Vol. 77 Friday, 

No. 246 December 21, 2012 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 51 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Arizona; Regional Haze and Visibility Impacts of Transport, Ozone and 

Fine Particulates; Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904, FRL–9763–2] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze and Visibility Impacts of 

Transport, Ozone and Fine Particulates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part a revision 

of Arizona’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to implement the regional haze 

program for the first planning period 

through July 31, 2018. This proposed 

action includes all portions of the SIP 

except for three electric generating 

stations that were addressed in a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on December 5, 2012. Today, EPA is 

taking action on Arizona’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

control analysis and determinations, 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for 

the State’s 12 Class I areas, Long-term 

Strategy (LTS), and other elements of 

the State’s regional haze plan. If EPA 

takes final action to disapprove any 

portion of the SIP, EPA will work with 

the State to develop plan revisions to 

address the disapproved provisions. 

Regional haze is caused by emissions of 

air pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a broad geographic area. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states 

to adopt and submit to EPA SIPs that 

assure reasonable progress toward the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in 156 national 

parks and wilderness areas designated 

as Class I areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by the designated contact at the 

address below on or before February 4, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: See the General Information 

section for further instructions on where 

and how to learn more about this 

proposed rule, and how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, Air–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Gregory Nudd can be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4107 and 

via electronic mail at 

r9azreghaze@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(1) The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(2) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

(3) The words Arizona and State mean the 

State of Arizona. 

(4) The initials ARHP mean or refer to the 

Arizona Regional Haze Plan submitted by the 

State of Arizona on February 28, 2011. 

(5) The initials BART mean or refer to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology. 

(6) The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area. 

(7) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

(8) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(9) The initials FGD mean or refer to flue 

gas desulfurization. 

(10) The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(11) The initials FLMs mean or refer to 

Federal Land Managers. 

(12) The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments monitoring network. 

(13) The initials LTS mean or refer to Longterm Strategy. 

(14) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

(15) The initials NH3 mean or refer to 

ammonia. 

(16) The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(17) The initials NM mean or refer to 

National Monument. 

(18) The initials NP mean or refer to 

National Park. 

(19) The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

(20) The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

(21) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to fine 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. 

(22) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers (coarse 

particulate matter). 

(23) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts 

per million. 

(24) The initials PSD mean or refer to of 

Significant Deterioration. 

(25) The initials PTE mean or refer to 

Potential to Emit. 

(26) The initials RAVI mean or refer to 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. 

(27) The initials RHR mean or refer to the 

Regional Haze Rule, originally promulgated 

in 1999 and codified at 40 CFR 51.301–309. 

(28) The initials RMC mean or refer to 

Regional Modeling Center. 

(29) The initials RP mean or refer to 

Reasonable Progress. 

(30) The initials RPG or RPGs mean or refer 

to Reasonable Progress Goal(s). 

(31) The initials RPOs mean or refer to 

regional planning organizations. 

(32) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(33) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide. 

(34) The initials SRP mean or refer to Salt 

River Project Agricultural Improvement and 

Power District. 

(35) The initials SSJF mean or refer to the 

Stationary Sources Joint Forum of the 

Western Regional Air Partnership. 

(36) The initials tpy mean tons per year. 

(37) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

(38) The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

(39) The initials WA mean or refer to 

Wilderness Area. 

(40) The initials WEP mean or refer to 

Weighted Emissions Potential. 

(41) The initials WRAP mean or refer to the 

Western Regional Air Partnership. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Docket 

B. Instructions for Submitting Comments to 

EPA 

C. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information 

D. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

II. Overview of Proposed Actions 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants That 

Affect Visibility 

III. Regional Haze Program and Interstate 

Transport Background 

A. Description of Regional Haze 

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport of Pollutants 

IV. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans 

A. Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

F. Coordination of Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

G. Monitoring Strategy 

H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports 

I. State Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

J. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission and Section 309 

V. Overview of State and EPA Actions on 

Regional Haze 

A. EPA’s Schedule To Act on Arizona’s RH 

SIP 

B. Summary of EPA’s Final Rule Affecting 

Three BART Sources 

C. History of State Submittals and EPA 

Actions 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of Visibility Conditions 

in Arizona’s Class I Areas 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Visibility Conditions 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Arizona’s Emissions Inventories 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s BART 

Analyses and Determinations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75705 

1 ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional 

Haze Under Section 308 Of the Federal Regional 

Haze Rule,’’ February 28, 2011. 

A. Arizona’s Identification of BART 

Sources 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s Subjectto-BART Analysis 

C. Arizona’s BART Control Analysis 

D. Arizona’s BART Determinations 

VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

A. Reasonable Progress Goals for the Best 

Days 

B. Reasonable Progress Goals for the Worst 

Days 

C. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation 

IX. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s Long-Term 

Strategy 

A. Interstate Consultation on Emission 

Management Strategies 

B. Measures To Obtain Allotted Emissions 

Reductions 

C. Technical Basis for the Apportionment 

of Emission Reductions 

D. Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility 

Impairment 

E. Mandatory Factors To Consider for the 

Long-Term Strategy 

F. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Long-Term Strategy 

X. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Requirements 

A. Monitoring Strategy 

B. State and Federal Land Manager 

Coordination 

C. Periodic SIP Review and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

XI. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s Provisions 

for Interstate Transport of Pollutants 

XII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Interstate Transport of Visibility 

C. Sanctions and Federal Implementation 

Plan Duties 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Docket 

The proposed action relies on 

documents, information and data that 

are listed in the index on http:// 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available 

(e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Planning Office of the Air Division, 

AIR–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA 

requests that you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 9–5:00 PST, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

B. Instructions for Submitting 

Comments 

Written comments must be received at 

the address below on or before February 

4, 2013. Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0904, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: r9azreghaze@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Gregory Nudd). 

• Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Gregory Nudd, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105. Hand 

and courier deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA’s policy is to include all 

comments received in the public docket 

without change. We may make 

comments available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or that is 

otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, we will include 

your email address as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should not 

include special characters or any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

C. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim as CBI. For 

CBI information in a disk or CD ROM 

that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. We will not disclose 

information so marked except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

D. Tips for Preparing Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (e.g., subject heading, 

Federal Register date and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the identified comment 

period deadline. 

II. Overview of Proposed Actions 

A. Regional Haze 

EPA is proposing to approve in part 

and disapprove in part the remaining 

portion of Arizona’s Regional Haze Plan 

(ARHP) 1 submitted to EPA Region 9 on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2See 77 FR 72512, December 5, 2012. 

3We have already approved ADEQ’s 

determination that Arizona Electric Power 

Cooperative (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station 

(Apache) Units 1–3, Arizona Public Service Cholla 

Power Plant (Cholla) Units 2–4, and Salt River 

Project Coronado Generating Station (Coranado) 1– 

2 are BART-eligible. See 77 FR 72512. 

February 28, 2011, to meet the 

requirements of Section 308 of the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR). We propose 

to take action on Arizona’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

control analysis and determinations, 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPG) for 

each of the 12 Class I areas, and Longterm Strategy (LTS). We are also 

proposing to take action on the 

requirements that support these major 

components of the plan, namely, the 

identification of Class I Areas impaired 

by Arizona’s emissions, estimated 

visibility conditions, emission 

inventories, and the State’s monitoring 

strategy. Today’s proposal follows our 

recent final action on three BART 

sources in Arizona 2 and completes our 

review of the State’s plan. EPA takes 

very seriously a decision to propose 

disapproval of provisions in Arizona’s 

plan, as we believe that it is preferable 

that all emission control requirements 

needed to protect visibility be 

implemented through the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA must be 

able to find that the state plan is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Further, EPA’s 

oversight role requires that we assure 

fair implementation of CAA 

requirements by states across the 

country, even while acknowledging that 

individual decisions from source to 

source or state to state may not have 

identical outcomes. EPA believes this 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

is consistent with the CAA at this time, 

while full approval of the SIP would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. We look 

forward to working with ADEQ to 

address the issues identified in our 

action. Our proposed actions are 

summarized as follows: 

Supporting Elements: EPA is 

proposing to approve Arizona’s 

identification of Class I areas that may 

experience visibility impairment due to 

emissions from sources within the State; 

Arizona’s estimated visibility conditions 

for baseline, 2018 and 2064; Arizona’s 

uniform rate of progress for each Class 

I area; Arizona’s emission inventories 

for 2002 and 2018; and Arizona’s 

identification of the sources of visibility 

impairment. Because the submittal does 

not include the most recently available 

emission inventory, as required under 

the RHR, we are proposing to 

disapprove the ARHP with respect to 

this requirement. 

BART-Eligible: EPA is proposing to 

approve Arizona’s determination that 

specific units at the following six 

sources are eligible for BART: ASARCO 

Hayden Smelter (Hayden smelter), 

Freeport-McMoRan Inc. Miami Smelter 

(Miami smelter), Chemical Lime (a 

subsidiary of Lhoist) Nelson Plant 

(Nelson Lime Plant) Kilns 1 and 2, 

Arizona Public Service West Phoenix 

Power Plant (West Phoenix Power Plant) 

Combined Cycle Units 1 through 3, 

CalPortland Rillito Cement Plant (Rillito 

Plant) Kiln 4, and Catalyst Pulp Mill in 

Snowflake (Catalyst Paper) Power Boiler 

2.3 We propose to disapprove Arizona’s 

determination that Tucson Electric 

Power Sundt Generating Station (Sundt) 

Unit 4 is not eligible for BART. Finally, 

we propose to approve the State’s 

determination that no other units in the 

State are BART-eligible. In particular, 

we propose to approve the State’s 

finding that Cholla Power Plant Unit 1 

and Sundt Unit I3 are not BARTeligible. 

BART-Exempt: EPA is proposing to 

approve Arizona’s decision to set 0.5 dv 

as the threshold for determining 

whether sources are subject to BART, 

but we are seeking comment on whether 

this threshold is reasonable. We propose 

to approve Arizona’s determination that 

two eligible sources are exempt from 

BART based on this threshold. These 

BART-exempt sources are West Phoenix 

Power Plant and Rillito Plant. We 

propose to disapprove Arizona’s 

determination that Nelson Lime Plant is 

exempt from BART, but we are seeking 

comment on whether this determination 

was reasonable and should be approved. 

BART-Subject: EPA is proposing to 

approve Arizona’s determination that 

three eligible sources are subject to 

BART. These sources are Hayden 

smelter, Miami smelter, and Catalyst 

Paper. 

BART Determination: EPA is 

proposing to approve Arizona’s BART 

determinations for NOX at Hayden 

smelter, and for PM10 at Miami smelter. 

We propose to disapprove Arizona’s 

conclusion that a BART determination 

is not required for PM10 at the Hayden 

smelter and for NOX at the Miami 

smelter. We are proposing alternatively 

to approve or disapprove the State’s 

BART determination for SO2 at the 

Hayden and Miami smelters depending 

on a more detailed BART demonstration 

from the State. We propose not to act on 

the State’s BART determination for 

Catalyst Paper because this facility is no 

longer in operation. Further, we propose 

to disapprove the compliance schedules 

and requirements for equipment 

maintenance and operation related to 

BART controls at the Hayden smelter 

and the Miami smelter because these 

were not included in the State’s SIP 

submittal. 

Reasonable Progress Goals: EPA is 

proposing to disapprove Arizona’s RPGs 

for 2018 on the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) days at all of the 

State’s Class I areas. We propose to find 

that the State has not demonstrated that 

these goals constitute reasonable 

progress by 2018 toward the goal of 

natural conditions by 2064. For both the 

best and worst days, we expect actual 

visibility conditions in 2018 to be better 

than predicted by the State as a result 

of the economic recession and EPArequired controls. 

Long-term Strategy: EPA is proposing 

to approve Arizona’s interstate 

consultation process, the technical basis 

for its apportionment of emission 

reductions, and the identification of all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment. Regarding the seven 

mandatory factors a state must consider 

for the LTS, we propose to find that 

Arizona considered emissions 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities, 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules, smoke management 

techniques, and the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in emissions through 2018. 

However, we propose to find that the 

Arizona SIP does not include all 

measures needed to achieve the State’s 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations with respect to out-of-state 

Class I areas. We also propose to find 

that Arizona did not adequately 

consider emissions limitations and 

schedules of compliance to achieve the 

RPGs or the enforceability of emissions 

limits and control measures. 

B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants 

That Affect Visibility 

When EPA promulgates a new or 

revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), states must submit 

SIP revisions that, among other things, 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

the emission of any air pollutant in 

amounts that will interfere with SIP 

measures required of other states to 

protect visibility. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In 1997, EPA 

promulgated a revised NAAQS for 8- 

hour ozone and a new annual and 24- 

hour NAAQS for particulate matter less 

than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and in 2006, 

EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Each of these actions triggered the 

requirement for states to address the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75707 

4 77 FR 72512. 

5 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

6 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). 

7Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

8 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). 

9 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). 

10EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

interstate transport visibility 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

In 2007 and 2009, Arizona submitted 

SIP revisions for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

respectively, each of which indicated 

that it would be appropriate to assess 

Arizona’s interference with other states’ 

measures to protect visibility in 

conjunction with the state’s regional 

haze SIP. Due to the sequence of 

Arizona’s regional haze submissions, we 

interpret Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 

Transport SIPs to mean that Arizona 

intended its Regional Haze Plan to 

address the interstate visibility 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As explained elsewhere in this notice, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove several 

elements of Arizona’s Regional Haze 

Plan. In a prior final rule, EPA 

disapproved certain aspects of Arizona’s 

BART determinations for three sources.4

Accordingly, Arizona’s SIP lacks 

enforceable emissions limitations for 

certain air pollutants necessary to 

achieve RPGs for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

Arizona. As such, we are proposing to 

find that Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 

Transport SIPs and ARHP do not 

contain adequate provisions to meet the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

nor a demonstration that the existing 

Arizona SIP already includes measures 

sufficient to meet the interstate 

transport visibility requirement. 

III. Regional Haze Program and 

Interstate Transport Background 

A. Description of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities that are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particulates (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon 

(EC), and soil dust), and their precursors 

(e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 

Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5, which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks (NPs) and wilderness 

areas (WAs). The average visual range 5

in many Class I areas (i.e., NPs and 

memorial parks, WAs, and international 

parks meeting certain size criteria) in 

the western United States is 100–150 

kilometers, or about one-half to twothirds of the visual range that would 

exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions.6

B. History of Regional Haze Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 7 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

EPA promulgated regulations on 

December 2, 1980, to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 8 These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. EPA deferred 

action on regional haze that emanates 

from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

As part of the 1990 Amendments to 

the CAA, Congress added section 169B 

to focus attention on regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999.9

The primary regulatory requirements 

that address regional haze are found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 and are 

summarized below. Under 40 CFR 

51.308(b), all states, the District of 

Columbia and the Virgin Islands are 

required to submit an initial SIP 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007.10

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states, or 

the EPA when implementing a FIP, need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the western United 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). The 

annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 3-year average of 

annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations from 

single or multiple community-oriented monitors 

and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was set at 65 mg/ 

m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

population-oriented monitor within an area (62 FR 

38652). 

12The final rule on the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5

published on October 17, 2006 revised the standard 

from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 (71 FR 61144). 

13 70 FR 21147. 

14 Id. 

15EPA previously took final action on SIP 

revisions from Arizona to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but deferred action 

on the fourth requirement regarding visibility. See 

72 FR 42629 at 42632–42633 (July 31, 2007). Also, 

EPA recently finalized action on the first three 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 66398. 16 74 FR 2392, January 15, 2009. 17 2009 Guidance at page 6. 

18 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

19 72 FR 41629, July 31, 2007. In that notice, EPA 

noted that ‘‘the Arizona [2007 Transport SIP] 

concurs with EPA in concluding that is currently 

premature to determine whether or not SIPs for 8- 

States. WRAP member State 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal 

members include Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 

D. Interstate Transport of Pollutants 

EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8- 

hour ozone and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) 11 on July 18, 1997, and revised 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to a more 

protective level 12 on September 21, 

2006. Section 110(a)(1) requires states to 

submit a plan to address certain 

requirements for a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter time as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

lists the elements that such new plan 

submissions must address, as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the 

interstate transport of air pollutants. 

EPA issued on April 25, 2005, a 

‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for 

Interstate Transport for the [1997] 8- 

hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 13 This 

included a finding that Arizona and 

other states had failed to submit SIPs to 

address interstate transport of emissions 

affecting visibility and started a twoyear clock for EPA to promulgate a FIP, 

unless the state made a submission to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approved such 

submission.14

EPA issued guidance on August 15, 

2006, entitled ‘‘Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions 

to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the [1997] 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ (‘‘2006 Guidance’’). 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each 

state to have a SIP that prohibits 

emissions that adversely affect other 

states in the ways contemplated in the 

statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains 

four distinct requirements (or ‘‘prongs’’) 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts that will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with SIP 

measures required of other states to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality; or, (4) interfere with SIP 

measures required of other states to 

protect visibility.15

With respect to the fourth prong 

regarding interference with other states’ 

measures to protect visibility, the 2006 

Guidance recommended that states 

make a submission indicating that it 

was premature, at that time, to 

determine whether there would be any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another state 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ until the 

submission and approval of regional 

haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were 

required to be submitted by December 

17, 2007.16 EPA reiterated this 

connection between the regional haze 

and the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 

24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (‘‘2009 Guidance’’). For 

instance, the 2009 Guidance noted that 

states are obliged to submit SIP 

measures to address regional haze, 

including a long-term strategy to 

address Class I area visibility 

impairment.17 A state’s long-term 

strategy must address how it will ensure 

that the emission control assumptions 

that other states relied on in developing 

their RPGs are met. 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants to protect 

visibility and encourages states to work 

together to develop plans to address 

haze. The regulations explicitly require 

each state to address its ‘‘share’’ of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for neighboring Class I areas. 

Working together through a regional 

planning process, states are required to 

address an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors.18

Given these requirements, we 

anticipated that regional haze SIPs 

would contain measures that would 

achieve these emissions reductions, and 

that these measures would meet the 

visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the west, all states in the 

WRAP region contributed information 

to a Technical Support System (TSS) 

which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each state to the visibility degradation of 

each Class I area. The WRAP states 

consulted in the development of RPGs, 

using the products of this technical 

consultation process to co-develop their 

RPGs for the western Class I areas. The 

modeling done by the WRAP relied on 

assumptions regarding emissions over 

the relevant planning period and 

embedded in these assumptions were 

anticipated emissions reductions in 

each of the states in the WRAP, 

including reductions from installation 

of BART at appropriate sources and 

other measures to be adopted as part of 

the state’s long-term strategy for 

addressing regional haze. The RPGs in 

the draft and final regional haze SIPs 

that have now been prepared by states 

in the west accordingly are based, in 

part, on the emissions reductions from 

nearby states that were agreed on 

through the WRAP process. 

ADEQ submitted on May 24, 2007, its 

‘‘Revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Under Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)—Regional 

Transport’’ (‘‘2007 Transport SIP’’) to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA approved 

this submission with respect to the first 

three transport prongs, but deferred 

action on the fourth prong (i.e. 

interference with SIP measures required 

to protect visibility) until we received 

Arizona’s final Regional Haze SIP.19


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75709 

hour ozone or PM2.5 contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit emissions that interfere with measures in 

other states’ SIPs designed to address regional 

haze.’’ 72 FR 41629 at 41632. 

20 77 FR 66398 (November 5, 2012). 

21 2007 Transport SIP, p. 12, and 2009 Transport 

SIP, Appendix B, p. 11. 

22 Id. 

23Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.301, ‘‘implementation 

plan’’ is defined as ‘‘any State Implementation Plan, 

Federal Implementation Plan, or Tribal 

Implementation Plan.’’ Therefore, although the 

requirements of the RHR are generally described in 

relation to SIPs, they are also relevant where EPA 

is promulgating a regional haze plan. 

24The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

25EPA–454/B–03–005 located at http://www.epa.

gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf. 

26EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaal/tl/memoranda/rh_

tpurhr_gd.pdf. 

ADEQ submitted on October 14, 2009, 

its ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(1) and (2); 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 1997 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS,’’ which addressed the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

in Section 2.4 and Appendix B of the 

submittal (‘‘2009 Transport SIP’’). As 

with the 2007 Transport SIP, EPA acted 

on the first three prongs, but deferred 

action on the fourth prong.20

Both of these submittals refer to EPA’s 

2006 Guidance and state that Arizona 

agrees with the 2006 Guidance 

inasmuch as it would be appropriate to 

assess a state’s interference with other 

states’ measures to protect visibility in 

conjunction with the state’s regional 

haze SIPs.21 For Arizona’s regional haze 

program, the 2007 and 2009 Transport 

SIPs both indicate that Arizona 

submitted a regional haze SIP under 40 

CFR 51.309 in December 2003 for the 

four Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau in Arizona and that the State 

would submit a SIP under 40 CFR 

51.309(g) for the remaining eight Class 

I areas in Arizona.22 As described in 

prior sections of this notice, ADEQ 

ultimately submitted its final regional 

haze SIP on February 28, 2011 under 40 

CFR 51.308. 

We interpret Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 

Transport SIPs to mean that Arizona 

intended its Regional Haze Plan to 

address the interstate visibility 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Accordingly, our evaluation of 

Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 Transport SIPs 

and whether they meet the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility requirements 

relies on our evaluation of Arizona’s 

2011 Regional Haze Plan. Specifically, 

we interpret the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as 

requiring states to include in their SIPs 

either measures to prohibit emissions 

that would interfere with the RPGs 

required to be set to protect visibility in 

Class I areas in other states, or a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

state’s sources and activities will not 

have the prohibited impacts under the 

existing SIP. 

IV. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans 

A. Regional Haze Rule 

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) sets 

out specific requirements for states’ 

initial regional haze implementation 

plans.23 In particular, each state’s plan 

must establish a long-term strategy that 

ensures reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in each Class I area affected by the 

emissions from sources within the state. 

In addition, for each Class I area within 

the state’s boundaries, the plan must 

establish a reasonable progress goal 

(RPG) for the first planning period that 

ends on July 31, 2018. The long-term 

strategy must include enforceable 

emission limits and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPG. Regional 

haze plans must also give specific 

attention to certain stationary sources 

that were in existence on August 7, 

1977, but were not in operation before 

August 7, 1962. These sources, where 

appropriate, are required to install 

BART controls to eliminate or reduce 

visibility impairment. Although such 

BART determinations can be a part of a 

reasonable progress strategy, BART is 

also an independent requirement that 

can be assessed separately from the 

other requirements of the RHR. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction to deciviews using a 

logarithmic function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction because each deciview 

change is an equal incremental change 

in visibility as perceived by the human 

eye. Most people can detect a change in 

visibility at one deciview.24

The deciview is used to express 

reasonable progress goals, define 

visibility conditions, and track changes 

in visibility. To track changes in 

visibility at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area and periodically 

review progress midway through each 

ten-year implementation period. To do 

this, the RHR requires states to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 

percent most impaired (‘‘worst’’) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of their Class I areas. In 

addition, states must develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003,25 hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance’’, and Guidance for Tracking 

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003,26 hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’. 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000–2004. Using monitoring data 

for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress. In general, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

27 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

28The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 29CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The mechanism for ensuring 

continuing progress toward achieving 

the natural visibility goal is the 

submission of a series of regional haze 

SIPs that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each ten-year implementation 

period. The RHR does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural (i.e., 

‘‘background’’) visibility conditions. In 

setting RPGs, states must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the ten-year period 

of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 

4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) or the 

‘‘glide path’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the ten-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress that states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas.27

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 28 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

EPA published the Guidelines for 

BART Determinations under the 

Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 

CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘BART Guidelines’’) on July 6, 2005. 

The Guidelines assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

such ‘‘subject-to-BART’’ source. In 

making BART determinations for fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plants with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts, states must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. States are encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. States must address all 

visibility-impairing pollutants emitted 

by a source in the BART determination 

process. The most significant visibility 

impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX and 

PM. EPA has indicated that states 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether VOC or NH3

compounds impair visibility in Class I 

areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. In setting their exemption 

threshold values, states should consider 

the number of emission sources 

affecting the Class I areas at issue and 

the magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. An exemption threshold set by 

the state should not be higher than 0.5 

deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described in 

the RHR as ‘‘BART-eligible sources,’’ 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance; (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source; (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance assigned to each factor, but 

must consider all five factors and 

provide a reasoned explanation for 

adopting the technology selected as 

BART, based on the five factors. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART, unless the SIP 

includes an alternative program that 

provides greater reasonable progress 

towards improving visibility than BART 

and meets the other requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2). Once a state has made 

its BART determination, the BART 

controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date EPA approves the regional 

haze SIP.29 The Regional Haze SIP must 

also contain a requirement for each 

BART source to maintain the relevant 

control equipment, as well as 

procedures to ensure control equipment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75711 

30 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v). See also CAA section 

302(k) (defining ‘‘emission limitation’’ as ‘‘a 

requirement established by the State or the 

Administrator which limits the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis, including any requirement 

relating to the operation or maintenance of a source 

to assure continuous emission reduction * * *’’) 

(emphasis added). 

31See CAA section 110(a)(2) (requirements for 

SIPs). 

32 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

33 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). 34 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 35 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

is properly operated and maintained.30

In addition to what is required by the 

RHR, general SIP requirements mandate 

that the SIP must also include all 

regulatory requirements related to 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting for the BART emissions 

limitations.31

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10– 

15 year strategy for making reasonable 

progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the 

RHR requires that states include a longterm strategy in their regional haze SIPs. 

The LTS is the compilation of all 

control measures a state will use during 

the implementation period of the 

specific SIP submittal to meet 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures needed to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within and affected by emissions 

from the state.32

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with contributing states to 

develop coordinated emissions 

management strategies.33 In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultation between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues (e.g., where 

two states belong to different RPOs). 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the seven factors 

listed below are taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment (RAVI); (2) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS.34

F. Coordination of Regional Haze and 

RAVI 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the long-term 

strategy for RAVI to require that the 

RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 

review and SIP revision not less 

frequently than every three years until 

the date of submission of the state’s first 

plan addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment, which was due December 

17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 

the state must revise its plan to provide 

for review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing RAVI and regional 

haze, and the state must submit the first 

such coordinated LTS with its first 

regional haze SIP. Future coordinated 

LTSs, and periodic progress reports 

evaluating progress towards RPGs, must 

be submitted consistent with the 

schedule for SIP submission and 

periodic progress reports set forth in 40 

CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), 

respectively. The periodic review of a 

state’s LTS must report on both regional 

haze and RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 

review and use of monitoring data from 

the network. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first regional haze SIP, and 

it must be reviewed every five years. 

The monitoring strategy must also 

provide for additional monitoring sites 

if the IMPROVE network is not 

sufficient to determine whether RPGs 

will be met. The SIP must also provide 

for the following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

H. SIP Revisions and Progress Reports 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

through 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every ten 

years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions 

must meet the core requirements of 

section 51.308(d) with the exception of 

BART. The requirement to evaluate 

sources for BART applies only to the 

first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject 

to BART must continue to comply with 

the BART provisions of section 

51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP 

revisions will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

Each state also is required to submit 

a report to EPA every five years that 

evaluates progress toward achieving the 

RPG for each Class I area within the 

state and outside the state if affected by 

emissions from within the state.35 The 

first progress report is due five years 

from submittal of the initial regional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

36 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

37 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

38 42 U.S.C. 7492(f). 

39 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 51.309(f). 

40 68 FR 33764 (June 5, 2003). 

41National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson (D.D.C. Case 1:11–cv–01548). 42National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson (D.D.C. Case 1:11–cv–01548), 

Memorandum Order and Opinion (May 25, 2012) 

and Minute Order (July 2, 2012). 

43National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson (D.D.C. Case 1:11–cv–01548) Minute Order 

(November 13, 2012). 

44 40 CFR 51.309(a). 

haze SIP revision. At the same time a 5- 

year progress report is submitted, a state 

must determine the adequacy of its 

existing SIP to achieve the established 

goals for visibility improvement.36 The 

RHR contains more detailed 

requirements associated with these parts 

of the Rule. 

I. State Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs.37 States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. 

Furthermore, a state must include in its 

SIP a description of how it addressed 

any comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

J. The Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission and Section 309 

In addition to the general 

requirements of the regional haze 

program, the RHR also includes 40 CFR 

51.309, which contains the strategies 

developed by the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission 

(GCVTC), established under Section 

169B(f) of CAA.38 Certain western States 

and Tribes were eligible to submit 

implementation plans under section 309 

as an alternative method of achieving 

reasonable progress for Class I areas that 

were covered by the GCVTC’s analysis— 

i.e., the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. In order for States and Tribes to 

be able to utilize this section, however, 

the rule provided that EPA must receive 

an ‘‘Annex’’ to the GCVTC’s final 

recommendations. The purpose of the 

Annex was to provide the specific 

provisions needed to translate the 

GCVTC’s general recommendations for 

stationary source SO2 reductions into an 

enforceable regulatory program. The 

rule provided that such an Annex, 

meeting certain requirements, be 

submitted to EPA no later than October 

1, 2000.39 The Annex was submitted in 

2000, and EPA revised 40 CFR 51.309 in 

2003.40

V. Overview of State and EPA Actions 

on Regional Haze 

A. EPA’s Schedule To Act on Arizona’s 

RH SIP 

EPA received a notice of intent to sue 

in January 2011 stating that we had not 

met the statutory deadline for 

promulgating Regional Haze FIPs and/or 

approving Regional Haze SIPs for 

dozens of states, including Arizona. 

This notice was followed by a lawsuit 

filed by several advocacy groups 

(Plaintiffs) in August 2011.41 In order to 

resolve this lawsuit and avoid litigation, 

EPA entered into a Consent Decree with 

the Plaintiffs, which sets deadlines for 

action for all of the states covered by the 

lawsuit, including Arizona. This decree 

was entered and later amended by the 

Federal District Court for the District of 

Columbia over the opposition of 

Arizona.42 Under the terms of the 

Consent Decree, as amended, EPA is 

currently subject to three sets of 

deadlines for taking action on Arizona’s 

Regional Haze SIP as listed in Table 1.43

TABLE 1—CONSENT DECREE DEADLINES FOR EPA TO ACT ON ARIZONA’S RH SIP 

EPA Actions Proposed rule Final rule 

Phase 1: 

BART determinations for Apache, Cholla 

and Coronado.

July 2, 2012 ..................................................... November 15, 2012. 

Phase 2: 

All remaining elements of Arizona’s RH 

SIP.

December 8, 2012 ........................................... July 15, 2013. 

Phase 3: 

FIP for disapproved elements of Arizona’s 

RH SIP (if required).

March 8, 2013 .................................................. October 15, 2013. 

B. Summary of EPA’s Final Rule 

Affecting Three BART Sources 

As indicated in Table 1 above, the 

first phase of EPA’s action on Arizona’s 

Regional Haze SIP addressed three 

BART sources. The final rule for this 

phase (a partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the State’s plan and 

partial FIP) was signed by the 

Administrator on November 15, 2012 

and published in the Federal Register 

on December 5, 2012. We estimate that 

the emission limits on the three sources 

will improve visibility by reducing NOX

emissions by 22,700 tons per year. 

Phase 2 is our action on the remainder 

of the regional haze plan submitted by 

the State. Phase 3 will be a partial FIP 

that will address any portions of the 

State’s plan that are disapproved in 

Phase 2. 

C. History of State Submittals and EPA 

Actions 

Since four of Arizona’s twelve 

mandatory Class I Federal areas are on 

the Colorado Plateau, the State had the 

option of submitting a Regional Haze 

SIP under section 309 of the Regional 

Haze Rule. A SIP that is approved by 

EPA as meeting all of the requirements 

of section 309 is ‘‘deemed to comply 

with the requirements for reasonable 

progress with respect to the 16 Class I 

areas [on the Colorado Plateau] for the 

period from approval of the plan 

through 2018.’’ 44 When these 

regulations were first promulgated, 309 

submissions were due no later than 

December 31, 2003. Accordingly, the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) submitted to EPA on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75713 

45 71 FR 28270 and 72 FR 25973. 

46Center for Energy and Economic Development 

v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Circuit 2005). 

47 71 FR 60612. 

48Letter from Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ, to 

Wayne Nastri, EPA (December 14, 2008). 

49 74 FR 2392. 

50CAA section 110(k)(1)(B). 

51 ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional 

Haze Under Section 308 Of the Federal Regional 

Haze Rule,’’ February 28, 2011. 

52Source ARHP Section 12.4 and Appendix B, 

Section 2. 

53For our detailed review and discussion, please 

see ‘‘Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership in Support of Western Regional Haze 

Plans’’, Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD). 

December 23, 2003, a 309 SIP for 

Arizona’s four Class I Areas on the 

Colorado Plateau. ADEQ submitted a 

revision to its 309 SIP, consisting of 

rules on emissions trading and smoke 

management, and a correction to the 

State’s regional haze statutes, on 

December 31, 2004. EPA approved the 

smoke management rules submitted as 

part of the 2004 revisions,45 but did not 

propose or take final action on any other 

portion of the 309 SIP. 

In response to an adverse court 

decision,46 EPA revised 40 CFR 51.309 

on October 13, 2006, making a number 

of substantive changes and requiring 

states to submit revised 309 SIPs by 

December 17, 2007.47 Subsequently, 

ADEQ sent a letter to EPA dated 

December 14, 2008, acknowledging that 

it had not submitted a SIP revision to 

address the requirements of 309(d)(4) 

related to stationary sources and 309(g), 

which governs reasonable progress 

requirements for Arizona’s eight 

mandatory Class I areas outside of the 

Colorado Plateau.48

EPA made a finding on January 15, 

2009, that 37 states, including Arizona, 

had failed to make all or part of the 

required SIP submissions to address 

regional haze.49 Specifically, EPA found 

that Arizona failed to submit the plan 

elements required by 40 CFR 309(d)(4) 

and (g). EPA sent a letter to ADEQ on 

January 14, 2009, notifying the state of 

this failure to submit a complete SIP. 

ADEQ later decided to submit a SIP 

under section 308, instead of section 

309. 

ADEQ adopted and transmitted its 

Regional Haze SIP under Section 308 of 

the Regional Haze Rule (hereafter the 

Arizona Regional Haze Plan or ARHP) to 

EPA Region 9 in a letter dated February 

28, 2011. The plan was determined 

complete by operation of law on August 

28, 2011.50 The SIP was properly 

noticed by the State and available for 

public comment for 30 days prior to a 

public hearing held in Phoenix, 

Arizona, on December 2, 2010. Arizona 

included in its SIP responses to written 

comments from EPA Region 9, the 

National Park Service, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and other stakeholders 

including regulated industries and 

environmental organizations. The 

Arizona Regional Haze Plan (ARHP) is 

available to review in the docket for this 

proposed rule.51

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of Visibility 

Conditions in Arizona’s Class I Areas 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Arizona has 12 Class I areas as listed 

in Table 2. ADEQ identified eighteen 

other Class I areas located outside the 

State that may be affected by its 

emissions. These other Class I areas are 

in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah as 

listed in Table 3. Each Class I area has 

an associated IMPROVE monitor sited to 

be representative of visibility conditions 

in that area. EPA proposes to find that 

ADEQ has identified all Class I areas 

within and outside the State that are 

potentially affected by its emissions, as 

required pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d). 

TABLE 2—CLASS I AREAS IN ARIZONA

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY ARIZONA

EMISSIONS

Class I area IMPROVE 

monitor code 

1 Chiricahua National Monument.CHIR1 

2 Chiricahua Wilderness ...... CHIR1 

3 Galiuro Wilderness ............ CHIR1 

4 Grand Canyon National 

Park.

GRCA2 

5 Mazatzal Wilderness ......... IKBA1 

6 Pine Mountain Wilderness IKBA1 

7 Mount Baldy Wilderness ... BALD1 

8 Petrified Forest National 

Park.

PEFO1 

9 Saguaro National Park ...... SAGU1, 

SAWE1 

10 Sierra Ancha Wilderness SIAN1 

11 Superstition Wilderness ... TONT1 

12 Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.SYCA1 

TABLE 3—CLASS I AREAS OUTSIDE OF ARIZONA POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY ARIZONA EMISSIONS 52

Class I area State IMPROVE 

monitor code 

Mesa Verde National Park ............................................................................................ Colorado .................................................... MEVE1 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP, La Garita WA, Weminuche WA ........................... Colorado .................................................... WEMI1 

Great Sand Dunes NM .................................................................................................. Colorado .................................................... GRSA1 

Eagles Nest WA, Flat Tops WA, Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA, West Elk WA ........... Colorado .................................................... WHRI1 

Gila Wilderness Area .................................................................................................... New Mexico ............................................... GICL1 

Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................... New Mexico ............................................... BOAP1 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area ............................................................................... New Mexico ............................................... SAPE1 

Bandelier National Monument, Pecos WA .................................................................... New Mexico ............................................... BAND1 

Zion NP ......................................................................................................................... Utah ........................................................... ZION1 

Bryce Canyon NP .......................................................................................................... Utah ........................................................... BRCA1 

Capitol Reef National Park ............................................................................................ Utah ........................................................... CAPI1 

Canyonlands NP, Arches NP ........................................................................................ Utah ........................................................... CANY1 

B. Determination of Visibility 

Conditions and Uniform Rate of 

Progress 

ADEQ developed the visibility 

estimates in the ARHP using models 

and analytical tools provided by the 

WRAP. We have reviewed the models 

and analytical tools used by the WRAP 

and those used by ADEQ in developing 

the ARHP. As explained below, we 

found that the models were used 

appropriately, and monitoring data were 

processed appropriately, consistent with 

EPA guidance in effect at the time of 

their use. The models used by the 

WRAP were state-of-the-science at the 

time the modeling was conducted and 

model performance was adequate for the 

purposes for which they were used.53

Baseline and Natural Visibility 

Conditions: Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

54See Table 5 of this notice for a comparison of 

the visibility levels on the ‘‘best 20 percent of days’’ 

between 2000–2004 and projected 2018 deciview 

values for the same set of days at each Arizona Class 

I area. 

55 ‘‘Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the 

New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates; Final Report by the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup’’, 

presentation at WRAP Attribution of Haze 

Workgroup Meeting, July 26–27, 2006, Denver, CO. 

Web page: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/gray_literature.htm direct 

link: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

56Revised IMPROVE algorithm for Estimating 

Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data, 

IMPROVE, January 2006. Web page http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ 

graylit/gray_literature.htm. 

57Source: Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 11.9, ARHP. 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000–2004. Using monitoring data 

for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. Chapter 

6.2 and Appendix C of the ARHP 

provide the details of the deciview 

calculations of the baseline and natural 

conditions for each Class I area during 

2000–2004. 

For each Class I area, ADEQ 

calculated, in deciviews, the current 

visibility conditions (worst 20 percent 

of days) for the 2000–2004 baseline 

period (Table 4, column A) and the 

future natural conditions for 2064 

(Table 4, column D), the long-term goal 

of the regional haze program. These 

correspond to tables 6.1 and 6.2 in the 

ARHP. ADEQ calculated the dv value 

representing the best visibility days 

during 2000–2004 baseline conditions, a 

value that must be maintained in future 

years.54 Natural conditions were 

calculated using a refined approach, as 

allowed in ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance.’’ As discussed in 

EPA’s WRAP TSD, WRAP and others 

developed the ‘‘Natural Haze Levels II’’ 

approach.55 This used time-varying 

Class I area-specific data and more 

robust statistical assumptions, along 

with the revised IMPROVE equation 56

for translating pollutant concentrations 

into extinction, in order to derive more 

refined visibility estimates that remain 

consistent with the approach in EPA’s 

Guidance. 

TABLE 4—VISIBILITY CALCULATIONS FOR ARIZONA CLASS I AREAS 57

[20 percent worst days in deciviews] 

Class I area Baseline 

2000–2004 

Reasonable 

Progress Goal 

(RPG) 2018 

Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

(URP) 

estimate 

Natural conditions 2064 

Years required 

to reach natural conditions 

at RPG rate of 

improvement 

A B C D E 

Chiricahua NM, Chiricahua WA, Galiuro WA (CHIR1 monitor) ................................................................................... 13.43 13.35 11.98 7.20 1,038 

Grand Canyon NP (GRCA2 monitor) .................................. 11.66 11.14 10.58 7.04 125 

Mazatzal WA, Pine Mountain WA (IKBA1 monitor) ............ 13.35 12.76 11.79 6.68 159 

Mount Baldy WA (BALD1 monitor) ...................................... 11.85 11.52 10.54 6.24 234 

Petrified Forest NP (PEFO1 monitor) .................................. 13.21 12.85 11.64 6.49 258 

Saguaro NP—East Unit (SAGU1 monitor) .......................... 16.22 14.82 12.88 6.46 8,370 

Saguaro NP—West Unit (SAWE1 monitor) ......................... 14.83 15.99 13.90 6.24 624 

Sierra Ancha WA (SIAN1 monitor) ...................................... 13.67 13.17 12.02 6.59 197 

Superstition WA (TONT1 monitor) ....................................... 14.16 13.89 12.38 6.54 401 

Sycamore Canyon WA (SYCA1 monitor) ............................ 15.25 15.00 13.25 6.65 478 

Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate: 

ADEQ calculated the uniform rate of 

progress (URP) estimate for each Class I 

area using the 2000–2004 baseline 

deciview and 2064 programmatic goal 

(natural conditions) deciview values. 

The URP is represented as a straight line 

drawn between a given Class I area’s 

2004 baseline value and 2064 natural 

condition or programmatic goal value. 

This assumes the same increment of 

progress every year for 60 years. Table 

6.3 of the ARHP shows the results of the 

uniform rate of progress calculation. In 

addition, ADEQ also provided uniform 

rates of progress for the extinction due 

to each pollutant contributing to 

visibility impairment. Tables 9.2 

through 9.11 and figures 9.1 through 

9.10 of the ARHP illustrate a uniform 

rate of progress calculation and a 

graphic representation for each Class I 

area, for all the individual pollutants 

(sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, fine soil, coarse mass, 

and sea salt). ADEQ then calculated 

each Class I area’s URP estimate for 

2018, in Table 6.3 of the ARHP. The 

URPs for each Class I area are listed in 

Table 4, column C of this proposal. 

In summary, Arizona has produced 

the following visibility estimates in 

deciviews for each Class I area: Baseline 

visibility conditions; a ten-year 

reasonable progress estimate for 2018; a 

2018 uniform rate of progress estimate 

for comparison purposes; and a 2064 

natural conditions estimate. We propose 

to find that these estimates are 

consistent with the requirements of the 

RHR, particularly those requirements at 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii). Also, we 

propose to find that Arizona has 

produced URP estimates consistent with 

the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). 

Visibility Projections for 2018 and the 

Reasonable Progress Goals: The RHR 

requires states to establish goals, 

expressed in deciviews, for each Class I 

area within the state that provide for 

reasonable progress toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions by 2064. 

The RPGs must improve provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the period of the 

SIP. The RPGs for the ARHP show 

visibility improvement by 2018 for the 

‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’ in all Class 

I areas when compared to the baseline 

‘‘worst’’ days. The State’s RPGs for the 

worst 20 percent of days can be seen in 

Table 4, column B. The RPGs for the 

best 20 percent of days can be seen in 

Table 5. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75715 

58Source: Table 6.3, ARHP. 

59 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). 

60These are particles smaller than 10 microns, 

but larger than 2.5 microns. 

61Arizona Regional Haze Plan, Tables 8.1, 8.2, 8.7 

and 8.8. 

62The ARHP did not report any biogenic NH3. 

TABLE 5—BASELINE AND 2018 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR ARIZONA CLASS I AREAS 58

[Best 20% days in deciviews] 

Class I area 2000–04 Baseline 

2018 Reasonable 

Progress Goal 

(RPG) 

Chiricahua NM, Chiricahua WA, Galiuro WA (CHIR1 monitor) .................................................................. 4.91 4.94 

Grand Canyon NP (GRCA2 monitor) .......................................................................................................... 2.16 2.12 

Mazatzal WA, Pine Mountain WA (IKBA1 monitor) .................................................................................... 5.40 5.17 

Mount Baldy WA (BALD1 monitor) .............................................................................................................. 2.98 2.86 

Petrified Forest NP (PEFO1 monitor) .......................................................................................................... 5.02 4.73 

Saguaro NP—East Unit (SAGU1 monitor) .................................................................................................. 6.94 7.04 

Saguaro NP—West Unit (SAWE1 monitor) ................................................................................................ 8.58 8.34 

Sierra Ancha WA (SIAN1 monitor) .............................................................................................................. 6.16 5.88 

Superstition WA (TONT1 monitor) .............................................................................................................. 6.46 6.22 

Sycamore Canyon WA (SYCA1 monitor) .................................................................................................... 5.58 5.49 

Also, as required by the RHR, Arizona 

estimated the time each Class I area 

would take to reach natural conditions 

under the RPG rate of visibility 

improvement (see Table 4, column E). 

While some of the time estimates are 

close to the 2064 natural conditions 

goal, none of the estimates shows that 

natural conditions will be achieved by 

2064 in Arizona’s Class I areas. EPA’s 

evaluation of these Reasonable Progress 

Goals can be found in Section VIII of 

this document. 

C. Arizona’s Emissions Inventories 

The RHR requires a statewide 

emissions inventory of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I area.59 The ARHP 

provides an emissions inventory for 

2002, representing the mid-point of the 

2000–2004 baseline timeframe. Also, to 

chart progress in each Class I area, the 

ARHP includes estimated emissions for 

2018, the end of the first planning 

period. The emissions inventories 

include estimated annual emissions for 

the following haze producing 

pollutants: NOX, SO2, VOC, PM2.5, 

PMcoarse 60 and NH3. The emissions 

inventories are summarized below in 

ten source categories: Point sources, 

anthropogenic fire, wildfire, biogenic, 

area sources, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile, road dust, fugitive dust and 

windblown dust. See Tables 6A and 6B. 

TABLE 6A—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ARIZONA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND

2018 

[Tons per year] 61

Category 

SO2 [tpy] NOX [tpy] VOC [tpy] NH3 [tpy] 

2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 

Point Sources ................... 94,716 67,429 69,968 68,748 5,464 9,401 531 729 

Anthropogenic Fire ........... 190 181 725 676 855 745 97 73 

Wildfire ............................. 4,369 4,369 16,493 16,494 36,377 36,381 3,781 3,782 

Biogenic 62 ........................ 0 0 27,664 27,664 1,576,698 1,576,698 

Area Source ..................... 2,677 3,408 9,049 12,783 102,918 170,902 32,713 36,248 

On-road Mobile ................ 2,715 762 178,009 53,508 110,424 52,872 5,035 7,606 

Off-road Mobile ................ 4,223 546 66,414 43,249 56,901 36,033 48 64 

Total .......................... 108,890 76,695 368,322 223,122 1,889,637 1,883,032 42,205 48,502 

TABLE 6B—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ARIZONA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND

2018 

[Tons per year] 63

Category 

PM2.5 [tpy] PMcoarse [tpy] 

2002 2018 2002 2018 

Point Sources .................................................................................................................. 934 1,421 8,473 8,650 

Anthropogenic Fire .......................................................................................................... 1,033 927 17 9 

Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 61,225 61,230 10,107 10,108 

Area Source ..................................................................................................................... 9,400 13,727 1,384 1,766 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................................ 3,344 2,318 1,004 1,258 

Off-road Mobile 64 ............................................................................................................ 4,758 3,032 

Road Dust ........................................................................................................................ 3,059 4,371 24,381 34,799 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................................................... 7,589 11,425 54,934 91,967 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75716 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

63ARHP, Tables 8.3—8.6. For the purposes of this 

analysis, primary organic aerosols, elemental 

carbon and fine soil are assumed to be in the PM2.5

partition. These were combined for ease of 

comparison with the IMPROVE monitoring data. 

64The ARHP did not include any PM10 emissions 

directly attributed to off-road vehicles. 

65See ERG Technical Memorandum entitled 

‘‘WRAP PRP18b Emissions Inventory—Revised 

Point and Area Source Projections’’, October 16, 

2009. 

66 77 FR 72512. 

67From ARHP, Tables 8.3–8.8. For the purposes 

of this analysis, primary organic aerosols and 

elemental carbon are treated as PM2.5, but fine soil 

is listed separately. For this table, we have treated 

wildfires, biogenic emissions and windblown dust 

as non-anthropogenic. 

68 77 FR 72512. 

69See EPA document ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for Technical Products Prepared by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership in Support of 

Western Regional Haze Plans’’, Final, February 

2011 (WRAP TSD). 

70 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). 

71 67 FR 39602. 

TABLE 6B—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ARIZONA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND

2018—Continued 

[Tons per year] 63

Category 

PM2.5 [tpy] PMcoarse [tpy] 

2002 2018 2002 2018 

Windblown Dust ............................................................................................................... 6,422 6,422 57,796 57,796 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 97,764 104,873 158,096 206,353 

The 2018 inventory is based on 

assumptions about the rate of 

population and economic growth 

between 2002 and 2018. These 

projections were completed in 2006 and 

2007, before the nationwide recession 

that began in late 2008. The inventory 

was updated in 2009 with more up-todate data on projected emissions from 

electric generating units, but many 

source categories that are sensitive to 

economic growth projections (such as 

area sources, road dust and fugitive 

dust) were not updated.65 A 

reconsideration of the emissions with 

more current economic data may yield 

lower emissions totals for some source 

categories. Nonetheless, the inventory 

was developed with the best available 

information at the time. The 2018 

projected inventory does not reflect 

emissions reductions from BART 

determinations made by EPA.66

Since the purpose of the regional haze 

program is to eliminate human-caused 

visibility impairment at Class I areas, it 

is useful to look at the proportion of the 

total emissions that are anthropogenic. 

It is also useful to consider the projected 

change in emissions during the 

planning period. 

TABLE 7—ASSESSMENT OF THE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 67

Pollutant 

Anthropogenic 

share in 2002 

(percentage) 

Change in total 

emissions 

(2002–2018) 

(percentage) 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................................. 88.0 ¥39.4 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 96.0 ¥29.6 

VOC ............................................................................................................................................................. 14.6 ¥0.3 

NH3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 91.0 14.9 

PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 20.9 ¥0.7 

Fine Soil ....................................................................................................................................................... 59.4 30.1 

PMcoarse ........................................................................................................................................................ 57.0 30.5 

Table 7shows that the majority of 

VOC and PM2.5 emissions in Arizona are 

not from the anthropogenic share, and 

thus most of these emissions are from 

natural or uncontrollable sources. 

Nearly half of the PMcoarse and fine soil 

emissions are similarly from 

uncontrollable sources. NOX, SO2 and 

NH3 are predominantly anthropogenic 

in origin. Table 7 also shows that 

inventory projections indicate 

significant decreases in NOX and SO2

emissions. EPA expects that 2018 

emissions will be even lower than 

projected in the plan due to our FIP 

actions.68 The VOC emissions are 

projected to be relatively flat over time, 

but that is not surprising, given the 

small portion of the inventory that is 

anthropogenic. The projected increase 

in PMcoarse emissions is a potential 

concern. However, EPA concludes that, 

for the reasons explained above, these 

2018 emissions estimates may not be 

reliable. 

The inventories presented in the 

ARHP were developed by the WRAP. 

The EPA reviewed the WRAP 

methodology and assumptions and 

determined that they were based on the 

best available science and information 

at the time they were developed.69

Based on this analysis, EPA proposes to 

find that the 2002 and 2018 inventories 

are adequate for the regional haze plan. 

However, the RHR also requires that 

Arizona to provide the most recent 

inventory available.70 Under the 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 

states are required to compile and 

submit to EPA comprehensive statewide 

emissions inventories every three 

years.71 Under this emissions reporting 

rule, the State was required to develop 

and submit inventories for 2005 and 

2008. Both of these inventories were 

required to have been completed by the 

time the ARHP was submitted in 

February 2011. Yet, the State did not 

submit the most recent inventory with 

the plan. The lack of this inventory does 

not affect our ability to evaluate other 

elements of the plan. Nevertheless, 

given this omission, EPA proposes to 

disapprove this element of the plan. 

However, if the State submits a 

complete 2008 inventory in a format 

consistent and comparable with the 

2002 and 2018 inventories submitted in 

the plan, EPA proposes to approve the 

plan as having met this requirement. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75717 

72Arizona State Implementation Plan: Regional 

Haze Under Section 308 of the Federal Regional 

Haze Rule; January 2011. 

73See EPA Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring 

Data From 2000–2010 (December 6, 2012) in the 

docket for details on the data analysis presented in 

this section. 

74See EPA Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring 

Data From 2000–2010 (December 6, 2012) Table 5 

in the docket, which shows the changes in average 

light extinction for each aerosol component at each 

site between the periods 2000–2004 and 2005–2010. 75Light extinction is the attenuation of light due 

to scattering and absorption as it passes through a 

medium. Reconstructed light extinction (often 

denoted as bext) is expressed in units of inverse 

megameters (1/Mm or Mm¥1). While the haze 

index, expressed in deciviews (dv), is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in improving 

visibility, light extinction is the most useful 

measure for evaluating the relative contributions of 

pollutants to visibility impairment. These metrics 

are related by the equation HI = 10 ln(bext/10); 

where: HI is the Haze Index in dv, ln is the natural 

log, and bext is the reconstructed light extinction in 

Mm¥1. 

76 Data were extracted from the ‘‘IMPROVE 

Aerosol, RHR (New Equation)’’ dataset from the 

portal at the Web site: http://views.cira.colostate.

edu/fed/QueryWizard/Default.aspx. EPA’s 

intermediate data files on IMPROVE Monitoring 

Data Analysis (December 6, 2012) is available in the 

docket to today’s proposed rule. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

Arizona evaluated the contributions 

of different components to visibility 

impairment on the best and worst 20 

percent visibility days in chapter seven 

of the ARHP.72 In addition to the fiveyear average of the baseline period 

(2000–2004), Arizona’s analysis 

included monthly and daily data for 

some sites that illustrate some seasonal 

differences as well as the impact 

observed on organic carbon 

contributions to visibility impairment 

due to nearby wildfires. 

As explained above, Arizona’s 

visibility projections for the worst 20 

percent days in 2018 for all of the 

State’s Class I areas represent a slower 

rate of improvement in visibility than is 

needed to attain natural conditions by 

2064. In order to better understand why 

Arizona’s Class I areas are not expected 

to achieve greater progress during this 

implementation period, EPA conducted 

an additional analysis of IMPROVE 

monitoring data for the days with the 

worst 20 percent visibility impairment, 

from the 2000–2004 baseline period and 

from the more recent 2005–2010 

period.73 This analysis confirmed the 

percent contribution of each component 

of the aerosol for the 2000–2004 

baseline period presented in the ARHP. 

In addition, the analysis of the more 

recent data enabled us to evaluate 

trends in the relative contributions of 

various components over the first 

several years of the implementation 

period. Table 8 shows how much each 

pollutant contributed to light extinction 

at each of Arizona’s Class I areas during 

the period from 2000–2004. In most 

areas, organic carbon, coarse mass and 

ammonium sulfate are the species that 

contribute most significantly to 

visibility impairment. On average, these 

components account for 72.9 percent of 

the light extinction. In isolated cases, 

ammonium nitrate can play a smaller 

but significant role (10.6–14.3 percent) 

in visibility impairment. Elemental 

carbon and fine soil also can have 

significant contributions in some cases, 

but in most of those are correlated with 

organic carbon and coarse mass, 

respectively, and so are assumed to 

come from the same sources. That is, the 

data usually show significant elemental 

carbon in association with organic 

carbon, as one would expect from fires. 

Elevated levels of fine soil are usually 

associated with elevated levels of coarse 

mass, which implies a common source 

of these pollutants as well. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 2005 

through 2010 indicate that the amount 

of light extinction due to aerosol has 

decreased since the baseline period 

overall, and the contribution to total 

light extinction by most pollutants has 

decreased as well.74 Most significantly, 

the contribution from organic carbon 

has decreased by 2.2 inverse 

megameters (Mm¥1) 75 on a statewide 

average. The exception to this pattern is 

a very slight but measurable increase in 

light extinction due to ammonium 

sulfate, which increased by 0.8 Mm¥1

statewide, and by 1.0 to 1.7 mM¥1 at 

certain monitors. The sections below 

outline the species-specific 

contributions to visibility impairment, 

and the recent trends in more detail. 

TABLE 8—PERCENT OF TOTAL AEROSOL LIGHT EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTED BY EACH POLLUTANT

[Worst 20 percent of days, averaged over the baseline period] 76

IMPROVE SITE/Class I area Ammonium 

nitrate 

Ammonium 

sulfate 

Organic 

carbon 

Elemental 

carbon 

Coarse 

mass Fine soil Sea salt 

CHIR1/Chiricahua NM, Chiricahua WA, 

Galiuro WA ........................................... 5.0 26.1 22.9 5.8 30.9 8.9 0.5 

GRCA2/Grand Canyon NP ...................... 11.3 21.5 39.8 9.2 12.6 5.0 0.4 

IKBA1/Mazatzal WA, Pine Mountain WA 14.1 22.1 26.3 8.4 20.6 8.3 0.2 

BALD1/Mount Baldy WA .......................... 4.9 22.0 46.6 10.5 11.3 5.2 0.1 

PEFO1/Petrified Forest NP ...................... 6.6 20.2 34.4 10.3 21.7 6.7 0.1 

SAGU1/Saguaro NP (East) ..................... 14.3 19.8 28.6 8.3 19.0 9.4 0.4 

SAWE1/Saguaro NP (West) .................... 10.6 16.5 19.4 7.2 31.2 14.5 0.7 

SIAN1/Sierra Ancha WA .......................... 9.7 20.1 37.0 8.4 18.0 6.5 0.3 

SYCA1/Sycamore Canyon WA ................ 5.2 13.0 32.5 9.4 22.6 16.9 0.3 

TONT1/Superstition WA .......................... 12.2 21.0 29.8 8.8 21.2 6.7 0.3 

Mean ................................................. 9.4 20.2 31.7 8.6 20.9 8.8 0.3 

1. Chiricahua National Monument, 

Chiricahua Wilderness Area and Galiuro 

Wilderness Area 

Visibility impairment at Chiricahua 

National Monument, and Chiricahua 

and Galiuro Wilderness Areas are 

represented by the conditions at the 

IMPROVE monitor in the Chiricahua 

National Monument (CHIR1). Average 

monitored concentrations over the 

period of 2000–2004 indicate that coarse 

mass, organic carbon and ammonium 

sulfate are the most significant 

contributors to visibility impairment, 

together accounting for 79.9 percent of 

the light extinction. Fine soil is the next 

largest contributor to light extinction 

with 8.9 percent, and is correlated with 

periods of high coarse mass impact. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show measurable decreases in the 

light extinction due to organic carbon 

and coarse mass of over 3 Mm¥1 each. 

There was a slight increase in light 

extinction due to ammonium sulfate 

measured during these years of 1.1 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75718 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

mM¥1, but overall the total light 

extinction has decreased significantly 

between the two periods by 6.7 Mm¥1. 

2. Grand Canyon National Park 

Visibility impairment at Grand 

Canyon National Park is represented by 

the conditions at the IMPROVE monitor 

at Hance Camp (GRCA2). Average 

monitored concentrations over the 

period of 2000–2004 indicate that 39.8 

percent of the light extinction is due to 

organic carbon alone. The next 

significant contributor is ammonium 

sulfate accounting for 22.1 percent of 

the light extinction. Coarse mass and 

fine soils contribute 17.6 percent and 

ammonium nitrate contributes 11 

percent of the light extinction. 

Elemental carbon accounts for 9.2 

percent of light extinction, and is 

correlated with periods of high organic 

carbon impact. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show a slight decrease in the light 

extinction due to organic carbon of 1.1 

Mm¥1. The changes in contribution to 

light extinction from the other aerosol 

components were small or negligible 

between the two periods, with a very 

slight decrease in total aerosol light 

extinction of 0.8 Mm¥1. 

3. Mazatzal Wilderness Area and Pine 

Mountain Wilderness Area 

Visibility impairment at Mazatzal and 

Pine Mountain Wilderness Areas is 

represented by the conditions at the 

IMPROVE monitor at Ike’s Backbone 

(IKBA1). Average monitored 

concentrations over the period of 2001– 

2004 indicate that coarse mass, organic 

carbon and ammonium sulfate are the 

most significant contributors to 

visibility impairment, each contributing 

similarly to 69.0 percent of the light 

extinction. Ammonium nitrate 

contributes 14.1 percent, and fine soil 

and elemental carbon each contribute 

about 8 percent, and are correlated with 

periods of high coarse mass and organic 

carbon impact, respectively. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show a slight decrease in light 

extinction due to ammonium nitrate of 

1.2 Mm¥1 and a slight increase in light 

extinction due to ammonium sulfate of 

1.0 Mm¥1 since the average values of 

the baseline period. 

4. Mount Baldy Wilderness Area 

Visibility impairment at Mount Baldy 

Wilderness Area is represented by the 

conditions at the IMPROVE monitor in 

the wilderness area (BALD1). Similar to 

Grand Canyon National Park, average 

monitored concentrations over the 

period of 2000–2004 in Mount Baldy 

Wilderness indicate that nearly half of 

the light extinction is due to organic 

carbon alone and the next significant 

contributor is ammonium sulfate 

accounting for 22.0 percent of the light 

extinction. Coarse mass and fine soils 

contribute over 16.5 percent of the light 

extinction. Elemental carbon contributes 

10.5 percent to the light extinction and 

is correlated with periods of high 

organic carbon impact. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show a measurable decrease in 

light extinction due to organic carbon of 

2.0 Mm¥1 and a overall decrease in total 

aerosol light extinction of 1.1 Mm¥1

since the average values of the baseline 

period. 

5. Petrified Forest National Park 

Visibility impairment at Petrified 

Forest National Park is represented by 

the conditions at the IMPROVE monitor 

in the National Park (PEFO1). Average 

monitored concentrations over the 

period of 2000–2004 indicate that 

organic carbon, coarse mass, and 

ammonium sulfate are the most 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment, together accounting for 

76.3 percent of the light extinction. 

Elemental carbon is the next largest 

contributor to light extinction at 10.3 

percent, and is correlated with periods 

of high organic carbon impact. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show that light extinction due to 

organic carbon and coarse mass 

decreased by 2.6 and 1.2 Mm¥1, 

respectively since the baseline period. 

Total aerosol light extinction decreased 

by 3.0 Mm¥1 since the average values 

of the baseline period. 

6. Saguaro National Park (East Unit and 

West Unit) 

There are IMPROVE monitors in both 

the East and West Units of Saguaro 

National Park that represent the 

visibility impairment throughout the 

National Park (SAGU1 and SAWE1). 

Average monitored concentrations over 

the period of 2002–2004 indicate that 

organic carbon, coarse mass, and 

ammonium sulfate are the most 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment, together accounting for 

67.0 to 67.5 percent of the light 

extinction. Ammonium nitrate 

contributes 10.6 to 14.3 percent and fine 

soil, correlated with coarse mass, 

contributes 9 to 15 percent. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show that light extinction due to 

organic carbon decreased since the 

baseline period by 5.5 and 2.9 Mm¥1, at 

SAGU1 and SAWE1, respectively. Also, 

SAGU1 measured a decrease in 

contribution from ammonium nitrate of 

2.2 Mm¥1 and SAWE1 measured a 

decrease in contribution of coarse mass 

and fine soil together of 5.7 Mm¥1. 

These monitors indicate that the total 

aerosol light extinction has improved at 

these two areas more than at any area in 

Arizona, with decreases of 8.2 and 9.8 

Mm¥1 at the East and West Units, 

respectively. 

7. Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area 

Visibility impairment at Sierra Ancha 

Wilderness Area is represented by the 

conditions at the IMPROVE monitor in 

the Wilderness Area (SIAN1). Average 

monitored concentrations over the 

period 2001–2004 indicate that 37.0 

percent of the light extinction is due to 

organic carbon. Coarse mass and fine 

soil together account for almost 24.4 

percent and ammonium sulfate accounts 

for 20.1 percent of the light extinction. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show that light extinction due to 

ammonium nitrate and coarse mass 

decreased by 1.3 and 1.5 Mm¥1, 

respectively since the baseline period. 

Slight increases in the contribution from 

ammonium sulfate, as well as from 

organic and elemental carbon lead to a 

total aerosol light extinction that is 

decreased only slightly, by 1.3 Mm¥1, 

since the average values of the baseline 

period. 

8. Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area 

Visibility impairment in the Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness Area is represented 

by the conditions at the IMPROVE 

monitor in the Wilderness Area 

(SYCA1). Average monitored 

concentrations over the period 2001– 

2004 indicate that 32.5 percent of the 

light extinction is due to organic carbon. 

Other significant contributors are coarse 

mass (22.6 percent), fine soil (16.9 

percent), and ammonium sulfate (13.0 

percent). Fine soil is often correlated 

with coarse mass, but there are also 

times when the two are not correlated. 

For example, July 13 and November 22, 

2002 have high concentrations of fine 

soil but not coarse mass. Elemental 

carbon contributes 9.4 percent to the 

light extinction and is correlated with 

periods of high organic carbon impact. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show that light extinction due 

organic carbon and fine soil decreased 

by 1.3 and 1.2 Mm¥1, respectively since 

the baseline period. The contribution 

from coarse mass increased between the 

two time periods by 1.4 Mm¥1. Total 

aerosol light extinction decreased only 

slightly, by 0.8 Mm¥1, since the 

baseline period. 

9. Superstition Wilderness Area 

Visibility impairment in the 

Superstition Wilderness Area is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75719 

77As identified in Table 1 of ‘‘Summary of WRAP 

RMC BART Modeling for Arizona’’ Draft No. 5, May 

7, 2005. Initial draft released on April 4, 2005. 

78Arizona Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D 

(Technical Support Document), page 13. 

79See proposal at 77 FR 42834 and final action 

at 77 FR 72512. 

represented by the conditions at the 

IMPROVE monitor in the Tonto 

National Monument (TONT1). Average 

monitored concentrations between 2001 

and 2004 indicate that 30 percent of the 

light extinction is due to organic carbon. 

Coarse mass and fine soil together 

account for 27.9 percent and ammonium 

sulfate accounts for 21.0 percent of the 

light extinction. Finally, ammonium 

nitrate contributes 12.2 percent of the 

light extinction. 

IMPROVE data averaged over 2005– 

2010 show that light extinction due 

organic carbon and ammonium nitrate 

decreased by 4.1 and 1.0 Mm¥1, 

respectively since the baseline period. 

This site exhibited the largest increase 

in light extinction from ammonium 

sulfate in Arizona: 1.7 Mm¥1. However, 

total aerosol light extinction still 

decreased by 3.4 Mm¥1, since the 

baseline period. 

VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s 

BART Analyses and Determinations 

A. Arizona’s Identification of BART 

Sources 

Pursuant to Section 169A of the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.308(e), states are 

required to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

The best available retrofit technology 

(BART) process, as set forth in the RHR 

and the final BART Guidelines, consists 

of three steps. First, states identify those 

stationary sources that are eligible for 

BART using criteria set forth in the 

RHR, such as industrial source category, 

dates of initial construction and 

operation, and potential to emit. For 

those sources that are considered BARTeligible, states then determine if they 

‘‘cause or contribute’’ to visibility 

impairment at a Class I area through the 

use of visibility modeling. For those 

sources that cause or contribute to Class 

I visibility impairment, states must then 

perform a case-by-case determination of 

what retrofit control measures are 

appropriate as BART. This 

determination is performed on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis for each 

visibility affecting pollutant. 

1. Arizona’s Identification of Sources 

Potentially Eligible for BART 

The first step of the BART process is 

to identify all of the BART-eligible 

sources within the jurisdiction of the 

State and using the following criteria: 

(1) One or more emission units at the 

facility are classified in one of the 26 

industrial source categories listed in 

CAA section 169A(g)(7); (2) the 

emission unit(s) did not operate before 

August 7, 1962, but was in existence on 

August 7, 1977; and (3) the total 

potential to emit of any visibility 

impairing pollutant from the eligible 

emission units at a single source is 

greater or equal to 250 tons per year. 

Using these criteria, the Stationary 

Sources Joint Forum (SSJF) of the 

WRAP identified units at several 

facilities under the jurisdiction of state 

and local agencies in Arizona that were 

considered potentially BART-eligible. 

Using this information, ADEQ 

developed an initial list of fourteen 

facilities that it identified as 

‘‘potentially subject-to-BART.’’ 77 Based 

on CALPUFF modeling performed by 

WRAP, ADEQ refined this initial list to 

include only those facilities considered 

to contribute to impairment of visibility 

in a Class I area within 300 kilometers.78

These facilities are listed in Table 9 

below. 

TABLE 9—POTENTIALLY BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN ARIZONA

Facility name Source category 

Number of 

BART-eligible 

units 

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Sundt Generating Station ......... Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input.1 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station.................................................................................................... 3 

Arizona Public Service (APS) Cholla Power Plant ................... ................................................................................................... 3 

Salt River Project (SRP) Coronado Generating Station .......... ................................................................................................... 2 

APS West Phoenix Power Plant .............................................. ................................................................................................... 3 

CalPortland Rillito Cement Plant .............................................. Portland cement plant .............................................................. 1 

Chemical Lime Nelson Plant .................................................... Lime Plant ................................................................................ 2 

Catalyst Paper Snowflake Mill .................................................. Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal 

units per hour heat input.

1 

ASARCO Hayden Smelter ........................................................ Primary Copper Smelter .......................................................... 10 

Freeport McMoRan (FMMI, formerly Phelps-Dodge) Miami 

Smelter.

................................................................................................... 9 

Please note that we have addressed 

ADEQ’s BART determinations for 

Apache Units 1–3, Cholla Units 2–4 and 

Coronado Units 1 and 2 in a separate 

action.79 As a result, the BART 

determinations for these three facilities 

are not discussed in today’s proposal. 

2. Arizona’s Determination of Sources 

Not BART-Eligible 

ADEQ contacted the potentially 

BART-eligible facilities identified by 

SSJF in order to inform them of their 

status and to obtain confirmation or, 

where necessary, more information. 

ADEQ received responses and 

additional information from multiple 

facilities, and subsequently revised this 

initial list of BART-eligible sources. 

These revisions primarily affected the 

BART-eligibility status of two facilities 

as described below. 

Hayden Smelter: ADEQ sent a letter to 

ASARCO on June 13, 2007 indicating 

that 10 units at the Hayden smelter, 

including five converters and three 

anode furnaces, were BART-eligible for 

SO2 and PM10 emissions. In response, 

ASARCO provided a letter to ADEQ on 

October 1, 2007, in which it stated that 

only three converters and two anode 

furnaces were BART-eligible based on 

operation dates prior to 1962 in the case 

of two converters, and a construction 

(‘‘in existence’’) date of 2001 in the case 

of one of the anode furnaces. In 

addition, ASARCO stated that ADEQ’s 

estimate of its potential to emit (PTE) 

was overestimated, as it was based on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75720 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

80Arizona Regional Haze SIP, page 150. 81Letter from Cosimo DeMasi, TEP, to Nancy 

Wrona, ADEQ (January 2, 2007), Attachment A 

(June 29, 1962). 82 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section II.A.2. 

(‘‘What is a ‘reconstructed source?’’). 

83Alternatively, a state may make BART 

determinations for all of its BART-eligible sources, 

if those sources collectively cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at one or more Class I areas. 

40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III. 

84 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1. 

85 Id. 

86 70 FR 39162. 

facility-wide PTE estimates which 

included the PTE of non BART-eligible 

sources. In its letter, ASARCO provided 

information re-apportioning the fraction 

of the facility-wide PTE attributable to 

the BART-eligible sources. 

ADEQ performed its own research of 

historical smelter logs and agreed with 

ASARCO’s assertion that only three 

converters and two anode furnaces are 

BART-eligible. It took no action 

regarding ASARCO’s PTE 

apportionment information, citing a lack 

of documentation. However, as part of 

the Title V permit renewal process, 

ADEQ subsequently revised its estimate 

of facility-wide PM10 PTE downward. 

ADEQ concluded that the BART-eligible 

units do not have a PM10 PTE greater 

than 250 tpy, and determined that the 

units at the Hayden smelter are not 

BART eligible for PM10.80 This did not 

alter ADEQ’s determination that the 

Hayden smelter was subject to BART for 

SO2. 

Sundt Generating Station: ADEQ 

identified Units 3 and 4 at Sundt as 

potentially BART-eligible units. On 

January 2, 2007, Tucson Electric Power 

(TEP) provided a letter to ADEQ 

indicating that Unit I3 was not a BARTeligible unit because it commenced 

commercial operation on June 26, 1962, 

which is prior to the August 7, 1962 ‘‘in 

operation’’ date.81 In addition, TEP 

provided information indicating that 

Unit I4 was reconstructed in 1987 as 

part of a coal conversion project. Under 

the BART Guidelines, reconstructed 

sources are generally considered new 

sources at the time of reconstruction.82

However, although Unit I4 was 

reconstructed in 1987, the 

reconstruction was undertaken as the 

result of an order issued pursuant to 

Section 301(c) of the Power Plant and 

Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 and, 

under Arizona’s PSD rule (AAC R9–3– 

304), a project undertaken pursuant to 

such an order did not constitute a major 

modification at the time that 

reconstruction occurred. As a result, the 

reconstruction of Unit I4 did not 

undergo PSD review. TEP indicated that 

it considers PSD to be immaterial to 

BART eligibility, stating that the RHR 

does not require PSD review as a 

condition of being considered 

reconstructed. 

ADEQ agreed with the documentation 

TEP supplied indicating that Unit I3 

began operation prior to August 7, 1962, 

and is therefore not BART-eligible. 

ADEQ also concurred with TEP’s 

position that Unit I4 is not a BARTeligible source, stating that based on a 

plain reading of EPA’s guidance 

regarding the issue of reconstruction, it 

considered it appropriate to treat 

reconstructed sources as new sources at 

the time of reconstruction. As a result, 

ADEQ concurred that the reconstructed 

Unit I4 at Sundt was not ‘‘in existence’’ 

prior to August 7, 1977. 

3. Arizona’s Identification of Sources 

Exempt From BART 

The second step of the BART process 

is to determine which BART-eligible 

facilities may be exempted from further 

review because they are not reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I 

areas.83 ADEQ initially relied upon 

visibility modeling performed by the 

WRAP’s Regional Modeling Center 

(RMC) in order to assess the potential of 

BART-eligible sources to cause or 

contribute to Class I visibility 

impairment. ADEQ also provided each 

of the BART-eligible sources the 

opportunity to demonstrate, through the 

use of visibility modeling, that it does 

not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas. 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that a state must establish a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ 84 The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source contributes to visibility 

impairment may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ 85 Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. For 

determining whether a source is subject 

to BART, ADEQ used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 dv, based on a 3-year 

average of 98th percentile impacts. 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may choose to use the CALPUFF 

modeling system or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and determine whether an individual 

source is anticipated to cause or 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas (i.e., visibility impacts 

below the 0.5 dv threshold). The 

Guidelines state that we believe 

CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment.86

The WRAP Regional Modeling Center 

(RMC) developed a modeling protocol, 

entitled ‘‘CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol 

for BART Exemption Screening 

Analysis for Class I Areas in the 

Western United States.’’ The WRAP 

RMC used this protocol to perform 

CALPUFF modeling for each of the 

western states in which it assessed the 

visibility impact of each of the sources 

initially identified as BART-eligible by 

the SSJF. Certain sources that were 

identified as causing or contributing to 

Class I visibility impairment (and 

therefore subject to BART) based on 

WRAP RMC results performed their 

own CALPUFF modeling in order to 

provide results indicating they were not 

subject to BART. This modeling was 

performed in accordance with the 

WRAP protocol and primarily consisted 

of different estimates of source emission 

rates during the baseline period. 

Based on CALPUFF modeling 

performed in accordance with the 

WRAP protocol, ADEQ determined that 

the facilities in Table 10 had visibility 

impacts below the contribution 

threshold of 0.5 dv, and were therefore 

exempt from BART. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75721 

87Page 23 of 115, Arizona RH SIP, Appendix D. 

See Docket Item B–01. 

88 40 CFR 51.301. 

89 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). 

90 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(C). 

91Per Table 6.5, Arizona RH SIP, Appendix D. 

See Docket Item B–01. 

TABLE 10—SOURCES EXEMPT FROM BART (ADEQ) 

Facility Class I area with highest impact 

Visibility impact at 98th percentile (dv) 

Notes 

2001 2002 2003 Average 

Nelson Lime Plant ..................................... Grand Canyon National Park .................... 0 .452 0 .419 0 .624 0 .498 1 

West Phoenix Power Plant ........................ Superstition Wilderness ............................. 0 .28 0 .21 0 .23 0 .24 2 

Rillito Cement Plant ................................... Saguaro National Monument .................... 0 .37 0 .48 0 .34 0 .40 3 

1Based on September 21, 2007 modeling report provided by Chemical Lime. 

2Based on October 4, 2007 modeling report provided by Arizona Public Service. 

3Based on May 25, 2007 WRAP RMC BART Modeling Results for Arizona. 

Based upon CALPUFF modeling 

performed by WRAP, the remaining 

BART-eligible sources from Table 9 

were determined to have visibility 

impacts greater than 0.5 dv. 

4. Sources Subject to BART in Arizona 

Following the elimination of those 

sources that it determined were not 

BART-eligible or that it found to have 

visibility impacts below the 0.5 dv 

contribution threshold, ADEQ 

determined that the remaining BARTeligible sources were subject to BART 

for the one or more pollutants. These 

sources are summarized in Table 11. 

TABLE 11—SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART (ADEQ) 

Facility BART emission units Source category Pollutants 

evaluated 

Catalyst Paper ...................... Power Boiler 2 .................................................... Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input.NOX, SO2. 

Hayden Smelter .................... Anode Furnaces 1 and 2, Converters 1, 2, and 

4.

Primary Copper Smelter ..................................... SO2. 

Miami Smelter ....................... Converters 1–5, Anode Furnace, Shaft Furnace, Fugitives.............................................................................. SO2, PM10. 

A summary of the BART-eligible 

sources ADEQ determined not subject to 

BART is in Table 12 below. 

TABLE 12—SOURCES NOT SUBJECT TO BART (ADEQ) 

Facility name Source category Reason 

Sundt ................................................ Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 

250 million British thermal units per hour heat 

input.

Unit 3 commenced operation prior to August 7, 

1962 

Unit 4 reconstructed after August 7, 1977. 

West Phoenix Power Plant ............... ................................................................................... Exempt (visibility impact <0.5 dv). 

Rillito Cement Plant .......................... Portland cement plant ............................................... Exempt (visibility impact <0.5 dv). 

Nelson Lime Plant ............................ Lime Plant ................................................................. Exempt (visibility impact <0.5 dv). 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of ADEQ’s Subjectto-BART Analysis 

Hayden Smelter: We propose to 

approve ADEQ’s determination that the 

Hayden smelter is a BART-eligible 

source and that a BART determination 

is required for SO2, but is not required 

for NOX. We propose to disapprove 

ADEQ’s determination that a BART 

determination is not required for PM10. 

In its SIP submittal, ADEQ determined 

that a BART determination for PM10 was 

not required because the facility’s 

potential to emit PM10 is less than 250 

tons per year.87 This is inconsistent 

with the Regional Haze Rule. As defined 

in the Regional Haze Rule, a BARTeligible facility is one that, among other 

criteria, ‘‘has the potential to emit 250 

tons per year or more of any air 

pollutant.’’ 88 Once a facility has been 

determined to be BART-eligible, BART 

must then be determined for all 

visibility-impairing pollutants.89

However, a state is not required to make 

a BART determination for SO2 or for 

NOX if a BART eligible source has the 

potential to emit less than 40 tons per 

year of such pollutant(s), or for PM10 if 

a BART-eligible source has the potential 

to emit less than 15 tons per year of 

such pollutant.90 For Hayden, the 

potential to emit PM10 of the BARTeligible sources is 70 tpy.91 While we do 

not necessarily agree that this figure 

encompasses the full potential to emit of 

all BART-eligible units at Hayden, even 

ADEQ’s estimate of 70 tpy exceeds the 

PM10 exception threshold of 15 tpy. As 

a result, we propose to find that a BART 

determination for PM10 is required. We 

intend to propose BART requirements 

for PM10 at Hayden as part of our Phase 

3 proposal. At minimum, we expect that 

BART would require compliance with 

the NESHAP MACT Subpart QQQ 

control requirements and emission 

limits. 

Miami Smelter: We propose to 

approve ADEQ’s determination that the 

Miami smelter is a BART-eligible 

source, and that a BART determination 

is required for SO2 and PM10. We 

propose to disapprove ADEQ’s 

determination that a BART 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75722 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

92As described in ‘‘Summary of WRAP RMC 

BART Modeling for Arizona’’, Draft#5, May 25, 

2007. 

93 40 CFR 51.301. 

94 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, § II.A.2, ‘‘What 

does ‘in existence on August 7, 1977’ mean?’’ 

95 70 FR at 39111. 

96 70 FR at 39111 (July 6, 2005) (emphasis added). 

97See ‘‘TEP Sundt Unit I4 BART Eligibility 

Memo’’ (November 21, 2012) for a more detailed 

discussion of the BART eligibility of Unit I4. 

98BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 

section III.A.1. 

99 Id. 

100From visibility modeling performed by the 

source, see ARHP Appendix D, Table 6.9. 

101See ‘‘Summary of WRAP RMC BART 

Modeling for Arizona’’ Draft No. 5, May 7, 2005. 

Initial draft released on April 4, 2005. 

102Specifically, the FLM’s threshold for concern 

is a 5% change in light extinction, which is 

equivalent to 0.5 dv. 

103Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related 

Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report— 

Revised (2010) (FLAG 2010), Page 23. 

determination is not required for NOX. 

In its SIP submittal, ADEQ did not 

address NOX emissions from the Miami 

smelter. As part of the visibility 

modeling performed for the Miami 

smelter, WRAP identified an annual 

NOX emission rate of 158 tpy for the 

units constituting the BART-eligible 

source.92 This exceeds the NOX

exception threshold of 40 tpy. As a 

result, a BART determination for NOX is 

required. 

Sundt: We propose to approve 

ADEQ’s determination that Sundt Unit 

I3 is not BART-eligible based on the 

startup date prior to August 7, 1962. We 

propose to disapprove ADEQ’s 

determination that Sundt Unit I4 is not 

BART-eligible. Although we accept that 

the unit was reconstructed in 1987, we 

have determined that because the unit 

did not undergo PSD review as part of 

reconstruction that it is subject to 

BART. 

Under the RHR, ‘‘BART-eligible 

source’’ means any stationary source of 

air pollutants in one the 26 BART 

categories, ‘‘including any reconstructed 

source, which was not in operation 

prior to August 7, 1962, and was in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and has 

the potential to emit 250 tons per year 

or more of any air pollutant. * * *’’ 93

As ADEQ noted in its RH SIP, the BART 

Guidelines state: 

The ‘‘in operation’’ and ‘‘in existence’’ tests 

apply to reconstructed sources. If an 

emissions unit was reconstructed and began 

actual operation before August 7, 1962, it is 

not BART-eligible. Similarly, any emissions 

unit for which a reconstruction 

‘‘commenced’’ after August 7, 1977, is not 

BART-eligible.94

However, as explained in the 

preamble to the Guidelines, Congress 

intended ‘‘that the BART provision 

apply to sources which had been 

‘grandfathered’ from the new source 

review permit requirements in parts C 

and D of title I of the CAA.’’ 95

Consistent with this approach, footnote 

9 of the preamble to the BART 

Guidelines notes that, ‘‘sources 

reconstructed after 1977, which 

reconstruction had gone through NSR/ 

PSD permitting, are not BARTeligible.’’ 96 By implication, 

reconstructed sources that did not go 

through NSR/PSD permitting, are 

BART-eligible. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that, even accepting ADEQ’s 

determination that TEP Sundt Unit I4 

was ‘‘reconstructed’’ after August 7, 

1977, the Unit remains BART-eligible 

because it did not go through NSR/PSD 

permitting.97

Threshold for Subject-to-BART: 

Arizona set a 0.5 dv as the threshold for 

determining whether a source 

‘‘contributes’’ to visibility impairment. 

The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[as] a 

general matter, any threshold that you 

use for determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.98 In setting a threshold, 

states should consider the number of 

BART-eligible sources within the state 

and the magnitude of each source’s 

impacts.99 Arizona did not provide a 

rationale for choosing 0.5 dv as the 

threshold for determining BART 

eligibility. We note that the WRAP’s 

SSJF identified fourteen sources that it 

initially considered BART eligible, and 

that ADEQ determined that seven of 

these fourteen do not contribute to 

visibility impairment based on visibility 

impacts below 0.5 dv. The source with 

a modeled impact closest to the 0.5 dv 

threshold is the Chemical Nelson Lime 

Plant facility with a modeled average 

98th high impact of 0.498 dv at Grand 

Canyon NP.100 As we discuss below, 

this is very close to the 0.5 dv threshold 

and, depending on how that threshold 

is interpreted, may exceed it. The source 

with the next highest impact is Rillito 

Cement Plant with a modeled maximum 

impact of 0.40 dv at Saguaro NP.101 The 

source with the next highest impact is 

Salt River Project San Tan with a 

modeled maximum impact of 0.31 dv at 

Superstition WA. Given that reducing 

the threshold to 0.3 dv would not result 

in bringing into BART a significant 

number of sources impacting the same 

Class I area, the use of the 0.5 dv 

threshold may be appropriate. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 

Arizona’s decision to set 0.5 dv as the 

threshold for determining whether 

sources are subject-to-BART. However, 

given that the modeled average 98th 

high impact of one BART-eligible 

source, the Nelson Lime Plant, is within 

0.002 dv of 0.5 dv, EPA is also seeking 

comment on whether it was 

unreasonable for ADEQ to set a 

threshold of 0.5 dv. If, after taking into 

consideration any comments received, 

we determine that the State’s 

determination was unreasonable, then 

we may disapprove the State’s decision 

to set a threshold of 0.5 dv. 

West Phoenix Power Plant: As seen in 

Table 10, the visibility modeling 

performed by APS indicates that the 

98th percentile impact from the West 

Phoenix Power Plant is below 0.5 dv at 

the most affected Class I area. Based on 

our review of the visibility modeling 

performed by APS, we propose to 

approve ADEQ’s determination that the 

West Phoenix Power Plant is exempt 

from BART. 

Rillito Cement Plant: As seen in Table 

10, the visibility modeling performed by 

CalPortland indicates that the 98th 

percentile impact from the Kiln 4 at the 

Rillito Cement Plant is below 0.5 dv at 

the most affected Class I area. Based on 

our review of the visibility modeling, 

we propose to approve ADEQ’s 

determination that the Rillito Cement 

Plant is exempt from BART. 

Nelson Lime Plant: As seen in Table 

10, the visibility modeling performed by 

Chemical Lime indicates that the 

average 98th percentile impact from the 

Nelson Lime Plant is below 0.5 dv at the 

most affected Class I area. However the 

98th percentile impact for a single year, 

2003, exceeds 0.5 dv. ADEQ based its 

BART-exemption determination on the 

3-year average of 98th percentile impact. 

When the 2003 value is averaged with 

the 2001 and 2002 values, the facility’s 

visibility impact is below the exemption 

threshold of 0.5 dv. This interpretation 

of the 0.5 dv threshold differs from the 

interpretation used in a similar type of 

analysis, namely the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I 

visibility analysis. For example, the 

CALPUFF model is often used for 

certain aspects of the PSD Class I 

visibility analysis, and the Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs), who have the 

affirmative responsibility to protect 

visibility at Class I areas, also use 0.5 dv 

as a threshold.102 Guidance issued by 

the FLMs indicates that they interpret 

this threshold to be exceeded if the 98th 

percentile values for change in light 

extinction are equal to or greater than 

0.5 dv for any year.103 Typically, the 

PSD-style method has been used to 

determine if a source exceeds the BART 

threshold. However, the BART 

Guidelines and the preamble to the 

Regional Haze Rule do not specify the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75723 

104 ‘‘Supporting Documentation on Emissions 

Unit Bart Eligibility Analysis’’, section 5.1.2. 105Arizona Regional Haze SIP at page 155. 106 Id. 107 Id. 108Email from Sue Kidd, APS, to Colleen 

McKaughan, EPA (October 10, 2012, 9:17 a.m.) and 

attachments. 

109 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, § IV.D. 

110Step 4 includes evaluating the cost of 

compliance, energy impacts, non-air quality 

environmental impacts, and remaining useful life. 

111We note that, while ADEQ refers to its Step 

5 as an evaluation of energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts, this step also includes 

consideration of the costs of compliance and the 

remaining useful life of the source, consistent with 

the BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 

section IV.D.4. 

112 77 FR 42841. 

interpretation of this threshold to the 

same level of detail as the FLM’s 

guidance for the PSD program, nor do 

they specify a rounding convention 

under these circumstances. Nonetheless, 

in this instance, given that the 98th 

percentile impact for a single year 

clearly exceeds 0.5 dv and that the 

average of the three years is within 

0.002 dv of 0.5 dv, EPA proposes to 

determine that it was not reasonable for 

the State to find the Nelson Lime Plant 

is not subject to BART. Therefore, we 

propose to disapprove the State’s 

determination and find that Nelson 

Lime Plant is subject to BART. 

However, we are seeking comment on 

whether the State’s decision was, in 

fact, reasonable and should be 

approved. If, based on comments 

received, we determine that the State’s 

determination was reasonable, then we 

may approve the State’s decision to find 

this source not subject-to-BART. In 

addition, EPA also seeks comments on 

whether there are cost effective 

pollution controls at Nelson Lime Plant. 

Cholla Unit 1: As discussed 

previously, we have addressed the 

BART determinations for Cholla Units 

2, 3, and 4 in a separate action. For Unit 

1, ADEQ determined it is not BARTeligible because it was in existence prior 

to August 7, 1962. The WRAP’s 

‘‘Arizona BART Eligibility TSD’’ further 

explains that: 

[Cholla] Unit 1 is listed as potentially date 

eligible as information shows that the 

emissions unit was in service only 2 months 

prior to the cut-off date. Recommend 

requesting additional supporting 

documentation for final determination.104

ADEQ requested and later received 

this additional documentation from APS 

in August 2007 in the form of a 

document dated May 23, 1962 entitled 

‘‘Operating Notes For May 1962.’’ 105

This document indicates that, ‘‘[o]n 

Tuesday, May 1, 1962, unit [#1 was] 

placed into commercial operation.’’ 106

After reviewing this documentation, 

ADEQ concurred that Unit 1 was not 

BART eligible.107 We have requested 

and received from APS a copy of the 

‘‘Operating Notes For May 1962’’ along 

with additional information concerning 

the operation of Cholla Unit 1.108 We 

have placed these materials in the 

docket and, based on our review, we 

consider this documentation to be 

sufficient to confirm ADEQ’s 

determination that this unit is not 

BART-eligible. As a result, we propose 

to approve ADEQ’s determination that 

Cholla Unit 1 is not among the units 

that constitute the BART-eligible source 

at Cholla. 

C. Arizona’s BART Control Analysis 

The third step of the BART process is 

to perform the BART analysis and make 

a final determination. The BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39164) describe a 

step-by-step procedure for performing 

the BART analysis. In performing this 

analysis, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) 

requires that states consider the 

following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance of each technically feasible 

control technology, (2) the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance of the control 

technologies, (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source, 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. These 

factors are frequently referred to as the 

‘‘five-factor analysis’’ for the RHR BART 

determination. 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

that a BART analysis include the 

following five steps. The Guidelines 

provide detailed instructions on how to 

perform each of these steps.109

• Step 1—Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies, 

• Step 2—Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options, 

• Step 3—Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies, 

• Step 4—Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results,110 and 

• Step 5—Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

ADEQ’s BART analyses mostly 

followed this approach, with the 

addition of a step to identify existing 

control technologies and a step 

concluding ‘‘selection of BART.’’ ADEQ 

identified a seven step process in its SIP 

submittal for determining BART: 

• Step 1: Identify the Existing Control 

Technologies in Use at the Source 

• Step 2: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Options 

• Step 3: Eliminate All Technically 

Infeasible Control Options 

• Step 4: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining 

Technologies 

• Step 5: Evaluate the Energy and 

Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts 

and Document Results 111

• Step 6: Evaluate Visibility Impacts 

• Step 7: Select BART 

In the cases of the Hayden and Miami 

smelters, ADEQ performed a 

streamlined BART analysis in which it 

examined controls required by New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. In the case of 

PM10, ADEQ examined control 

requirements from NESHAP Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Subpart QQQ (Primary Copper 

Smelters) in its streamlined analysis. In 

the case of SO2, ADEQ examined control 

requirements from NSPS Subpart P 

(Primary Copper Smelters). 

EPA Evaluation: This seven step 

BART determination process was also 

used to determine BART for the Apache, 

Cholla, and Coronado. As noticed in the 

separate action addressing BART for 

these facilities, while we found that this 

overall approach to the five-factor 

analysis is generally reasonable and 

consistent with the RHR and the BART 

Guidelines, we identified certain areas 

of this approach that were not 

consistent with RHR and the BART 

Guidelines.112 This process was used for 

the BART determination for Catalyst 

Paper. However, as explained in further 

detail below, we are not proposing to 

take action on the facility’s BART 

determinations at this time. As a result, 

we are not taking action to identify any 

areas of the BART determination 

process for Catalyst Paper that may not 

be consistent with RHR. 

We propose to approve the use of a 

streamlined BART analysis for the 

copper smelters. The use of such a 

streamlined analysis is consistent with 

the RHR, which provides for 

streamlined analyses in certain 

instances when the affected source is 

subject to a MACT standard or other 

emission limitation required under the 

Clean Air Act. Our evaluation of the 

streamlined analyses and resulting 

determinations for the smelters are 

discussed in further detail below. 

D. Arizona’s BART Determinations 

A summary of the ADEQ’s BART 

determinations is contained in Table 13. 

Our evaluation of ADEQ’s BART 

determinations is organized by source. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

113http://catalystpaper.com/media/news/ 

community/catalyst-permanently-close-snowflakerecycle-paper-mill. 

114 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.C. 

115 67 FR 40478 (June 12, 2002) (codified at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart QQQ). 

116This conclusion does not impact whether or 

not the level of control for Kennecott should be 

considered in a best available control technology 

analysis under the Act’s prevention of significant 

deterioration program. 

117 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.5. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF ARIZONA’S BART DETERMINATIONS

Unit No. Description 

NOX PM10 SO2

Controls Emission limit 

lb/MMBtu Controls Emission limit lb/MMBtu Controls Emission limit lb/MMBtu 

Catalyt Paper, 

Unit 2.

1132 MMBtu/hr 

Coal-fired 

Boiler.

No controls (existing).0.7 ................... None Partial FGD 

(existing).

0.80 

Hayden Smelter 3 converters 

and 2 anode 

smelters.

None None Existing Controls—NSPS 

Miami Smelter ... Electric furnace, 4 converters, 

remelt/mold 

pouring vessel.

None Existing Controls—NESHAP Existing Controls—NSPS 

1. Catalyst Paper 

On July 30, 2012, Catalyst Paper 

publicly announced the permanent 

closure of the mill in Snowflake, which 

includes the Unit 2 power boiler.113 At 

present, however, Catalyst Paper has not 

yet canceled its operating permits and 

therefore still maintains the ability to 

operate the mill. For this reason, we are 

not proposing to take action on ADEQ’s 

BART determinations for Catalyst Paper. 

Instead, we intend to require that 

Catalyst Paper notify us prior to 

resuming operation of mill, at which 

point we will review ADEQ’s BART 

determination and, if necessary, propose 

a FIP in accordance with regional haze 

requirements, including the BART 

provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

2. Miami Smelter 

ADEQ’s Analysis: For PM10, ADEQ 

performed a streamlined analysis in 

which it examined cost information and 

control requirements associated with 

NESHAP MACT Subpart QQQ (Primary 

Copper Smelters), which uses PM10 as a 

surrogate for certain particulate HAP 

emissions. ADEQ notes that there are 

currently three operating copper 

smelters: the Kennecott smelter in Utah, 

the ASARCO smelter in Hayden, 

Arizona, and the Freeport McMoRan 

Inc. smelter in Miami, Arizona, with the 

other previously operating facilities 

having been shut down or permanently 

dismantled. ADEQ noted that the 

Kennecott smelter was constructed in 

the mid-1990s and uses a flash copper 

converting technology that allows 

copper to be produced on a continuous 

basis. ADEQ determined that the 

Kennecott smelter is not comparable to 

the Miami smelter, which operates as 

batch process rather than as a 

continuous process. A review of EPA’s 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

(RBLC) revealed that there are no 

emission limitations or air pollution 

control devices that have been approved 

for anode furnace operations. As a 

result, ADEQ determined that the most 

stringent control available to control 

PM10 emissions from primary copper 

smelting are those required by NESHAP 

MACT Subpart QQQ. 

For SO2, ADEQ indicated it had 

performed a ‘‘streamlined’’ BART 

determination in which it examined 

control requirements and emission 

standards associated with NSPS Subpart 

P (Primary Copper Smelters). Again, 

ADEQ noted that only three copper 

smelters are currently operating: the 

Kennecott smelter in Utah, the in 

Hayden smelter and the Miami smelter, 

with the other facilities having been 

shut down or permanently dismantled. 

Again, ADEQ also noted that the 

Kennecott smelter was constructed in 

the mid 1990s and uses a flash copper 

converting technology that allows 

copper to be produced on a continuous 

basis. ADEQ determined that the 

Kennecott smelter is not comparable to 

the ASARCO Hayden smelter, which 

operates as a batch process rather than 

as a continuous process. ADEQ 

reviewed EPA’s RBLC and concluded 

that there are no emission limitations or 

air pollution control devices that have 

been required as BACT or LAER for 

anode furnace operations. Based only on 

this limited information, ADEQ’s 

streamlined analysis found that the 

most stringent control available for SO2

emissions from primary copper smelting 

operations is the existing double contact 

acid plant and that compliance with 

NSPS Subpart P constitutes BART for 

SO2. 

EPA’s Evaluation: We propose to 

approve ADEQ’s BART determination 

for PM10 at the Miami smelter. As noted 

in the BART Guidelines, ‘‘unless there 

are new technologies subsequent to the 

MACT standards which would lead to 

cost effective increases in the level of 

control, you may rely on the MACT 

standards for purposes of BART.’’ 114

Although MACT Subpart QQQ was 

promulgated more than 10 years ago,115

we have not identified any new control 

technologies for the Miami smelter that 

would achieve more stringent emission 

control. In addition, we consider 

ADEQ’s exclusion of controls in place at 

the Kennecott smelter from 

consideration to be appropriate for 

purposes of BART.116 The BART 

Guidelines state that ‘‘[w]e do not 

consider BART as a requirement to 

redesign the source when considering 

available control alternatives.’’ 117 Given 

the fundamental differences between 

operating a copper smelter (or any kind 

of manufacturing unit) as a batch 

process and a continuous process, we 

do not consider it appropriate to include 

this as a potential control option. 

At this time, we are proposing to 

disapprove ADEQ’s SO2 BART 

determination or, in the alternative, 

approve the SO2 BART determination if 

we receive adequate additional 

information during the comment period 

to support the appropriateness of the 

streamlined analysis in the SIP and that 

the control requirements and emissions 

standards from NSPS Subpart P are 

enforceable at all units as BART. We 

agree with ADEQ that the Miami smelter 

is comparable only to the Hayden 

smelter. We also note that the Miami 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75725 

118BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section IV.D.1, stating: ‘‘[w]e do not believe that 

technology determinations from the 1970s or early 

1980s, including new source performance standards 

(NSPS), should be considered to represent best 

control for existing sources, as best control levels 

for recent plant retrofits are more stringent than 

these older levels.’’ 

119We consider ADEQ’s decision to not consider 

this technology to be appropriate. The BART 

Guidelines state that ‘‘[w]e do not consider BART 

as a requirement to redesign the source when 

considering available control alternatives.’’ 119

Given the fundamental differences between 

operating a copper smelter (or any kind of 

manufacturing unit) as a batch process and a 

continuous process, we do not consider it 

appropriate to include this as a potential control 

option. As a result, we conclude that in this 

instance, ADEQ’s reliance on NSPS Subpart P in its 

streamlined analysis was appropriate. 120 40 CFR 60.163(a). 

121BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section IV.D.1, n. 13, stating: ‘‘EPA no longer 

concludes that the NSPS level of controls 

automatically represents ‘the best these sources can 

install.’ ’’ 

122 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv), (v). 

123See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 

51.212(c). 

smelter is operating the sulfuric acid 

plant at the facility as a control device 

rather than as a stand-alone facility. 

The BART Guidelines allow 

streamlined analyses that rely on 

emission standards established under 

other provisions of the CAA. For 

example, the BART Guidelines provide 

that generally states may rely on MACT 

standards for purposes of BART (70 FR 

39164), but should consider other 

standards, such as the NSPS, only as 

starting points in streamlined 

analyses.118 When relying upon an 

NSPS in performing a streamlined 

analysis, the BART Guidelines indicate 

that additional analysis must be 

performed to determine if better control 

technology performance can be 

achieved since the promulgation of the 

NSPS. The BART Guidelines state 

‘‘where you are relying on these 

standards to represent a BART level of 

control, you should provide the public 

with a discussion of whether any new 

technologies have subsequently become 

available.’’ 

We are proposing to disapprove 

ADEQ’s BART determination, in part, 

because ADEQ did not provide 

information demonstrating that NSPS 

Subpart P meets the requirements for a 

streamlined BART determination. At the 

time NSPS Subpart P was promulgated, 

the control technology known to be 

capable of meeting the SO2 standard 

was a sulfuric acid plant, which is the 

current control technology in place at 

the Miami smelter. ADEQ did not 

analyze whether the acid plant was 

operating at an optimal control level or 

if it could be retrofitted to operate at a 

lower emissions level. ADEQ identified 

the flash copper converting technology 

in place at the Kennecott smelter, but 

appropriately excluded it from 

consideration as a control option.119

However, we find that it was not 

reasonable for ADEQ to limit its analysis 

to those facilities that are specifically 

subject to the NSPS Subpart P, rather 

than considering emission levels that 

are being achieved at other acid plants. 

ADEQ’s analysis did not examine 

whether acid plants in operation at a 

copper smelter (either at Miami or at 

Hayden) have demonstrated an ability to 

achieve, in practice, better levels of 

control since the promulgation of NSPS 

Subpart P. We note that multiple 

industries operate acid plants. An acid 

plant at a copper smelter, for example, 

uses the SO2 in process offgas to 

produce sulfuric acid product, whereas 

an acid plant at a stand-alone sulfuric 

acid plant, for example, may use SO2

from elemental sulfur and from spent 

sulfuric acid to produce sulfuric acid 

product. However, regardless of the 

source of the sulfur or the physical 

location of the plant, both facilities may 

be using the double contact acid plant 

process in which SO2 in the feed stream 

is converted to SO3 through double 

contact/double absorption converters. 

ADEQ has not provided any basis for 

limiting its examination of acid plant 

performance to only those acid plants 

operating at copper smelters. 

In addition, ADEQ does not specify 

whether its BART determination would 

require that all of the BART-subject gas 

streams at the Miami smelter meet all of 

the relevant control requirements and 

emissions standards in Subpart P. NSPS 

Subpart P provides that no owner or 

operator of an affected facility ‘‘shall 

cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere * * * any gases which 

contain sulfur dioxide in excess of 0.065 

percent by volume.’’ 120 This 

requirement extends to all of the 

emissions released by the subject 

facilities, which include smelting 

furnaces and copper converters, and not 

just to those emissions that are vented 

to and controlled by an acid plant. To 

provide an adequate BART 

determination, ADEQ should include a 

finding about the amount of emissions 

being controlled by the acid plant and 

a clarification that the NSPS would 

apply to all emissions discharged from 

the BART-eligible units to the 

atmosphere. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

disapprove ADEQ’s streamlined 

determination that SO2 BART is the 

existing double contact acid plant with 

the NSPS Subpart P emission standard 

of 650 ppm. We are disapproving this 

determination because ADEQ’s 

streamlined analysis does not 

demonstrate that the NSPS Subpart P 

level of control represents the best level 

of control. We are also proposing to 

disapprove the BART determination 

because it does not require that all of the 

BART-eligible units meet the control 

requirements and emissions standards 

in NSPS Subpart P. Finally, we are 

proposing to disapprove the lack of 

enforceability and compliance 

requirements for this BART 

determination. 

In the alternative, we are proposing to 

approve ADEQ’s determination that 

compliance with NSPS Subpart P 

constitutes BART for SO2 provided 

ADEQ or other commenters submit 

additional information demonstrating 

that the sulfuric acid plant cannot 

achieve a lower level of SO2 emissions. 

ADEQ’s use of NSPS Subpart P in its 

streamlined analysis must be supported 

by additional information because, 

while the BART Guidelines provide that 

states generally may rely on MACT 

standards for purposes of BART, the 

same is not true for NSPS standards. 

NSPS standards may be outdated and 

may not represent current pollution 

control technology performance from 

acid plants operating at smelters and 

other industries.121 As a result, we 

propose to approve ADEQ’s reliance on 

NSPS Subpart P in its streamlined 

analysis as a starting point provided we 

receive additional information showing 

the emission limit remains the most 

appropriate as BART, that the sulfuric 

acid plant cannot be operated costeffectively at a lower level of SO2

emissions, and that all other SO2

emissions from the BART-eligible units 

meet BART. Commenters should not 

rely solely on the information regarding 

copper smelters in the RBLC but should 

include information from other acid gas 

plants. 

Finally, Regional Haze SIPs must 

include requirements to ensure that 

BART emission limits are enforceable. 

In particular, the RHR requires 

inclusion of (1) A schedule for 

compliance with BART emission 

limitations for each source subject to 

BART; (2) a requirement for each BART 

source to maintain the relevant control 

equipment and (3) procedures to ensure 

control equipment is properly operated 

and maintained.122 General SIP 

requirements also mandate that the SIP 

include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting for the BART emissions 

limitations.123 ADEQ did not provide 

any explanation of how the Arizona SIP 

addresses these requirements for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

124NSPS Subpart P includes some provisions 

concerning monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting but ADEQ did not indicate whether its 

BART determination would require compliance 

with these provisions. EPA is also aware that the 

Arizona SIP currently includes R18–2–175. 

Standards of Performance for Existing Primary 

Copper Smelters; Site Specific Requirements. This 

SIP-approved rule contains requirements for the 

Miami smelter, including enforcement and 

compliance provisions. ADEQ did not demonstrate 

that compliance with this rule would constitute 

BART for the Miami smelter. 

125We also note that our proposed approval, in 

the alternative, for regional haze requirements 

purposes should not be taken as a statement 

regarding the acceptability of this level of SO2

emissions at this facility or as an indication of the 

facility’s compliance with other regulatory 

requirements. In addition, we wish to clarify that 

if we receive additional information adequate to 

finalize our proposed approval for BART for SO2,

the BART determination does not foreclose a more 

stringent BACT limitation should this source be 

required to obtain a PSD permit in the future for 

any reason. 

126BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section IV.D.1, stating: ‘‘[w]e do not believe that 

technology determinations from the 1970s or early 

1980s, including new source performance standards 

(NSPS), should be considered to represent best 

control for existing sources, as best control levels 

for recent plant retrofits are more stringent than 

these older levels.’’ 

127Specifically, ASARCO currently operates a 

double contact acid plant, which replaced the 

original single contact acid plant in 1983. 128We consider ADEQ’s decision to not consider 

this technology to be appropriate. The BART 

Guidelines state that ‘‘[w]e do not consider BART 

as a requirement to redesign the source when 

considering available control alternatives.’’ Given 

the fundamental differences between operating a 

copper smelter (or any kind of manufacturing unit) 

as a batch process and a continuous process, we do 

not consider it appropriate to include this as a 

potential control option. As a result, we conclude 

that in this instance, ADEQ’s reliance on NSPS 

Subpart P in its streamlined analysis was 

appropriate. 

Miami smelter.124 Therefore, we can 

fully approve ADEQ’s BART 

determinations for this source only if 

they are accompanied by adequate 

compliance requirements, including a 

clearly defined scope for the applicable 

BART requirements, compliance 

deadlines, operation and maintenance 

procedures, and monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for all of the BARTeligible units.125

3. Hayden Smelter 

ADEQ’s Analysis: For SO2, ADEQ 

identified some existing control 

technologies (i.e., primary and 

secondary hooding, double contact acid 

plant) currently installed and operating 

for the units that comprise the BARTsubject source at the Hayden smelter. 

ADEQ indicated it had performed a 

‘‘streamlined’’ BART determination in 

which it examined control requirements 

and emission standards associated with 

NSPS Subpart P (Primary Copper 

Smelters). ADEQ noted that only three 

primary copper smelting facilities are 

currently operating: the Kennecott 

smelter in Utah, the ASARCO smelter in 

Hayden, Arizona, and the Freeport 

McMoRan Inc. smelter in Miami, 

Arizona. In addition, ADEQ also noted 

that the Kennecott smelter was 

constructed in the mid 1990s and uses 

a flash copper converting technology 

that allows copper to be produced on a 

continuous basis. ADEQ determined the 

Kennecott smelter was not comparable 

to the Hayden smelter, which operates 

a batch process rather than a continuous 

process. ADEQ reviewed EPA’s RBLC 

and concluded that there are no 

emission limitations or air pollution 

control devices that have been required 

as BACT or LAER for anode furnace 

operations. Based only on this limited 

information, ADEQ’s streamlined 

analysis found that the most stringent 

control available for SO2 emissions from 

primary copper smelting operations is 

the existing double contact acid plant 

and that compliance with NSPS Subpart 

P constitutes BART for SO2. 

EPA’s Evaluation: At this time, we are 

proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s BART 

determination or, in the alternative, to 

approve the BART determination, if we 

receive adequate additional information 

and analysis during the comment period 

to support the appropriateness of the 

streamlined analysis in the SIP. We are 

also proposing to disapprove the lack of 

compliance requirements, including a 

compliance deadline, operation and 

maintenance requirements, and 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements sufficient to 

ensure that the BART requirements are 

enforceable at all units. We agree with 

ADEQ that the Hayden smelter is 

comparable only to the Miami smelter. 

We also note that the Hayden smelter is 

operating the sulfuric acid plant at the 

facility as a control device rather than 

a stand-alone facility. 

The BART Guidelines allow 

streamlined analyses that rely on 

emission standards established under 

other provisions of the CAA. For 

example, the BART Guidelines provide 

that generally states may rely on MACT 

standards for purposes of BART (70 FR 

39164), but should consider other 

standards, such as the NSPS, only as 

starting points in streamlined 

analyses.126 When relying upon an 

NSPS in performing a streamlined 

analysis, the BART Guidelines indicate 

that additional analysis must be 

performed to determine if better control 

technology performance can be 

achieved since the promulgation of the 

NSPS. The BART Guidelines state 

‘‘where you are relying on these 

standards to represent a BART level of 

control, you should provide the public 

with a discussion of whether any new 

technologies have subsequently become 

available.’’ 

We are proposing to disapprove 

ADEQ’s BART determination, in part, 

because ADEQ did not provide 

information demonstrating that NSPS 

Subpart P meets the requirements for a 

streamlined BART determination. At the 

time NSPS Subpart P was promulgated, 

the control technology known to be 

capable of meeting the SO2 NSPS was 

an acid plant, which is the current 

control technology in place at the 

Hayden smelter.127 ADEQ did not 

analyze whether the acid plant was 

operating at an optimal control level or 

if it could be retrofitted to operate at a 

lower emissions level. ADEQ identified 

the flash copper converting technology 

in place at the Kennecott smelter, but 

appropriately excluded it from 

consideration as a control option.128

However, we find that it was not 

reasonable for ADEQ to limit its analysis 

to those facilities that are specifically 

subject to the NSPS Subpart P, rather 

than considering emission levels that 

are being achieved at other acid plants. 

In addition, ADEQ’s analysis did not 

examine whether acid plants in 

operation at a copper smelter (either at 

Hayden or at Miami) have demonstrated 

an ability to achieve, in practice, better 

levels of control since the promulgation 

of NSPS Subpart P. We note that 

multiple industries operate acid plants. 

An acid plant at a copper smelter, for 

example, uses the SO2 in process offgas 

to produce sulfuric acid product, 

whereas an acid plant at a stand-alone 

sulfuric acid plant, for example, may 

use SO2 from elemental sulfur and from 

spent sulfuric acid to produce sulfuric 

acid product. However, regardless of the 

source of the sulfur or the physical 

location of the plant, both facilities may 

be using the double contact acid plant 

process in which SO2 in the feed stream 

is converted to SO3 through double 

contact/double absorption converters. 

ADEQ has not provided any basis for 

limiting its examination of acid plant 

performance to only those acid plants 

operating at copper smelters. 

In addition, ADEQ does not specify 

whether its BART determination would 

require that all of the BART-subject gas 

streams at the Hayden smelter meet all 

of the relevant control requirements and 

emissions standards in Subpart P. NSPS 

Subpart P provides that no owner or 

operator of an affected facility ‘‘shall 

cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere * * * any gases which 

contain sulfur dioxide in excess of 0.065 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75727 

129 40 CFR 60.163(a). 

130 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv), (v). 

131See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 

51.212(c). 

132NSPS Subpart P includes some provisions 

concerning monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting but ADEQ did not indicate whether its 

BART determination would require compliance 

with these provisions. Additionally, ADEQ did not 

specify when any BART-eligible units not currently 

subject to NSPS Subpart P at the Hayden Smelter 

would be required to comply with its control 

requirements and emissions standards. EPA is also 

aware that the Arizona SIP currently includes R18– 

2–175. Standards of Performance for Existing 

Primary Copper Smelters; Site Specific 

Requirements. This SIP-approved rule contains 

requirements for the Miami smelter, including 

enforcement and compliance provisions. ADEQ did 

not demonstrate that compliance with this rule 

would constitute BART for the Hayden smelter. 

133BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section IV.D.1, n. 13, stating: ‘‘EPA no longer 

concludes that the NSPS level of controls 

automatically represents ‘the best these sources can 

install.’ ’’ 

134We also note that our proposed approval, in 

the alternative, for regional haze requirements 

purposes should not be taken as a statement 

regarding the acceptability of this level of SO2

emissions at this facility or as an indication of the 

facility’s compliance with other regulatory 

requirements. In addition, we wish to clarify that 

if we receive additional information adequate to 

finalize our proposed approval for BART for SO2, 

the BART determination does not foreclose a more 

stringent BACT limitation should this source be 

required to obtain a PSD permit in the future for 

any reason. Also, EPA is currently investigating the 

compliance status of this facility for other 

provisions of the CAA. 

135 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

136Source: WRAP TSS, http://vista.cira.colostate.

edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx, Best 20% of 

days, (plan02d_rev and prp18b). 

percent by volume.’’ 129 This 

requirement extends to all of the 

emissions released by the subject 

facilities and not just to those emissions 

that are vented to and controlled by an 

acid plant. To provide an adequate 

BART determination, ADEQ should 

include a finding about the amount of 

emissions being controlled by the acid 

plant and a clarification that the NSPS 

would apply to all emissions discharged 

from the BART-subject units to the 

atmosphere. 

Finally, Regional Haze SIPs must 

include requirements to ensure that 

BART emission limits are enforceable. 

In particular, the RHR requires 

inclusion of (1) A schedule for 

compliance with BART emission 

limitations for each source subject to 

BART; (2) a requirement for each BART 

source to maintain the relevant control 

equipment and (3) procedures to ensure 

control equipment is properly operated 

and maintained.130 General SIP 

requirements also mandate that the SIP 

include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting for the BART emissions 

limitations.131 ADEQ did not provide 

any explanation of how the Arizona SIP 

addresses these requirements for the 

Hayden smelter.132

Therefore, we are proposing to 

disapprove ADEQ’s streamlined 

determination that SO2 BART is the 

existing double contact acid plant with 

the NSPS Subpart P emission standard 

of 650 ppm. We are disapproving this 

determination because ADEQ’s 

streamlined analysis does not 

demonstrate that the NSPS Subpart P 

level of control represents the best level 

of control. We are also proposing to 

disapprove the BART determination 

because it does not require that all of the 

BART-eligible units meet the control 

requirements and emissions standards 

in NSPS Subpart P. Finally, we are 

proposing to disapprove the lack of 

enforceability and compliance 

requirements for this BART 

determination. 

In the alternative, we are proposing to 

approve ADEQ’s determination that 

compliance with NSPS Subpart P 

constitutes BART for SO2, provided 

ADEQ or other commenters submit 

additional information demonstrating 

that the sulfuric acid plant cannot 

achieve a lower level of SO2 emissions. 

ADEQ’s use of NSPS Subpart P in its 

streamlined analysis must be supported 

by additional information because, 

while the BART Guidelines provide that 

states generally may rely on MACT 

standards for purposes of BART, the 

same is not true for NSPS standards. 

NSPS standards may be outdated and 

may not represent current pollution 

control technology performance from 

acid plants operating at smelters and 

other industries.133 As a result, we 

propose to approve ADEQ’s reliance on 

NSPS Subpart P in its streamlined 

analysis as a starting point, provided we 

receive additional information showing 

the emission limit remains the most 

appropriate as BART, that the sulfuric 

acid plant cannot be operated costeffectively at a lower level of SO2

emissions, and that all other SO2

emissions from the BART-eligible units 

meet BART. Commenters should not 

rely solely on the information regarding 

copper smelters in the RBLC but should 

include information from other acid gas 

plants. 

Finally, we can fully approve ADEQ’s 

BART determination for this source 

only if ADEQ also submits adequate 

compliance requirements, including a 

clearly defined scope for the applicable 

NSPS requirements, compliance 

deadlines, operation and maintenance 

procedures, and monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.134

VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

A. Reasonable Progress Goals for the 

Best Days 

The RHR requires that the RPGs 

ensure that there is no degradation on 

the best 20 percent of days.135 The 

projected visibility levels for 2018 

(shown in Table 5) raise some concerns 

about some of the Class I areas on the 

best days. The Class I areas represented 

by CHIR1 are projected to have an 

increase in visibility impairment of 0.03 

dv. Saguaro NP—East Unit (SAGU1) is 

projected to have an increase of 0.10 dv. 

The species-specific results of the 

2018 projections provide more details 

about what the computer model shows 

to be the driver of the apparent increase 

in degradation at these two monitors. 

Table 14 provides this data. 

TABLE 14—POLLUTANT-SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ON THE BEST 20 PERCENT OF DAYS AT

CHIR1 AND SAGU1 136

Pollutant 

CHIR1 SAGU1 

2000–2004 

baseline 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

2018 projected 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

2000–2004 

baseline 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

2018 projected 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

Sulfate .............................................................................................. 2.28 2.29 2.67 2.65 

Nitrate .............................................................................................. 0.53 0.49 0.99 1.04 

Organic Carbon ............................................................................... 1.40 1.41 2.18 2.30 

Elemental Carbon ............................................................................ 0.67 0.57 1.27 0.88 

Fine Soil ........................................................................................... 0.33 0.44 1.10 1.77 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75728 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

137WRAP elected to hold the coarse mass and sea 

salt visibility impairment levels constant. 138See Table 5 of EPA Analysis of IMPROVE 

Monitoring Data From 2000–2010 in the docket. 139 77 FR 72512. 

140The RHR also requires that the state provide 

to the public an assessment of the number of years 

it will take to reach natural visibility conditions. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). Arizona’s estimates were 

included in its proposed SIP, which was provided 

to the public during the public review and 

comment process prior to ADEQ’s adoption of the 

ARHP. 141 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A); 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 142Tables 8.5 and 8.6 of the ARHP. 

143See ARHP page 173. 

144Table 8.1 of the ARHP. 

TABLE 14—POLLUTANT-SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT ON THE BEST 20 PERCENT OF DAYS AT

CHIR1 AND SAGU1 136—Continued 

Pollutant 

CHIR1 SAGU1 

2000–2004 

baseline 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

2018 projected 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

2000–2004 

baseline 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

2018 projected 

conditions 

[Mm–1] 

Coarse Material ............................................................................... 1.22 137 No change 1.83 No change 

Sea Salt ........................................................................................... 0.01 No change 0.11 No change 

At both CHIR1 and SAGU1, the 

increase in visibility impairment is 

caused primarily by the projected 

increase in impairment due to fine soil. 

The monitoring data trends are not 

consistent with what the model is 

projecting. As shown in the Arizona 

IMPROVE trend analysis conducted by 

EPA,138 the monitors representing these 

areas showed the greatest improvement 

in visibility on the worst days when one 

compares monitored data in 2005–2010 

to monitored data in the base period of 

2000–2004. Significantly, there is no 

indication of increased impairment due 

to fine soil. Given these facts, and the 

relatively small amount of projected 

degradation, EPA is not overly 

concerned with the model results. 

However, these projected visibility 

conditions on the 20 percent least 

impaired days do not account for 

benefits from EPA’s BART 

determinations for Apache, Cholla and 

Coronado.139 EPA expects the visibility 

on the least impaired days to be better 

than projected in the ARHP. Therefore, 

we propose disapproval of the RPGs for 

the 20 percent best days. 

B. Reasonable Progress Goals for the 

Worst Days 

Because Arizona’s RPG estimates 

provide for a rate of improvement in 

visibility slower than the rate needed to 

show attainment of natural conditions 

by 2064, the RHR requires the state to 

demonstrate why its RPGs are 

reasonable and why a rate of progress 

leading to attainment of natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable.140 The RHR specifies that 

RPGs, as well as the demonstration of 

the reasonableness of attainment beyond 

2064, are to be established and 

evaluated taking into consideration four 

factors: costs of compliance; time 

necessary for compliance; energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; and remaining useful life 

of any potentially affected sources.141

As explained below, we propose to find 

that the State did not conduct an 

adequate analysis of these four factors. 

However, based on our supplementary 

analysis, we have come to the same 

conclusion as Arizona for some 

visibility impairing pollutants. 

Focus on NOX and SO2: The State 

elected to focus its reasonable progress 

analysis on NOX and SO2. EPA concurs 

that these are the primary pollutants of 

concern. EPA also concurs that it is not 

appropriate to focus on primary organic 

aerosols or sources of VOC emissions at 

this time. The WRAP emissions 

inventories demonstrate that the vast 

majority of these emissions are not 

controllable by the State. However, we 

disagree with the state’s decision to 

exclude coarse mass and fine soil from 

their reasonable progress analysis. 

According to the State’s own analysis, 

57 percent of coarse mass emissions and 

60 percent of fine soil emissions in 2002 

were anthropogenic.142 We propose to 

disapprove the State’s finding that it 

was not reasonable to require additional 

reductions of coarse mass or fine soil 

emissions, given that the State did not 

conduct an analysis for these pollutants, 

given that they contribute significantly 

to visibility impairment and are mostly 

from anthropogenic sources. 

Mobile Sources: Emissions of SO2, 

NOX and VOC from on-road and offroad mobile sources are projected to 

drop significantly over the planning 

period (2002–2018). This is due to the 

impact of EPA requirements for cleaner 

vehicles and cleaner fuels.143 Given 

these large reductions in emissions of 

these pollutants, we propose to approve 

the State’s decision to not consider 

further control measures for SO2, NOX

and VOC from mobile sources. 

Fires: EPA proposes to agree with the 

State that emissions from fires should 

not be considered for further controls in 

the reasonable progress analysis. Efforts 

to reduce visibility impacts from fires 

are appropriately addressed by the 

smoke management plans, rather than in 

a reasonable progress analysis. EPA’s 

analysis of the smoke management 

plans may be found in our evaluation of 

the State’s Long Term Strategy in 

Section IX of this plan. 

Area Sources: The State did not 

complete an adequate analysis of the 

potential for reasonable controls from 

area sources of NOX and SO2. While a 

number of source categories are listed in 

Chapter 11 of the ARHP, in the case of 

area sources, the state typically judged 

that it was too resource intensive to 

conduct the analysis. Given the lack of 

supporting analysis, the EPA proposes 

to disapprove the State’s finding that 

there are no reasonable controls for NOX

or SO2 on area sources. 

Point Sources of SO2: The vast 

majority of SO2 emissions in Arizona 

are from point sources.144 Therefore, 

this is the most important source 

category to consider for this pollutant. 

Over 99 of percent point source SO2

emissions in Arizona are from 10 

stationary sources. These sources are 

shown in Table 15. Some of these 

facilities are subject to BART (noted 

below). For the others, the State did not 

adequately consider the possibility of 

additional controls, so EPA conducted 

its own analysis. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75729 

145Source: WRAP 2002 Arizona Point Source 

Emissions. 

146 If EPA determines that the Nelson Lime Plant 

is not subject-to-BART, we will evaluate it for cost 

effective SO2 controls for reasonable progress. 

147We have not considered potential SO2 controls 

at Cholla Unit 1 and Apache Unit 4, since these 

units have relatively low SO2 emissions. Cholla 

Unit 1 currently uses lime injection to remove at 

least 80 percent of SO2 as a result of New Source 

Review (Installation Permit #1247) and Apache 

Unit 4 may only be operated on pipeline quality 

natural gas, except during periods of gas 

curtailment not to exceed 600 hours per year (title 

V operating permit #35043). These permits can be 

accessed at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/ 

permits/title_v/index.html. 

148While visibility is not an explicitly listed 

factor to consider when determining whether 

additional controls are reasonable, the point of 

additional controls is to make reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions. Therefore, the 

projected visibility benefit of the controls should be 

taken into account when determining if the controls 

are needed to make reasonable progress. 

149See ‘‘Springerville FGD costs.xls’’ for a 

summary of preliminary cost estimates. 

150Source: WRAP 2002 Arizona Point Source 

Emissions. 

TABLE 15—LARGEST SOURCES OF

SO2 IN ARIZONA 145

Source 

SO2 emissions 

in 2002 

(tons per year) 

Cholla Power Plant ......... 20,770 

Tucson Electric Power 

Springerville ................ 19,862 

Hayden Smelter .............. 18,439 

Coronado Generating 

Station ......................... 17,741 

Miami Smelter ................. 5,667 

Apache Generating Station .............................. 5,167 

Sundt Generating Station 3,119 

Catalyst Paper Mill ......... 1,519 

Nelson Lime Plant .......... 893 

TABLE 15—LARGEST SOURCES OF

SO2 IN ARIZONA 145—Continued 

Source 

SO2 emissions 

in 2002 

(tons per year) 

Douglas Lime Plant ........ 755 

The sources that ADEQ found subject 

to BART are described in Section VII of 

this notice. These are: Cholla (Units 2– 

4 only), Hayden smelter, Coronado, 

Miami smelter, Apache plant (Units 1– 

3 only), and the Catalyst Paper. EPA is 

proposing to find that the Sundt 

Generating Station Unit 4 is BARTeligible and the Nelson Lime Plant is 

also subject to BART.146 Therefore, 

EPA’s reasonable progress analysis will 

focus on those remaining sources and 

units that we expect to emit significant 

quantities of SO2: TEP Springerville, 

Sundt Units 1–3, and the Douglas Lime 

Plant.147 For each source, we have 

evaluated each of the four statutory 

reasonable progress factors. In addition, 

where we found that there were 

additional potentially cost-effective 

controls available (using an initial 

screening level of $5,000/ton), we 

conducted visibility modeling to assess 

the potential benefits of those 

controls.148 These analyses are set forth 

in Tables 16A–16C below. 

TABLE 16A—SO2 REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS FOR TEP SPRINGERVILLE (UNITS 1 AND 2) 

Costs of Compliance ............................... These coal-fired units are already equipped with dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units. Therefore, 

they are already well controlled for SO2. While it is possible to remove the dry FGD units and replace them with more effective wet FDG units, we estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of 

such an effort to be approximately $17,000 to $22,000/ton, which is a range of values that we do 

not consider cost effective.149

Time Necessary for Compliance ............. Any new control device would need to be installed by 2018. There would be sufficient time to comply. 

Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance.A wet FGD would require more energy than the existing dry FGD. In addition, it would create a new 

water waste stream at the facility. 

Remaining Useful Life ............................. EPA assumes that the facility has a remaining useful life in excess of 20 years, allowing time to amortize the cost of any new controls. 

Conclusion ............................................... Given that the facility is already well controlled, EPA proposes to find that it is not reasonable to require more stringent SO2 controls on this facility at this time. 

TABLE 16B—SO2 REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS FOR SUNDT UNITS 1–3 

Costs of Compliance ............................... These units are all fired with pipeline-quality natural gas. Their SO2 emissions are low and will remain 

low. 99.9 percent of the SO2 emissions from this facility are from Unit 4.150 Given the very low 

emission rates from these units—there are no cost-effective controls. 

Time Necessary for Compliance ............. Any new control device would need to be installed by 2018. There would be sufficient time to comply. 

Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance.Any post-combustion control, such as FGD would reduce the thermodynamic efficiency of the plant 

and increase fuel consumption. 

Remaining Useful Life ............................. EPA assumes that the facility has a remaining useful life in excess of 20 years, allowing time to amortize the cost of any new controls. 

Conclusion ............................................... Given that the low SO2 emissions from this non-BART units at this facility, EPA proposes to find that 

it is not reasonable to require more stringent SO2 controls on this facility at this time. 

TABLE 16C—SO2 REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS FOR DOUGLAS LIME PLANT

Costs of Compliance ............................... Emissions inventory data indicates that production at the Douglas Lime Plant essentially stopped during the recession. SO2 emissions from the facility were 1,013 tpy in 2008, 42 tpy in 2009 and 0 tpy 

in 2010. Given the lack of emissions from the plant, EPA proposes to find that requiring controls 

would not be reasonable at this time. 

Time Necessary for Compliance ............. Any controls would need to be installed by 2018. There is adequate time to install controls. 

Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance.A wet FGD would increase energy consumption at the plant and would create a new waste water 

stream. 

Remaining Useful Life ............................. EPA assumes that the facility has a remaining useful life in excess of 20 years, allowing time to amortize the cost of any new controls. 

Conclusion ............................................... Given the current lack of SO2 emissions, EPA proposes to find that it is not reasonable to require additional controls on this plant at this time. This plant should be considered for SO2 controls in future 

planning periods, as it may return to its previous levels of emissions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75730 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

151See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

152See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). 

153See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

154See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). 

155See 40 CFR 51.308(d) (iv). 

156See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

157For our review and discussion of the Nevada 

RHP and approval of Nevada’s consultation 

procedures, see our proposed rule at 76 FR 36450, 

(June 22, 2011) and our final rule at 77 FR 17334, 

(March 26, 2012). 

Based on our supplemental analyses 

provided in the tables above, EPA 

proposes to approve ADEQ’s conclusion 

that it is not reasonable to require 

additional SO2 controls on non-BART 

sources at this time. 

Point Sources of NOX: The State’s 

analysis of point sources to justify its 

RPGs did not provide sufficient 

supporting information to demonstrate 

the requirements of the RHR have been 

met. For example, the State’s analysis of 

internal combustion engines and 

combustion turbines stated that ‘‘the 

Department has determined that it is not 

possible to complete a four-factor 

analysis without a major investment of 

resources * * * which is beyond the 

scope and effort required in this first 

Regional Haze SIP and therefore no 

further analysis was conducted.’’ 

Similarly, with respect to cement kilns, 

the ARHP contends that the Rillito 

Cement Plant does not ‘‘appreciably 

diminish or impair visibility’’, but the 

plan does not provide technical 

documentation of that assertion. Given 

the slow rate of visibility improvement 

on the worst days at all Class I areas, a 

thorough analysis is required before 

concluding that nothing more can be 

done to improve visibility. Therefore, 

EPA proposes to disapprove the State’s 

finding that it is not reasonable to 

require additional NOX controls on nonBART point sources in Arizona. 

C. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that State did 

not demonstrate that its RPGs for the 

worst 20 percent of days in 2018 

constitute reasonable progress toward 

the goal of natural visibility impairment 

by 2064. Specifically, EPA proposes to 

find that the State did not perform an 

adequate analysis for reasonable 

controls for fine soil and coarse mass. 

EPA furthermore proposes to find that 

the State did not perform an adequate 

analysis justifying its decision that it is 

not reasonable to require additional 

NOX controls on non-BART point 

sources. Based on these shortcomings, 

EPA proposes to disapprove the State’s 

RPGs for the worst 20 percent days at all 

Class I Areas in the state. 

EPA also proposes to disapprove the 

State’s RPGs for the best 20 percent of 

days. We expect that visibility on these 

days will be better than the State 

projects, given additional controls 

required by the EPA. 

IX. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s Longterm Strategy 

Under section 51.308(d)(3) of the 

RHR, Arizona must include a 10 to 15- 

year long-term strategy (LTS) as part of 

its regional haze plan (RHP). Arizona’s 

LTS should compile all control 

measures the State will use through 

2018 to meet the regional haze plan’s 

RPGs, including BART required by the 

RHR. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures needed to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within and affected by emissions 

from Arizona.151 There are five general 

requirements for Arizona’s LTS. The 

first general requirement concerns the 

interstate consultation process.152 The 

second concerns allotted emission 

reductions for out-of-state Class I 

areas.153 A third and related 

requirement concerns documenting the 

technical basis for determining the 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations needed for reasonable 

progress in reducing visibility 

impairment in the State’s affected Class 

I areas.154 The fourth general 

requirement is to identify anthropogenic 

emissions sources causing visibility 

impairment considered by the State in 

developing its RHP.155 Finally, the fifth 

general requirement is for the State to 

consider the following factors within 

the LTS: 

(A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment; 

(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; 

(C) Emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the reasonable 

progress goal; 

(D) Source retirement and replacement 

schedules; 

(E) Smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently exist 

within the State for these purposes; 

(F) Enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and 

(G) The anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the long-term strategy.156

We have reviewed Arizona’s LTS 

against these five general requirements. 

A. Interstate Consultation on Emission 

Management Strategies 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), Arizona 

is required to consult with another state 

if Arizona’s emissions are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment at that state’s Class I area 

and must consult with other states, if 

emissions from those other states are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment Class I areas in 

Arizona. To meet these regulatory 

requirements for interstate consultation 

and coordination, Arizona consulted 

with other states and tribes using the 

WRAP forums and processes. In 

particular, Arizona consulted with 

California, Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Utah using the primary vehicle of the 

WRAP Implementation Work Group 

(IWG). Arizona describes their WRAP 

participation in Chapters 2, 12.2, 13.2, 

and Appendix C of the RHP. 

While Nevada was not a formal 

member of the WRAP and was not listed 

with WRAP member states in Arizona’s 

discussion of interstate consultation, we 

note that Nevada did participate in 

WRAP workgroups and utilized WRAP 

technical analyses and source 

apportionment modeling in producing 

the Nevada RHP. Nevada used the 

WRAP’s source apportionment 

modeling to demonstrate Nevada’s 

minimal contribution of the State’s 

sulfate and nitrate emissions to light 

extinction at 25 Class I areas in 

Nevada’s five neighboring states. Based 

on consultation through the WRAP, 

Nevada identified no major 

contributions that supported developing 

new interstate strategies, mitigation 

measures, or emissions reduction 

obligations.157

In addition to participating with 

WRAP member states and Nevada in the 

WRAP forums and using WRAP 

analytical tools and procedures, Arizona 

provided a 30 day public comment 

period and a public hearing on 

December 2, 2010 to receive oral and 

written comments on its proposed RHP. 

No other states submitted oral or written 

comments or requested additional 

consultation during Arizona’s public 

review process, including Nevada. See 

Appendix E of the RHP for the public 

hearing transcript and submitted written 

comments. 

B. Measures To Obtain Allotted 

Emissions Reductions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), 

Arizona is required to demonstrate, 

where its emissions cause or contribute 

to impairment in another state’s Class I 

area, that it has included in its RHP all 

measures needed to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions for meeting the 

progress goal for that state’s Class I area. 

Also, since Arizona participated in a 

regional planning process through the 

WRAP, Arizona is required to include in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75731 

158 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

159See the ARHP at page 201 for examples of 

federal and state programs providing emission 

reductions; e.g., federal low sulfur diesel fuel 

requirement and the Arizona vehicle emissions 

inspection program (AVEIP). For our approval of 

the AVEIP into the Arizona SIP, see 68 FR 2912; 

(January 22, 2003). Later in this review, we discuss 

several other state and local regulations that have 

been approved into the SIP. 

160See our proposed rule at 77 FR 42834, (July 

20, 2012) and our final rule at 77 FR 72512, 

(December 5, 2012) which addressed these units. 

161See ‘‘Technical Support Document for 

Technical Products Prepared by the Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in Support of 

Western Regional Haze Plans,’’ February 28, 2011, 

at pages 57–58 for a summary of our review of the 

WRAP’s analytical work. 162We found the WRAP emission inventories to 

be complete, recent, and accurate, as well as, 

consistent with EPA Guidance; see EPA’s February 

28, 2011 TSD at page 58. 

the LTS all measures needed to achieve 

its allotment of emission reductions 

agreed upon through the WRAP 

process.158

Arizona’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, state, 

and local controls that take effect in the 

State from the end of the baseline period 

starting in 2002 through 2018.159

Coordinating with the WRAP, ADEQ 

developed its LTS using the following 

components: WRAP emission 

inventories for a 2002 baseline and a 

2018 projection (including emission 

reductions from WRAP member states); 

controls required or expected under 

federal and state regulations and BART; 

modeling to determine visibility 

improvement and apportion individual 

state contributions; state consultation; 

and application of the long-term strategy 

factors. Arizona accepted and 

incorporated the WRAP-developed 

visibility modeling within the ARHP. 

However, as explained above, we have 

disapproved the State’s BART 

determinations for NOX at the following 

units: Apache Units 2 and 3; Cholla 

Units 2, 3, and 4; Coronado Units 1 and 

2.160 In addition, as described in section 

VII of this document, we are proposing 

to disapprove certain elements of the 

state’s BART determinations at other 

sources. Accordingly, the LTS, as 

approved into the applicable Arizona 

SIP, will not include all of the emissions 

reductions that were assumed in the 

WRAP-developed visibility modeling. 

Accordingly, Arizona’s LTS does not 

include all measures needed to achieve 

its allotment of emission reductions 

agreed upon through the WRAP process. 

Therefore, we propose to determine that 

the LTS does not meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

C. Technical Basis for Apportionment of 

Emission Reductions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii), 

Arizona is required to document the 

technical basis that it relied upon to 

determine its share of emission 

reduction obligations needed to achieve 

reasonable progress in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area it affects, including 

modeling, monitoring, and emissions 

information. The State may meet this 

requirement by relying on technical 

analyses developed by the WRAP and 

approved by all State participants. 

Arizona must also identify the baseline 

emissions inventory on which its 

strategies are based. 

To meet these requirements, Arizona 

relied on several WRAP data and 

analytical systems and technical 

centers, such as the Technical Support 

System, the Regional Modeling Center, 

the Visibility Information Exchange 

Web System, the Causes of Haze 

Assessment Project, and the Emission 

Data Management System. Arizona 

provided a general overview of the 

WRAP policy and technical assistance 

in Chapter 12.2 and more specific and 

detailed documentation in Appendix C 

of the ARHP. Specifically, to determine 

the significant sources contributing to 

haze in Arizona’s Class I areas, Arizona 

relied upon two source apportionment 

analysis techniques developed by the 

WRAP. The first technique was regional 

modeling using the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model (CAMx) and the PM 

Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT) tool, used for the attribution of 

sulfate and nitrate sources. The second 

technique was the Weighted Emissions 

Potential (WEP) tool, used for 

attribution of sources of organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5, and PM10. The 

WEP tool is based on emissions and 

residence time, not modeling. WEP is a 

screening tool that helps to identify 

source regions that have the potential to 

contribute to haze formation at specific 

Class I areas. Unlike PSAT, this method 

does not account for chemistry or 

deposition. More information on the 

WRAP modeling methodologies is 

available in Appendix C of the RHP. 

As directed by the WRAP Modeling 

Forum, the Regional Modeling Center at 

the University of California at Riverside 

performed modeling for the WRAP 

member states, including Arizona. The 

Regional Modeling Center primarily 

used the CMAQ photochemical grid 

model to estimate 2018 visibility 

conditions in Arizona and all western 

Class I areas, based on application of the 

regional haze strategies in the various 

state plans, including assumed controls 

on BART sources. The Regional 

Modeling Center developed air quality 

modeling inputs, including annual 

meteorology and emissions inventories 

for the following: (1) A 2002 actual 

emissions base case; (2) a planning case 

to represent the 2000–2004 regional 

haze baseline period using averages for 

key emissions categories; and, (3) a 2018 

base case of projected emissions 

determined using factors known at the 

end of 2005. All emission inventories 

were spatially and temporally allocated 

using the SMOKE modeling system. 

These inventories were revised several 

times throughout the development 

process to arrive at the final versions 

used in CMAQ modeling. The 

photochemical modeling of regional 

haze for 2002 and 2018 for the WRAPmember states was conducted on the 36- 

kilomenter resolution national regional 

planning organization domain that 

covered the continental United States, 

portions of Canada and Mexico, and 

portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

Again, a more detailed description of 

the CMAQ modeling performed for the 

WRAP can be found in Appendix C of 

the RHP. 

To summarize, as described in 

Chapters 11 and 12 and Appendix C of 

the ARHP, Arizona used the technical 

tools and outputs provided by the 

WRAP, including the WRAP’s 2002 

baseline inventory, to produce the 

State’s LTS. In EPA’s evaluation of the 

WRAP’s technical tools, we found these 

tools to be adequate for the analytical 

task to which they were applied and 

consistent with EPA guidance and 

suggested practice at the time of their 

use by the WRAP for its member 

states.161 Therefore, we propose to 

determine that the ARHP meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(iii). 

D. Anthropogenic Sources of Visibility 

Impairment 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) 

Arizona is required to identify all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment it considered in developing 

its LTS, including major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources. As described earlier, 

Arizona used emissions inventories for 

2002 and 2018 provided by the WRAP. 

The 2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions 

and applying reductions expected from 

federal and state regulations. The ARHP 

emission inventories were developed by 

WRAP and distributed to Arizona via 

the Technical Support System. These 

emission inventories were calculated 

using approved EPA methods and we 

found them to be adequate for their use 

by the WRAP.162

Across all visibility-related pollutants, 

there are 11 different emission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75732 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

163These rules were approved into the Arizona 

SIP as follows: R18–2–602 at 71 FR 28270, May 16, 

2006; R18–2–608 at 47 FR 17485, April 23, 1982 

(renumbered from R18–2–408 and R9–3–408); 

Maricopa County Rule 310.01, Fugitive Dust from 

Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust, at 75 FR 

78167, December 15, 2010; and, the Agricultural 

Best Practices Program in R18–2–610 and R18–2– 

611 at 68 FR 51873, October 11, 2001. 

164ARHP Chapter 12.7.1.1 at pages 198–199. 

165See our rulemaking actions at: 52 FR 45134, 

(November 24, 1987); 53 FR 35956, (September 15, 

1988); and, 56 FR 50172, (October 3, 1991) (codified 

at 40 CFR 52.145). Also, see the summary 

discussion in the RHP at pages 199–200. 

166 40 CFR 52.145(d). 

167For the most recent SIP incorporated version 

of Rule 310, see 75 FR 78167; (December 15, 2010). 

168See 75 FR 17307; (April 6, 2010). Pinal County 

also adopted and in this rulemaking we approved 

several other rules related to controlling fugitive 

dust from unpaved roads and parking areas. 

169ARHP section 12.7.3, page 203. 

inventory source categories identified in 

Arizona’s RHP: point, anthropogenic 

fire, natural fire, area, WRAP region oil 

and gas, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile, biogenic, road dust, fugitive 

dust, and windblown dust. Tables 8.1 

through 8.8 of the ARHP show Arizona’s 

2002 baseline emissions, the 2018 

projected emissions, and net changes of 

emissions for SO2, NOX, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5, PM10, NH3, and 

VOC by their respective source category. 

In our discussion of the ARHP’s 

emission inventories in section VI, we 

provide a summary of the relative 

contribution of anthropogenic sources 

for these pollutants; see Table 7. 

Furthermore, as part of its reasonable 

progress demonstration, Arizona 

identified the following specific source 

categories, totaling 48 facilities, as 

producing anthropogenic emissions 

worthy of consideration: internal 

combustion engines and turbines; 

external combustion boilers; asphalt 

plants; lime plants; primary copper 

smelters; and, nitric acid plants; see 

chapter 11.3 of the ARHP. The methods 

that the WRAP used to develop these 

emission inventories are described in 

more detail in Chapters 8, 9 and 

Appendix C of the RHP and are 

evaluated in the EPA’s February 28, 

2011 TSD. 

In summary, Arizona utilized the 

2002 and 2018 WRAP emission 

inventories developed according to EPA 

guidance and presented those 

inventories in the RHP. Also, Arizona 

identified all anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment it considered in 

developing the LTS. Therefore, we 

propose to determine that the ARHP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(iv). It should be noted that 

our proposed approval for this element 

is based on our finding that Arizona 

identified the sources of impairment 

that it actually considered in developing 

the LTS. This proposed approval does 

not imply that Arizona fully or 

appropriately considered all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in establishing its RPGs. 

E. Mandatory Factors To Consider for 

the Long-Term Strategy 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), 

Arizona must consider and address the 

following seven factors within its LTS: 

(1) Emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address RAVI; (2) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes; (6) enforceability 

of emissions limitations and control 

measures; and, (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 

1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control 

Programs 

Arizona’s LTS cites on-going air 

pollution control programs assumed 

within the RHP as part of the 2002 base 

year inventory and projected through 

2018, such as Arizona’s Vehicle 

Emissions Inspection Program and 

federal diesel fuel standards for low 

diesel fuels; see the RHP at pages 201– 

202. Mobile source emission reductions 

through 2018 are due to ‘‘on-the-books’’ 

federal controls applied to on-road 

mobile sources and non-road mobile 

sources and equipment; see chapter 

11.4.4, page 173 for the list of assumed 

federal controls. 

The LTS also lists 10 PM10

nonattainment and maintenance plan 

areas in Arizona; see page 202 of the 

RHP and Table 12.55. Arizona asserts 

that the emission reduction programs in 

these areas provide significant emission 

reduction benefits. Several fugitive dust 

rules have been approved into the SIP 

and are cited as providing the emission 

reductions within these areas: A.C.C. 

R18–2–602, A.C.C. R18–2–608, 

Maricopa County Rule 310.01, and the 

Agricultural Best Practices Program.163

The LTS does not describe ongoing state 

or local stationary source emission 

reduction programs or regulations in 

detail; however, the LTS mentions the 

New Source Review and the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration stationary 

source programs as they relate to 

visibility impact assessment.164

Regarding specific stationary source 

requirements, Arizona’s BART reviews 

and determinations are discussed 

elsewhere in the ARHP, such as Chapter 

10 and Appendix D. 

The RHR also requires consideration 

of emission reductions due to ongoing 

air pollution control programs such as 

those derived from the Act’s section 

169A requirement for Arizona to reduce 

emissions from sources determined to 

cause reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the State 

(the RAVI program). Arizona has no 

ongoing air pollution programs 

providing emission reductions due to 

specific requirements of the RAVI 

program. In the late 1980s and early 

1990s, EPA implemented a FIP to 

address the requirements of section 

169A and EPA’s RAVI rules.165

Ultimately, EPA found that certain 

episodes of visibility impairment at the 

Grand Canyon National Park were 

reasonably attributable to the Navajo 

Generating Station (NGS) and required 

implementation of controls at NGS to 

reduce oxides of sulfur emissions.166

Because NGS is located on the Navajo 

Indian Reservation, Arizona has no 

ongoing responsibility for regulating 

this source. 

We propose to find that Arizona has 

met the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(A) to consider emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI. 

2. Construction Activities 

The LTS cites Maricopa County Rules 

300 and 310 as rules for controlling 

fugitive dust emissions from 

construction activities. Maricopa 

County Rule 310, Fugitive Dust from 

Dust Generating Operations has been 

approved as a Best Available Control 

Measure-level rule for serious PM10

nonattainment areas.167 Also, we 

approved into the SIP Pinal County Rule 

4–7, Construction Sites in 

Nonattainment Areas—Fugitive Dust.168

Rule 300 has not been approved into the 

SIP. 

We propose to find that Arizona has 

met the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) to consider measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities. 

3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance 

The LTS states that, ‘‘implementation 

of BART will contain emission limits 

and schedules of compliance for those 

sources either installing BART controls 

or taking federally enforceable permit 

limitations.’’ 169 However, as noted 

above, we have already disapproved the 

State’s BART determinations for NOX at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75733 

170See our proposed rule at 77 FR 42834, (July 

20, 2012) and our final rule at 77 FR 72512, 

(December 5, 2012) which addressed these units. 

171ARHP section 12.6.3, page 204. 

172See page 204 of the ARHP. 

173See ‘‘WRAP Point and Area Source Emissions 

Projection for the 2018 Base Case Inventory’’, 

Version 1, January 25, 2006 at Chapters 4 and 5. 

Chapter 4 discusses projected growth to 2018, 

including EGUs. Chapter 5 discusses point source 

retirement and replacement rates used in the 

analysis. See: http://wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/ 

documents/eictts/docs/WRAP_2018_EI-Version_1- 

Report_Jan2006.pdf. 

174See ERG Technical Memorandum entitled 

‘‘WRAP PRP18b Emissions Inventory—Revised 

Point and Area Source Projections’’, October 16, 

2009. 

175See 71 FR 28270; (May 16, 2006). 

176 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F). 177 77 FR 72512, (December 5, 2012). 

the following units: Apache Generating 

Station Units 2 and 3; Cholla Generating 

Station Units 2, 3, and 4; Coronado 

Units 1 and 2.170 As described in 

section VII of this document, we are also 

proposing to disapprove certain 

elements of the state’s BART 

determinations at other sources. In 

addition, all of Arizona’s BART 

determinations lack the necessary 

compliance schedules and requirements 

for operation and maintenance of 

control equipment and monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting. 

The LTS also states that Arizona ‘‘did 

not identify any additional measures 

that were appropriate for this first 

Regional Haze plan. As a result, no 

other emission limitations or schedules 

of compliance are included in this 

plan.’’ 171 As explained in section VIII 

above, we are proposing to disapprove 

the State’s reasonable progress analysis 

and its conclusion that no additional 

emissions controls can be reasonably 

implemented. Based on these 

shortcomings in the State’s BART and 

Reasonable Progress analyses, we do not 

believe that Arizona has adequately 

considered the emission limits and 

schedules of compliance necessary to 

achieve reasonable progress. Therefore, 

we propose to determine that the ARHP 

does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C). 

4. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

Chapter 12.7.4 of the LTS refers to an 

evaluation of sources to provide a 

schedule of shutdowns, source 

retirements, and equipment replacement 

in an earlier section of the LTS; 

however, no such evaluation is found 

within Chapter 12.7.1.172 Appendix C of 

the ARHP does, however, discuss the 

2002 and 2018 emissions inventories 

developed by the WRAP for Arizona; 

see pages 9—11 of Appendix C. The 

base case 2018 projected emissions 

inventories developed by the WRAP 

considered and accounted for source 

retirement and replacement for point 

and area sources.173 These projections 

were updated in 2009 to include new 

information about projected changes in 

electric demand and the resultant 

impact on emissions from electric 

generating units.174 In a similar manner, 

the WRAP used EPA’s MOBILE 

emissions model and this model 

projected on-road mobile source fleet 

turnover and replacement in Arizona 

over the 2002 to 2018 timeframe and 

these emissions inventory estimates 

were incorporated in later visibility 

modeling. 

We propose to find that the ARHP 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) because it has 

considered adequately source retirement 

and replacement. 

5. Smoke Management Programs 

Arizona adopted rules consistent with 

a state certified smoke management 

program. EPA has reviewed and 

approved the following rules in the SIP: 

Rule R18–2–602, Unlawful Open 

Burning; Rule R18–2–1501, Definitions; 

Rule R18–2–1502, Applicability; Rule 

R18–2–1503, Annual Registration, 

Program Evaluation and Planning; Rule 

R18–2–1504, Prescribed Burn Plan; Rule 

R18–2–1505, Prescribed Burn Requests 

and Authorization; Rule R18–2–1506, 

Smoke Dispersion and Evaluation; Rule 

R18–2–1507, Prescribed Burn 

Accomplishment, Wildfire Reporting; 

Rule R18–2–1508, Wildland Fire Use: 

Plan, Authorization, Monitoring, Interagency Consultation, Status Reporting; 

Rule R18–2–1509, Emission Reduction 

Techniques; Rule R18–2–1510, Smoke 

Management Techniques; Rule R18–2– 

1511, Monitoring; Rule R18–2–1512, 

Burner Qualifications; and, Rule R18–2– 

1513, Public Notification Program, 

Regional Coordination.175 Arizona 

believes these rules meet WRAP criteria 

for an enhanced smoke management 

program; see Table 12.56, page 205 of 

the RHP. 

We propose to find that the ARHP 

meets the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) to consider smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes. 

6. Enforceability of Measures in the 

Long-Term Strategy 

The RHR requires that the State 

consider the enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures 

included in its plan, as part of the 

LTS.176 Arizona has adopted and 

submitted, and EPA has approved into 

the SIP many rules supporting the 

ARHP. Maricopa County Rule 310 and 

the smoke management program rules 

listed above are examples of the 

federally enforceable rules supporting 

the reasonable progress goals of the 

ARHP. 

As noted earlier, however, we are 

have determined that Arizona’s BART 

determinations lack provisions to 

ensure their enforceability. In our recent 

Phase 1 final rule, we found that the 

ARHP lacked the necessary compliance 

deadlines and requirements for 

equipment maintenance and operation, 

including monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for all 

pollutants at all of the eight BART units 

covered by that action.177 In today’s 

action, we are proposing to disapprove 

the lack of such ‘‘enforceability 

requirements’’ for ADEQ’s BART 

determinations at the two BART-subject 

copper smelters. As explained above, 

we are also proposing to disapprove 

other elements of the State’s BART and 

reasonable progress analyses. Therefore, 

we propose to determine that the ARHP 

does not meet the requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F). 

7. Net Effect on Visibility Impairing 

Emissions Through 2018 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(v)(F), 

the State must consider as part of its 

LTS, the anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the period addressed by 

the long-term strategy. Using WRAPprovided resources as described in the 

ARHP, Arizona estimated the net effect 

on visibility through 2018 due to 

changes in point, area, stationary and 

mobile source emissions. Those 

visibility changes within each Class I 

area are presented in detail in chapter 

9.3 and are discussed in aggregate in 

chapter 11 of the ARHP. In sum, 2018 

visibility is projected to improve in all 

Arizona Class I areas on the worst 

impaired days compared to baseline 

conditions and 2018 visibility is 

projected to improve in all but two Class 

I areas on the least impaired days 

compare to baseline conditions. We, 

therefore, propose to determine that the 

ARHP meets the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(G). 

F. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of the 

LTS 

We propose to approve in part and 

disapprove in part the LTS portion of 

the ARHP. Arizona has submitted an 

LTS addressing visibility impairment 

due to regional haze within Class I 

areas, both inside and outside of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75734 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

178 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). 

179ARHP, Chapter 4, ‘‘Regional Haze Monitoring 

Network’’, and Section 12.7, pages 200–201. 180ARHP, Chapter 13, page 209. 

181 ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

[1997] 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards’’ (August 15, 2006); see also 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-hour Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ (‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

state. We review our proposed 

approvals and disapprovals below. 

Through participation in the WRAP, 

Arizona consulted with neighboring 

states and coordinated the ARHP, as 

well as developed and documented the 

technical basis for the ARHP. The State 

has estimated the 2002 base year and 

2018 emissions inventories and the 

emission reductions resulting from the 

ARHP’s control measures. The State 

identified all anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment it considered in 

developing the ARHP and LTS. The 

State has considered and addressed 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities and to provide 

for smoke management from agricultural 

and forestry practices. Through the 

WRAP and its analyses, Arizona 

considered and estimated the net effect 

of the LTS on 2018 visibility levels. 

Consequently, we propose to find that 

the LTS meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (v)(A), 

(v)(B), (v)(D), (v)(E), and (v)(G) and we 

propose to approve the ARHP with 

respect to these requirements. 

Because we have disapproved certain 

elements of the ARHP in our Phase 1 

final rule and are proposing to 

disapprove other elements related to the 

implementation of enforceable BART 

controls and enforceable controls for 

reasonable progress, we are also 

proposing to determine that the LTS 

does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), (v)(C) and (v)(F). 

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

LTS does not meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii), (v)(C), and (v)(F) 

and we propose to disapprove the ARHP 

with respect to these requirements. 

X. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Requirements 

A. Monitoring Strategy 

Arizona has elected to fulfill the 

requirements for a monitoring strategy 

through participation in the IMPROVE 

network, as permitted under the 

RHR.178 Arizona relies on the IMPROVE 

monitoring program to collect and 

report data for reasonable progress 

tracking for all Class I Areas in the 

state.179 Consequently, we propose to 

find that the state has met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) for 

a monitoring strategy. 

B. State and Federal Land Manager 

Coordination 

Arizona participated fully in the 

WRAP, the primary forum for 

consultation among western states, 

tribal nations, federal agencies, 

stakeholder groups and the public. 

FLMs from the National Park Service 

(NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management and the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) were actively 

engaged in the WRAP’s development of 

technical analyses and reports that 

formed the basis of Arizona’s and other 

western state’s regional haze plans. To 

facilitate consultation as required in 

51.308(i)(2), ADEQ provided a list of its 

agency contacts to the FLMs followed 

by its draft RH SIP on September 20, 

2010. Arizona ensured that the FLMs 

had an opportunity for consultation in 

person and at least 60 days prior to the 

public hearing that was held in Phoenix, 

Arizona, on December 2, 2010, which 

was also the deadline for public 

comments. NPS submitted comments 

dated November 29 and December 1, 

2010. The USFS submitted comments 

dated November 29, 2010. ADEQ 

responded to the FLMs’ comments 

through its Responsiveness Summary in 

Appendix E of the Arizona RH SIP. 

ADEQ outlined procedures for 

continuing consultation with the FLMs 

in its RH SIP 180 and committed to 

provide the FLMs an opportunity to 

review and comment on future SIP 

revisions, the 5-year progress reports, 

and the implementation of other 

programs that may contribute to 

visibility impairment in Arizona’s Class 

I areas. EPA proposes to find that 

Arizona has met the requirements for 

coordination with the FLMs under 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(1–4). 

C. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year 

Progress Reports 

In the ARHP, Arizona affirmed its 

commitment to submit a comprehensive 

SIP revision by July 31, 2018, and every 

ten years thereafter as required in 40 

CFR 51.308(f). In these comprehensive 

revisions, the State must evaluate and 

reassess all of the elements required in 

40 CFR 51.308(d), taking into account 

improvements in monitoring data 

collection and analysis techniques and 

control technologies. The State must 

also address current visibility 

conditions, actual progress toward 

natural conditions, effectiveness of the 

long-term strategy, and the reasonable 

progress goals. Arizona also confirmed 

it commitment to submit a report on 

reasonable progress every five years that 

will evaluate progress toward meeting 

the RPGs for its 12 Class I area as well 

as Class I areas outside the State that 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the State as required in 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The first report is due five 

years after the State’s submittal, which 

is February 28, 2016. 

XI. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Provisions for Interstate Transport of 

Pollutants 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that 

each SIP contain ‘‘adequate provisions 

* * * prohibiting * * * any source or 

other types of emission activity within 

the State from emitting any air pollutant 

in amounts which will * * * interfere 

with measures required to be included 

in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State * * * to protect 

visibility.’’ EPA is proposing to find that 

Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 Transport SIPs 

and Regional Haze Plan do not contain 

adequate provisions to meet the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 

1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

nor a demonstration that the existing 

Arizona SIP already includes measures 

sufficient to meet the interstate 

transport visibility requirement. 

Our 2006 Guidance recommended 

that a state could meet the visibility 

prong of the transport requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with an 

approved regional haze SIP.181 EPA’s 

reasoning was that the development of 

the regional haze SIPs was intended to 

occur in a collaborative environment 

among the states, and that through this 

process states would coordinate on 

emissions controls to protect visibility 

on an interstate basis. In fact, in 

developing their respective RPGs, 

WRAP states consulted with each other 

through the WRAP’s work groups. As a 

result of this process, the common 

understanding was that each state 

would take action to achieve the 

emissions reductions relied upon by 

other states in their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the RHR. Thus, 

we interpret the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as 

requiring states to include in their SIPs 

either measures to prohibit emissions 

that would interfere with the RPGs to 

protect visibility in Class I areas in other 

states, or a demonstration that emissions 

from the state’s sources and activities 

will not have the prohibited impacts 

under the existing SIP. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

requirement of the RHR that a state 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75735 

182 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

183 77 FR 42834 (July 20, 2012) (proposal), 77 FR 

72512, (December 5, 2012) (final). 

184For example, Cholla Power Plant has been 

determined by Arizona and EPA to affect visibility 

in Class I areas in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. 

See 77 FR 42834 at 42861. Also, Arizona’s RHP 

discusses Arizona’s contributions to visibility 

impairment in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah 

(see pages 179–181). 

185As noted above, we previously acted on these 

submissions with respect to the other three prongs. 

See 72 FR 41629 (July 31, 2007) and 77 FR 66398 

(November 5, 2012). Therefore, today’s action, if 

finalized, will complete our action on these 

submissions. 

participating in a regional planning 

process must include ‘‘all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process.’’ 182

Since Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 

Transport SIPs did not specify which 

parts of the State’s regional haze 

program should be considered as 

meeting the visibility requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), we considered 

the 2011 Regional Haze SIP as a whole 

in assessing whether Arizona has met 

the visibility requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As discussed in 

sections VII (‘‘EPA’s Evaluation of 

Arizona’s BART Analyses and 

Determinations’’) and VIII (‘‘EPA’s 

Evaluation of Arizona’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals’’) of this proposed rule, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove several 

aspects of Arizona’s BART and 

Reasonable Progress Analyses. Also, as 

previously noted, EPA has already 

disapproved Arizona’s determinations 

for NOX emission limits at most of the 

units at Apache, Cholla, and 

Coronado.183 The emissions from each 

of these sources affect visibility in at 

least one Class I area in another state.184

The proposed partial disapprovals in 

today’s notice, if finalized, and the final 

partial disapprovals for Apache, Cholla, 

and Coronado mean that these portions 

of Arizona’s Regional Haze Plan will not 

become part of the Arizona SIP. 

Accordingly, Arizona’s long-term 

strategy (i.e., the compilation of all 

control measures that Arizona will 

implement to meet the relevant RPGs) 

lacks enforceable emissions limitations 

for certain air pollutants as necessary to 

achieve RPGs for all Class I areas 

affected by emissions from Arizona, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). As 

noted above, we interpret the ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) as requiring states to 

include in their SIPs either measures to 

prohibit emissions that would interfere 

with the RPGs required to be set to 

protect visibility in Class I areas in other 

states or a demonstration that emissions 

from the state’s sources and activities 

will not have the prohibited impacts 

under the existing SIP. Because we 

partially disapproved Arizona’s BART 

provisions for three sources (Apache, 

Cholla, and Coronado) and are 

proposing in this notice to partially 

disapprove Arizona’s BART and 

reasonable progress analyses, we 

propose to conclude that the Arizona 

SIP does not include sufficient measures 

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with the RPGs for Class I areas 

in other states. Furthermore, Arizona 

has not made a demonstration that 

emissions from the state’s sources and 

activities will not have the prohibited 

impacts under the existing SIP. 

Thus, we propose to find that 

Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 Transport SIPs 

and Regional Haze Plan do not contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that interfere with SIP 

measures required of other states to 

protect visibility.185 Accordingly, we 

propose to disapprove these SIP 

revisions for the visibility requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

XII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Regional Haze 

EPA is proposing to approve in part 

and disapprove in part the remaining 

portions of Arizona’s RH SIP. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve the technical basis for the 

State’s plan, most of the analyses 

regarding which sources are eligible and 

which sources are subject to BART, the 

BART determination for PM10 at the 

Miami smelter and parts of the longterm strategy. We are proposing 

alternatively to approve or disapprove 

the State’s BART determination for SO2

at the Hayden and Miami smelters, and 

whether the Nelson Lime Plant is 

subject to BART. 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

State’s BART determinations for PM10 at 

the Hayden smelter and for NOX at the 

Miami smelter as well as the State’s 

finding that Unit 4 at Sundt is not 

BART-eligible. In addition, we are 

proposing to disapprove the visibility 

goals for the most and least impaired 

days, which set the targets for 

evaluating progress. Moreover, we 

propose to disapprove that part of the 

long-term strategy that requires 

enforceable emission limits and 

compliance schedules that were not 

included in the SIP, and were not 

adequately considered in setting the 

visibility goals. Our consent decree 

deadline for taking final action on 

Arizona’s RH SIP is July 15, 2013. 

EPA is legally obligated to issue a FIP 

for the disapproved parts of Arizona’s 

RH SIP pursuant to CAA section 

110(c)(1) and the court’s orders under 

the consent decree. Accordingly, we 

included a FIP in our recently published 

final rule regarding three of Arizona’s 

BART sources. For today’s proposed 

action on the SIP, we have a separate 

court-ordered schedule for a FIP to 

address any disapproved elements of 

the SIP. The consent decree deadlines 

for this FIP are to propose by March 8, 

2013, and take final action by October 

15, 2013. Our obligation to promulgate 

a FIP for those parts of the State’s plan 

that we are unable to approve is based 

on the State’s failure to submit a 

required SIP, and our subsequent failure 

to issue a FIP within two years of our 

finding of failure to submit. EPA takes 

very seriously a decision to disapprove 

all or part of a state plan. In this 

instance, we believe that Arizona’s SIP 

meets some, but not all of the RHR 

requirements under the CAA. As a 

result, EPA considers that proposing to 

disapprove portions of the State’s plan 

is the only path that is consistent with 

the Act at this time. 

B. Interstate Transport of Visibility 

As discussed in section XI (‘‘EPA’s 

Evaluation of Arizona’s Provisions for 

Interstate Transport of Pollutants’’) of 

this proposed rule, EPA proposes to find 

that Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 Transport 

SIPs and Regional Haze Plan do not 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that interfere with SIP 

measures required of other states to 

protect visibility. Therefore, we propose 

to disapprove Arizona’s 2007 and 2009 

Transport SIPs and Regional Haze Plan 

for the visibility requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

C. Sanctions and FIP Duties 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. Arizona’s 2007 and 

2009 Transport SIPs and Regional Haze 

Plan were not submitted to meet either 

of these requirements. Therefore, any 

action we take to finalize the described 

partial disapproval will not trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179. In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

FIP within two years after finding that 

a State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
75736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

186As described above, EPA is already subject to 

a FIP duty for Regional Haze in Arizona. In 

addition, due to a previous finding of failure to 

submit, 70 FR 21147, we are already subject to a 

FIP duty for the 2007 Transport SIP. 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part, unless EPA approves 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. Thus, our proposed disapproval 

of Arizona’s 2009 Transport SIP with 

respect to the visibility requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, if finalized, will 

establish a deadline two years from the 

effective date of such final rule for EPA 

to promulgate a FIP for this 

requirement, unless a SIP revision is 

submitted by ADEQ and approved by 

EPA by that deadline.186 We anticipate 

that any FIP designed to remedy the 

proposed disapprovals described in this 

notice, if finalized, along with the 

already-finalized partial BART FIP for 

Apache, Cholla, and Coronado, would 

also remedy the disapproval, if 

finalized, for the interstate transport 

visibility requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA 

section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply proposes to approve 

certain State requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. After considering 

the economic impacts of today’s 

proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule does 

not impose any requirements or create 

impacts on small entities. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

or create impacts on small entities. This 

proposed partial SIP approval and 

partial SIP disapproval under CAA 

section 110 will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply 

proposes to approve certain State 

requirements, and to disapprove certain 

other State requirements, for inclusion 

into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small 

entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ This 

action proposes to approve certain 

preexisting requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other pre-existing 

requirements, under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

proposed action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to approve certain 

State requirements, and to disapprove 

certain other State requirements, for 

inclusion into the SIP and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP on which EPA is 

proposing action would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. However, this 

action creates the basis for future action 

which could impact a tribally-owned 

source. EPA will engage in consultation 

with the affected tribe to ensure that any 

concerns are considered during that 

process. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 246 / Friday, December 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 75737 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. The EPA believes 

that this action is not subject to 

requirements of Section 12(d) of 

NTTAA because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

lacks the discretionary authority to 

address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 7, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30702 Filed 12–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with