' effective
November 15, 1993; R18-2-218, ``Limitation of Pollutants in Classified
Attainment Areas,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-301,
``Definitions,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-302, ``Applicability;
Registration; Classes of Permits,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-
302.01, ``Source Registration Requirements,'' effective August 7, 2012;
R18-2-303, ``Transition from Installation and Operating Permit Program
to Unitary Permit Program; Registration Transition; Minor NSR
Transition,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-304, ``Permit Application
Processing Procedures,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-306, ``Permit
Contents,'' effective December 20, 1999; R18-2-306.01, ``Permits
Containing Voluntarily Accepted Emission Limitations and Standards,''
effective January 1, 2007; R18-2-306.02, ``Establishment of an
Emissions Cap,'' effective September 22, 1999; R18-2-315, ``Posting of
Permit,'' effective November 15,1993; R18-2-316, ``Notice by Building
Permit Agencies,'' effective May 14, 1979; R18-2-319, ``Minor Permit
Revisions,'' August 7, 2012; R18-2-320, ``Significant Permit
Revisions,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-321, ``Permit Reopenings;
Revocation and Reissuance; Termination,'' effective August 7, 2012;
R18-2-323, ``Permit Transfers,'' effective February 3, 2007; R18-2-330,
``Public Participation,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-332, ``Stack
Height Limitation,'' effective November 15, 1993; R18-2-334, ``Minor
New Source Review'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-401
``Definitions,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-402 ``General,''
effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-403 ``Permits for Sources Located in
Nonattainment Areas,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-404, ``Offset
Standards,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-405, ``Special Rule for
Major Sources of VOC or Nitrogen Oxides in Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Classified as Serious or Severe,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-406,
``Permit Requirements for Sources Located in Attainment and
Unclassifiable Areas,'' effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-407, ``Air
Quality Impact Analysis and Monitoring Requirements,'' excluding
subsection (H)(1)(c), effective August 7, 2012; R18-2-409, ``Air
Quality Models,'' effective November 15, 1993; and R18-2-412, ``PALs''
effective August 7, 2012.
    (4) Arizona Revised Statutes, title 49, ``Environment,'' chapter 1
``General Provisions'', section 49-107, ``Local delegation of state
authority,'' effective July 1, 1987.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Setting Applicability Thresholds, pages 1547-1549 in Appendix A
to ``State Implementation Plan Revision: New Source Review'' adopted on
October 29, 2012.
    (2) Memorandum, ``Proposed Final Permits to be Treated as
Appealable Agency Actions,'' dated February 10, 2015, from Eric Massey,
Air Quality Division Director to Balaji Vaidyanathan, Permit Section
Manager, submitted on February 23, 2015.
    (3) ``State Implementation Plan Revision: New Source Review--
Supplement,'' relating to the division of jurisdiction for New Source
Review in Arizona, adopted on July 2, 2014.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-27785 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P