81 FR 15200 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 55 (March 22, 2016)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on December 27, 2012, and supplemented on December 3, 2015, to address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 2008 ozone (O<INF>3</INF>) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). We are proposing to approve the portion of the Arizona SIP pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state and proposing to disapprove the portion of Arizona's SIP pertaining to interstate transport visibility requirements. EPA's rationale for proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove Arizona's December 27, 2012 SIP revision and December 3, 2015 supplement is described in this notice. EPA previously took two separate actions on Arizona's December 27, 2012 submittal, on July 14, 2015 and August 10, 2015. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action no later than June 7, 2016.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15200-15205]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06438]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0793; FRL-9944-08-Region 9]


Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State 
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements To Address 
Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality on December 27, 2012, and supplemented on December 3, 2015, to 
address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act) section 110(a)(2)(D) with respect to the 2008 ozone 
(O3) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). We are 
proposing to approve the portion of the Arizona SIP pertaining to 
significant contribution to

[[Page 15201]]

nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state and 
proposing to disapprove the portion of Arizona's SIP pertaining to 
interstate transport visibility requirements. EPA's rationale for 
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove Arizona's 
December 27, 2012 SIP revision and December 3, 2015 supplement is 
described in this notice. EPA previously took two separate actions on 
Arizona's December 27, 2012 submittal, on July 14, 2015 and August 10, 
2015. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a 
final action no later than June 7, 2016.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0793 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maeve Clancy, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4105, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittals
III. EPA's Assessment
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP 
requirements to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS no later than 
three years after the promulgation of a new or revised standard. 
Section 110(a)(2) outlines the specific requirements that each state is 
required to address in this SIP submission that collectively constitute 
the ``infrastructure'' of a state's air quality management program. SIP 
submittals that address these requirements are referred to as 
``infrastructure SIPs'' (I-SIP). In particular, CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS 
contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of 
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that 
will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' (prong 1) or 
``interfere with maintenance'' (prong 2) of the applicable air quality 
standard in any other state. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 
SIP provisions that prevent interference with measures required to be 
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State 
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This action addresses the 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of prongs 1, 2 and 4 with respect 
to Arizona's I-SIP submissions.
    On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for ozone.\1\ This 
action triggered a requirement for states to submit an I-SIP to address 
the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years of 
issuance of the revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final 
Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 13, 2013, EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' which provides ``advice on the development 
of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS . . . as well as 
infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in the 
future.'' \2\ EPA followed that guidance with an additional memo 
specific to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) requirements for the 
2008 O3 standard on January 22, 2015 entitled, ``Information 
on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS Under CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2015 transport 
memo).\3\ While this memo did not provide specific guidance to western 
states on interstate transport, it did contain preliminary modeling 
information for western states. This 2015 transport memo, following the 
approach used in EPA's prior Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),\4\ 
provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that were projected to 
be in nonattainment or have maintenance problems for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in 2018. Also, EPA provided the projected contribution estimates 
from 2018 anthropogenic oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in each state to ozone 
concentrations at each of the projected sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10 (September 13, 2013).
    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10 (January 22, 2015).
    \4\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 2015, EPA published a Federal Register Notice 
entitled, ``Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS.'' \5\ This Notice of Data Availability (NODA) is an update of 
the preliminary air quality modeling data that was released January 22, 
2015. This NODA provided data identifying ozone monitoring sites that 
are projected to be nonattainment or have maintenance problems 
(following the CSAPR approach) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017.\6\ 
Also, EPA provided the projected ozone contribution estimates from 2017 
anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions in each state to ozone 
concentrations at each of the projected monitoring sites. The 2017 
modeling released in the NODA was used to support EPA's proposed update 
to CSAPR to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements with 
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S. (``CSAPR Update 
Rule'').\7\ CSAPR and its predecessor transport rules, the 
NOX SIP Call and CAIR, were designed to address the 
collective contributions from the 37 states in the eastern U.S. and 
ozone contribution information was not calculated to or from the 11 
states in the western U.S. The proposed CSAPR Update Rule and the 
supportive

[[Page 15202]]

modeling released in the NODA include data relevant to the West but did 
not evaluate potential interstate transport impacts in 11 western 
states, including Arizona. In this action, we are utilizing these data 
to evaluate the state's submittals and any interstate transport 
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 
4, 2015).
    \6\ The EPA adopted 2017 as the analytic year for the updated 
ozone modeling information. See 80 FR 46273.
    \7\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is obligated, pursuant to a judgement issued by the Northern 
District of California in Sierra Club vs. McCarthy, to take final 
action on 110(a)(2)(D) prongs 1, 2, and 4 of Arizona's December 2012 
SIP revision by June 7, 2016.\8\ In our July 2015 partial approval and 
partial disapproval of Arizona's I-SIP submittals for the 2008 Pb and 
2008 ozone NAAQS, for the I-SIP elements C, D, J, and K, EPA partially 
approved and partially disapproved the submittals for purposes of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 and partially approved and partially 
disapproved the submittals for purposes of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (relating 
to CAA sections 115 and 126). We also stated our intention to propose 
action on the I-SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 
2, and 4 in a separate action.\9\ We subsequently took action on I-SIP 
elements A, B, E-H, L, and M for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
August 2015.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-05091-
YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
    \9\ Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 
State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for 
Lead and Ozone. 80 FR 40905 (July 14, 2015).
    \10\ Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Arizona; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and the 
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 80 
FR 47859 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. State Submittals

    On December 27, 2012, the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ) submitted its 2008 ozone NAAQS I-SIP (2012 submittal). 
This submittal briefly summarized the CAA requirements of sections 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and EPA's I-SIP action for the 
previous 1997 ozone NAAQS, but as to prongs 1, 2, and 4 did not 
identify or address any potential interstate transport impacts between 
Arizona and other states or interstate transport visibility 
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On December 3, 2015, ADEQ 
submitted a supplement to the 2012 submittal addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
prongs 1, 2, and 4.\11\ For the purposes of this action, we will refer 
to the supplemental submittal as the ``2015 submittal.'' The 2015 
submittal represents ADEQ's comprehensive analysis of ozone transport 
from Arizona to surrounding states and addresses potential interstate 
transport linkages between Arizona and the El Centro, CA and Los 
Angeles, CA nonattainment receptors that were identified in the 2015 
ozone transport memo and the 2015 NODA. The 2015 submittal also 
addresses the requirements of prong 4 (interstate transport visibility 
requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions for 2008 
Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D) . . .'' Signed December 3, 2015. And see email from 
Heidi Haggerty of ADEQ. ``AZ 2015 Ozone Transport I-SIP Submittal 
Clarification.'' Sent December 9, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2015 submittal, ADEQ summarizes the state's impact on 
downwind states. While Arizona's impact on the El Centro and Los 
Angeles monitors is in each case above 1%, Arizona impacts only one of 
the seven projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the Los 
Angeles area, and contributes less than 1% to all other maintenance and 
nonattainment receptors. ADEQ further states that, ``In eastern states, 
the EPA has chosen a 1% of the standard threshold as a significant 
contribution. However, Arizona considers the southwest to be 
different.'' The state goes on to say that, ``It is unclear at this 
point what threshold is significant for southwestern states.'' EPA's 
assessment of these statements is described in the next section. The 
submittal also summarizes sources of VOCs and NOX statewide, 
outlining the controls on anthropogenic emission sources with a focus 
on efforts to reduce NOX through controls implemented via 
Arizona's Regional Haze SIP and EPA's Regional Haze Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) and current and future Maricopa County 
stationary source controls in the Arizona SIP. For more information on 
Arizona's source categories and emissions controls, please see the 
technical support document (TSD) associated with today's proposed 
rulemaking.

III. EPA's Assessment

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Prong 1 and Prong 2

    EPA proposes to approve Arizona's SIP submissions pertaining to CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2, with respect to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. As explained below, EPA's proposal is based on the state's 
submission and EPA's analysis of several factors and available data.
    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 
and 2 requirement is satisfied, EPA first must determine whether a 
state's emissions will contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in other states. If a state is 
determined not to make such contribution or interfere with maintenance 
of the NAAQS, then EPA can conclude that the state's SIP complies with 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In several prior 
federal rulemakings interpreting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has 
evaluated whether a state will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS by first 
identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems 
attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.\12\ EPA has then determined which 
upwind states contribute to these identified air quality problems in 
amounts sufficient to warrant further evaluation to determine if the 
state can make emission reductions to reduce its contribution. CSAPR 
and the proposed CSAPR Update used a screening threshold (1% of the 
NAAQS) to identify such contributing upwind states warranting further 
review and analysis. EPA's NODA used air quality modeling to evaluate 
contributions from upwind states to downward receptors. Applying the 
methodology used in CSAPR, the NODA modeling information indicates that 
emissions from Arizona contribute amounts exceeding the CSAPR 1% 
threshold at two projected downwind nonattainment sites in El Centro, 
California, and Los Angeles, California.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NOX SIP Call, Final Rule, 63 FR 57371 (October 
27, 1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Final Rule, 70 FR 25172 
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Final Rule, 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update Rule, Proposed Rule, 80 
FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015).
    \13\ Data file with 2017 Ozone Contributions. Included in docket 
for: Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that it disagrees with ADEQ's contention that it is 
unclear what screening threshold is significant for southwestern states 
when addressing interstate transport contributions. EPA believes 
contribution from an individual state equal to or above 1% of the NAAQS 
could be considered significant where the collective contribution of 
emissions from one or more upwind states is responsible for a 
considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem regardless of 
where the receptor is geographically located.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA has previously noted there may be additional criteria 
to evaluate regarding collective contribution of transported air 
pollution at certain locations in the West. See footnotes 4 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, although EPA's modeling indicates that emissions from

[[Page 15203]]

Arizona contribute above the 1% threshold to two projected downwind air 
quality problems, EPA examined several factors to determine whether 
Arizona should be considered to significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS at those 
sites, including the air quality and contribution modeling, receptor 
data, and the statewide measures reducing emissions of VOCs and 
NOX. EPA notes that no single piece of information is by 
itself dispositive of the issue for purposes of this analysis. Instead, 
EPA has considered the total weight of all the evidence taken together 
to evaluate whether Arizona significantly contributes to nonattainment 
or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in those areas.
    One such factor that EPA considers relevant to determining the 
nature of a projected receptor's interstate transport problem is the 
magnitude of ozone attributable to transport from all upwind states 
collectively contributing to the air quality problem. In CSAPR and the 
CSAPR Update Rule, EPA used the 1% air quality threshold to identify 
linkages between upwind states and downwind maintenance receptors. 
States whose contributions to a specific receptor meet or exceed the 
threshold were considered to be linked to that receptor. The linked 
states' emissions (and available emission reductions) were then 
analyzed further as a second step to EPA's contribution analysis. 
States whose contributions to all receptors were below the 1% threshold 
did not require further evaluation to address interstate transport and 
we therefore found those states were determined to make insignificant 
contributions to downwind air quality. Therefore, the states below the 
threshold do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. EPA used the 1% 
threshold in the East because prior analysis showed that, in general, 
nonattainment problems result from a combined impact of relatively 
small individual contributions from upwind states, along with 
contributions from in-state sources. EPA has observed that a relatively 
large portion of the air quality problem at most ozone nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors in the East is the result of the collective 
contribution from a number of upwind states.
    Specifically, EPA found the total upwind states' contribution to 
ozone concentration (from linked and unlinked states) based on modeling 
for 2017 ranges from 17% to 67% to identified downwind air quality 
problems in the East, with between 4 and 12 states each contributing 
above 1% to the downwind air quality problem.15 16 Thus, 
irrespective of the 1% air quality threshold in the East, EPA has found 
that the collective contributions from upwind states represent a large 
portion of the ozone concentrations at projected air quality problems. 
Further, in the East, EPA found that the 1% threshold is appropriate to 
capture a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting 
downwind receptors. By comparison, according to EPA's modeling, the 
total upwind (linked or unlinked) states' contribution to ozone 
concentration at the projected nonattainment sites in El Centro, 
California and Los Angeles, California, is comparatively small, with 
only one state contributing above 1% to the downwind air quality 
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The stated range is based on the highest nonattainment or 
maintenance receptor in each area. All nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors had upwind contributions of well over 17%, except for some 
receptors in Dallas and Houston.
    \16\ Memo to Docket from EPA, Air Quality Policy Division. 
``Contribution Analysis of Receptors in the Updated CSAPR 
Proposal.'' March 10, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arizona is the only state that contributes greater than the 1% 
threshold to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the 
El Centro receptor. The total contribution from all states to the El 
Centro receptor is 4.4% of the total ozone concentration at this 
receptor. Arizona is also the only state that contributes greater than 
1% to the projected 2017 levels of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at the Los 
Angeles receptor, and the total contribution from all states is 2.5% of 
the ozone concentration at this receptor. EPA believes that a 4.4% and 
2.5% cumulative ozone contribution from all upwind states is 
negligible, particularly when compared to the relatively large 
contributions from upwind states in the East or in certain other areas 
of the West. For these reasons, EPA believes the emissions that result 
in transported ozone from upwind states have limited impacts on the 
projected air quality problems in El Centro, California and Los 
Angeles, California, and therefore should not be treated as receptors 
for purposes of determining the interstate transport obligations of 
upwind states under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Additionally, EPA has evaluated the Arizona VOC and NOX 
emissions inventory and emissions projections and agrees that emissions 
will be decreasing over time. Given that emissions within the state are 
expected to decrease over time due to regional haze measures, Federal 
engine and fuel standards, and other Federal, State, and local 
rules,\17\ EPA believes that the Arizona SIP contains adequate 
provisions to ensure that air emissions in Arizona do not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
ozone NAAQS in California or any other state in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See TSD for details on other emissions control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data show that Arizona contributes either less than 1% 
of the NAAQS to projected air quality problems in other states, or 
where it contributes above 1% of the NAAQS to a projected downwind air 
quality problem in California, EPA proposes to find, based on the 
overall weight of evidence, that these particular receptors are not 
significantly impacted by transported ozone from upwind states. 
Emissions reductions from Arizona are not necessary to address 
interstate transport because the total collective upwind state ozone 
contribution to these receptors is relatively low compared to the air 
quality problems typically addressed by the good neighbor provision. 
Additionally, Arizona has demonstrated that both VOC and NOX 
emissions are going down and will continue to go down. EPA therefore 
believes that Arizona's contributions to downwind receptors in 
California are considered insignificant. EPA proposes to find that 
Arizona does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Prong 4

    EPA believes that ozone precursor emissions of NOX may 
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas. EPA's 2013 I-SIP 
guidance clarifies that a state can rely upon a fully EPA-approved 
Regional Haze SIP to satisfy the requirements of this sub-element. 
Arizona's Regional Haze SIP shows that sources in Arizona impact 
visibility in Colorado (Great Sand Dunes National Monument, Mesa Verde 
National Park, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, La Garita 
Wilderness, and Weminuche Wilderness), New Mexico (Bandelier National 
Monument, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Pecos Wilderness, Bosque del 
Apache National Wildlife Reserve, and Gila Wilderness), and Utah (Zion 
National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, 
Canyonlands National Park, and Arches

[[Page 15204]]

National Park).\18\ Arizona's Regional Haze SIP is not fully approved 
by EPA. Instead, Arizona's 2012 and 2015 submittals rely, in part, on 
regulations imposed by FIPs to address visibility impairment in Class 1 
Areas caused by NOX, SO2, and PM. These 
regulations include emission limits on the following facilities: 
Arizona Public Service Cholla Power Plant,\19\ Salt River Project 
Coronado Generating Station,\20\ Freeport McMoran Miami Smelter,\21\ 
ASARCO Hayden Smelter,\22\ Sundt Generating Station Unit 4,\23\ and 
Nelson Lime Plant Kilns 1 and 2.\24\ Emissions limits have been 
incorporated into the state SIP, replacing a previous FIP, at AEPCO 
Apache Station Units 1, 2, and 3.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional Haze Under 
Section 308 of the Federal Regional Haze Rule (January 2011), 
section 12.4.1.
    \19\ FIP promulgated at 77 FR 72514 (December 5, 2012).
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ FIP promulgated at 79 FR 5240 (September 3, 2014).
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ SIP approval promulgated for Unit 1 and FIP promulgated for 
Units 2 and 3 at 77 FR 72511 (December 5, 2012). SIP revision for 
emissions limits for Unit 1 and SIP approval for Units 2 and 3 
promulgated at 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Arizona's 2012 and 2015 submittals rely in part on FIPs to 
address interstate transport visibility requirements, they do not meet 
the requirements of prong 4 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, because 
FIPs are already in place, no additional FIP obligation would be 
triggered by a final disapproval of this portion of Arizona's 
infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to 
incorporate emission limits to address the requirements of the Regional 
Haze Rule into the Arizona SIP. For further discussion of our analysis 
of prong 4, please see the TSD associated with this proposal and in the 
docket for today's rulemaking.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Arizona's SIP as meeting the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing this approval based on the 
overall weight of evidence from information and analysis provided by 
Arizona, as well as the recent air quality modeling released in EPA's 
August 4, 2015 NODA, and other data analysis that confirms that 
emissions from Arizona will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
California or any other state.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove Arizona's SIP with respect to the 
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
prong 4 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because Arizona's 2012 and 2015 
submittals rely, in part, on FIPs to address interstate transport 
visibility requirements, they do not meet the requirements of this 
portion of CAA Sec.  110(a)(2)(D) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, 
because FIPs are already in place, no additional FIP obligation would 
be triggered by a final disapproval of this portion of Arizona's 
infrastructure SIP. EPA will continue to work with Arizona to 
incorporate emission limits to address the requirements of the Regional 
Haze Rule into the Arizona SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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 and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those 
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will 
result from this action.

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 on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA 
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be 
inconsistent with the CAA.

[[Page 15205]]

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation 
plans, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Oxides of 
nitrogen, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 15, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-06438 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P