29292 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves establishing a temporary 

safety zone. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–563 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–563 Safety zone; Big Bay Boom; 

San Diego, CA. 

(a) Location. This rule establishes four 

temporary safety zones, encompassing 

all navigable waters of San Diego Bay 

within a 1000-foot radius of fireworks 

launching points: 

Shelter Island Barge: 32°42.8′ N, 

117°13.2′ W 

Harbor Island Barge: 32°43.3′ N, 

117°12.0′ W 

Embarcadero Barge: 32°42.9′ N, 

117°10.8′ W 

Seaport Village Barge: 32°42.2′ N, 

117°10.0′ W 

(b) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10 

p.m. on July 4, 2013. Before the effective 

period, the Coast Guard will publish a 

Local Notice to Mariners (LNM). If the 

event concludes prior to the scheduled 

termination time, the Captain of the Port 

will cease enforcement of this safety 

zone and will announce that fact via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

designated representative means any 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

of the Coast Guard on board Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and 

local, state, and federal law enforcement 

vessels who have been authorized to act 

on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit 

through or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated representative. 

(2) Mariners can request permission to 

transit through the safety zone from the 

Patrol Commander. The Patrol 

Commander can be contacted on VHF– 

FM channels 16 and 23. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

S.M. Mahoney, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11751 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904, FRL–9815–3] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part revisions 

to Arizona’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for its regional haze program based 

on our evaluation of its supplemental 

submittal dated May 3, 2013. The State’s 

new submittal revises Arizona’s SIP that 

was submitted on February 28, 2011. 

The new revisions are in response to 

EPA’s proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2012. 

Specifically, we propose to approve 

Arizona’s most recent emissions 

inventory for 2008, the reasonable 

progress analysis of coarse mass and 

fine soils, and aspects of the analyses 

and determinations of Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

four sources. These sources are 

Freeport-McMoRan Incorporated 

(FMMI) Miami Smelter, American 

Smelting and Refining Company 

(ASARCO) Hayden Smelter, Catalyst 

Paper, and Arizona Electric Power 

Cooperative (AEPCO) Apache 

Generating Station. However, we are 

proposing to disapprove other revisions 

to the reasonable progress analysis and 

some aspects of the revised BART 

analyses and determinations. We 

describe in today’s action the major 

elements of the State’s new SIP 

submittal and our assessment in terms 

of why we are proposing to approve or 

disapprove these revised elements. 

Today’s action does not address any 

other parts of Arizona’s SIP. 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 by 2064 in 156 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29293 

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 June 19, 

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. 

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 BART mean or refer to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology. 

(5) The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area. 

(6) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

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

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(8) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal 

Implementation Plan. 

(9) The initials FLMs mean or refer to 

Federal Land Managers. 

(10) The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments monitoring network. 

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

(12) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

(13) The initials NH3 mean or refer to 

ammonia. 

(14) The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(15) The initials NM mean or refer to 

National Monument. 

(16) The initials NP mean or refer to 

National Park. 

(17) The initials OAQPS mean or refer to 

the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. 

(18) The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

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

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. 

(20) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers (coarse 

particulate matter). 

(21) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(22) The initials PTE mean or refer to 

potential to emit. 

(23) The initials RH mean or refer to 

regional haze. 

(24) The initials RHR mean or refer to the 

Regional Haze Rule, originally promulgated 

in 1999 and codified at 40 CFR 51.301–309. 

(25) The initials RP mean or refer to 

Reasonable Progress. 

(26) The initials RPG or RPGs mean or refer 

to Reasonable Progress Goal(s). 

(27) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(28) The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

(29) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide. 

(30) The initials SRPMIC mean or refer to 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community. 

(31) The initials tpy mean tons per year. 

(32) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

(33) The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

(34) The initials WEP mean or refer to 

Weighted Emissions Potential. 

(35) 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 Action 

III. Summary of State and EPA Actions on 

Regional Haze 

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

SIP 

B. History of State Submittals and EPA 

Actions 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s Revised RH 

SIP 

A. Emissions Inventory for 2008 

B. Reasonable Progress Goals 

C. BART Analyses and Determinations 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. 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 to EPA 

Written comments must be received at 

the address below on or before June 19, 

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. 

• E-Mail: 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29294 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Proposed rule titled ‘‘Partial Approval and 

Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Arizona; Regional Haze and Visibility Impacts of 

Transport, Ozone and Fine Particulates’’ published 

in the Federal Register on December 21, 2012 (77 

FR 75704). 

2National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson (D.D.C. Case 1:11–cv–01548). 

3National 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). 

4National Parks Conservation Association v. 

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

(November 13, 2012). 

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 

EPA proposes to approve in part and 

disapprove in part a Regional Haze (RH) 

SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on 

May 3, 2013, which revises certain 

elements of its RH SIP that we proposed 

to disapprove on December 21, 2012.1

ADEQ previously submitted its RH SIP 

to EPA Region 9 on February 28, 2011, 

to meet the requirements of Section 308 

of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). EPA 

Region 9 and ADEQ have engaged in a 

collaborative effort to clarify and resolve 

some of the issues in our proposal of 

December 21, 2012, that resulted in 

ADEQ’s SIP revision of May 3, 2013. In 

this notice, we propose to approve 

Arizona’s emissions inventory for 2008, 

its reasonable progress analysis for 

coarse mass and fine soils, and certain 

aspects of the analyses and 

determinations of BART controls for 

four sources. These sources are the 

FMMI Miami Smelter, ASARCO Hayden 

Smelter, Catalyst Paper, and AEPCO 

Apache Generating Station. In summary, 

we propose to approve a revised set of 

BART-eligible units for the Miami and 

Hayden smelters; the State’s finding that 

a BART analysis is not required for 

Catalyst Paper; and a clarification in the 

application of the emissions limit to 

Apache Unit 1. However, we are 

proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s new 

determination that the Miami Smelter is 

exempt from a BART analysis for NOX

controls, and that the Hayden Smelter is 

exempt from a BART analysis for PM10. 

Despite its finding that the Hayden 

Smelter is exempt from a BART analysis 

for PM10, ADEQ nonetheless performed 

such an analysis, and we are proposing 

to approve ADEQ’s determination that 

BART for PM10 is no additional 

controls. We are also proposing to 

approve a correction to ‘‘Table 6.1— 

Baseline Conditions for 20% Worst 

Days’’ in the Arizona’s RH SIP and are 

making a corresponding correction to 

‘‘Table 4—Visibility Calculations for 

Arizona Class I Areas’’ in our December 

21, 2012, notice (77 FR 75704) in which 

the baseline for Saguaro East & West 

were reversed. All other elements of the 

SIP addressed in our proposal dated 

December 21, 2012, remain unaffected. 

We will address both our proposal of 

December 21, 2012, and today’s 

proposed action in our final rule due in 

July 2013. For background information 

on visibility impairment and the 

Regional Haze Rule’s SIP requirements, 

please refer to those sections in our 

proposed rule dated December 21, 2012. 

III. Summary 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 Federal 

Implementation Plans (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 2011.2 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.3 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 1.4

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 1 ............................ November 15, 2012 2. 

Phase 2: 

All remaining elements of Arizona’s RH SIP ............................................................ December 8, 2012 3 .................. July 15, 2013. 

Phase 3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29295 

5 40 CFR 51.309(a). 

6 71 FR 28270 and 72 FR 25973. 

7Center for Energy and Economic Development v. 

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

8 71 FR 60612. 

9Letter from Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ, to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA (December 14, 2008). 

10 78 FR 8083. 

11 74 FR 2392. 

12CAA section 110(k)(1)(B). 

13 ‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional 

Haze Under Section 308 Of the Federal Regional 

Haze Rule,’’ February 28, 2011. 

14These are particles smaller than 10 microns, 

but larger than 2.5 microns. 

15 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). 

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

EPA Actions Proposed rule Final rule 

FIP for disapproved elements of Arizona’s RH SIP (if required) ............................. September 6, 2013 ................... February 6, 2014. 

1Published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 20, 2012, 77 FR 42834. 2Published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 5, 2012, 77 FR 72512. 3Published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 21, 2012, 77 FR 75704. 

B. 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.’’ 5 When these regulations 

were first promulgated, 309 submissions 

were due no later than December 31, 

2003. Accordingly, the ADEQ submitted 

to EPA on 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,6 but did not 

propose or take final action on any other 

portion of the 309 SIP at that time. 

In response to an adverse court 

decision,7 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, 2007.8 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.9 EPA proposed on 

February 5, 2013,10 to disapprove 

Arizona’s 309 SIP revisions except for 

the smoke management rules that we 

had previously approved. 

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.11 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 to EPA Region 

9 in a letter dated February 28, 2011. 

The plan was determined complete by 

operation of law on August 28, 2011.12

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 US Forest Service, and 

other stakeholders including regulated 

industries and environmental 

organizations. The Arizona RH SIP is 

available to review in the docket for this 

proposed rule.13

As indicated in Table 1, the first 

phase of EPA’s action on Arizona’s RH 

SIP addressed three BART sources. The 

final rule for this phase (a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the 

State’s plan and a partial FIP) was 

signed by the Administrator on 

November 15, 2012, and published in 

the Federal Register on December 5, 

2012. The emission limits on the three 

sources will improve visibility by 

reducing NOX emissions by about 

22,700 tons per year. In the second 

phase of our action, we proposed on 

December 21, 2012, to approve in part 

and disapprove in part the remainder of 

Arizona’s regional haze plan. ADEQ 

submitted a supplemental SIP on May 3, 

2013, to correct certain deficiencies 

identified in that proposal. Today’s 

action supersedes that proposal with 

respect to those elements of the SIP 

addressed in the State’s supplemental 

SIP that are discussed herein. In our 

final rule due for signature by July 15, 

2013, we will act on the proposed 

approvals and proposed disapprovals in 

the notices published on December 21, 

2012, and today. A proposed FIP due for 

signature by September 6, 2013, will 

address all the disapproved elements of 

the State’s plan from Phase 2 (See 

Table 1). 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Arizona’s 

Revised RH SIP 

A. Emissions Inventory for 2008 

In our proposed rule of December 21, 

2012, we noted that the State failed to 

provide the most recent emissions 

inventory available as required by the 

RHR in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). ADEQ 

provided a 2008 emissions inventory in 

its submittal dated May 3, 2013, to 

fulfill this requirement. The 2008 

inventory is described below in the 

context of the 2002 and 2018 

inventories discussed in our proposal of 

December 21, 2012, and is followed by 

our assessment. EPA proposes to find 

that the State has met this requirement 

of the RHR. 

ADEQ’s Submittal: The emissions 

inventories for 2002, 2008 and 2018 are 

summarized by source and pollutant in 

Tables 2 and 3. The emissions 

inventories consist of estimated annual 

emissions in tons per year (tpy) for ten 

source categories and six pollutants. 

The source categories are: point sources, 

anthropogenic fire, wildfire, biogenic, 

area sources, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile, road dust, fugitive dust and 

windblown dust. The haze producing 

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

PMcoarse14 and NH3. The 2018 emissions 

estimates do not include the substantial 

reductions in NOX emissions from point 

sources required under EPA’s Phase 1 

BART FIP.15

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29296 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16Emissions for 2002 and 2018 are from Tables 

8.1, 8.2 and 8.8 in the Arizona RH SIP. Emissions 

for 2008 are from Tables 2, 3 and 5 in the Arizona 

RH SIP Technical Support Document 

(‘‘Supplemental TSD’’) dated May 2, 2013. The 

‘‘Area Oil and Gas’’ category listed in these tables 

is excluded from this summary because the total 

emissions in this category are very small. 17Emissions for 2002 and 2018 are from Tables 

8.3–8.7 in the Arizona RH SIP. Emissions for 2008 

data are from the Supplemental TSD, Tables 4, 

6–9. 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. 

18The Supplemental TSD combined all fire 

emissions into ‘‘Natural Fire’’. EPA assumes that 

the proportions are comparable to the 2002 

partition between natural and anthropogenic fire. 

19The Arizona RH SIP did not include any PM10

emissions directly attributed to off-road vehicles. 

20Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Section 8.6.2. 

More information about WestJump is available at 

http://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx. 21Supplemental TSD, Table 1. 22Supplemental TSD, page 23. 

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ARIZONA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002, 2008 

AND 2018 

[Tons per year] 16

Category 

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

2002 2008 2018 2002 2008 2018 2002 2008 2018 

Point Sources ............. 94,716 79,015 67,429 69,968 60,759 68,748 5,464 3,489 9,401 

Anthropogenic Fire ..... 190 n/a 181 725 n/a 676 855 n/a 745 

Wildfire ....................... 4,369 607 4,369 16,493 3,513 16,494 36,377 4,989 36,381 

Biogenic ...................... 0 0 0 27,664 15,256 27,664 1,576,698 686,255 1,576,698 

Area Source ............... 2,677 3,678 3,408 9,049 39,403 12,783 102,918 100,256 170,902 

On-road Mobile .......... 2,715 812 762 178,009 137,555 53,508 110,424 54,589 52,872 

Off-road Mobile .......... 4,223 673 546 66,414 33,857 43,249 56,901 42,297 36,033 

Total .................... 108,890 84,784 76,695 368,322 290,343 223,122 1,889,637 890,158 1,883,032 

TABLE 3—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ARIZONA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002, 2008 

AND 2018 

[Tons per year] 17

Category 

NH3 [tpy] PM2.5 [tpy] PMcoarse [tpy] 

2002 2008 2018 2002 2008 2018 2002 2008 2018 

Point Sources ............. 531 971 729 934 5,127 1,421 8,473 5,260 8,650 

Anthropogenic Fire ..... 97 73 1,065 n/a18 927 17 n/a 9 

Wildfire ....................... 3,781 n/a 3,782 61,225 8,019 61,230 10,107 1,692 10,108 

Area Source ............... 32,713 34,878 36,248 9,400 15,688 13,727 1,384 2,389 1,766 

On-road Mobile .......... 5,035 2,377 7,606 3,344 8,736 2,318 1,004 5,597 1,258 

Off-road Mobile19 ....... 48 40 64 4,758 3,293 3,032 162 

Road and Fugitive 

Dust ........................ n/a 10,647 26,037 15,796 79,315 141,117 126,766 

Windblown Dust ......... n/a n/a n/a 6,422 9,647 6,422 57,796 87,431 57,796 

Total .................... 42,205 38,265 48,502 97,795 76,547 104,873 158,096 243,648 206,353 

EPA’s Assessment: The 2008 

inventory supplied by ADEQ was 

derived from the results of the 

WestJump200820 project conducted by 

the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP). The EPA has reviewed the 

source data and methods underlying 

ADEQ’s 2008 emissions inventory,21

which appear to be the most recent and 

accurate available for the year 2008. 

While there are a few missing data 

elements (e.g., anthropogenic fire) in the 

WRAP’s inventory, these omissions do 

not impact other requirements of the 

RHR, as the information is available for 

the base year and future year 

inventories. The EPA proposes to find 

that the 2008 inventory is based on the 

most current and reliable activity data 

and emissions factors, and is 

sufficiently accurate and complete to 

meet the needs of the Regional Haze 

SIP. 

The total SO2 and NOX emissions in 

2008 are consistent with what one 

would expect from the trend indicated 

by the 2002 and 2018 inventories. For 

these two pollutants of concern, the 

trends in point source and mobile 

source emissions are promising, with 

NOX emissions from point sources 

apparently decreasing faster than 

expected. We also note that wildfires 

were less prevalent in 2008 than in 

2002. In contrast, the area source 

category is increasing for both NOX and 

SO2. Much of the surprising increase in 

2008 is due to changes in methods. For 

example, the 2002 and 2018 inventories 

categorize locomotive emissions as offroad mobile, whereas the 2008 

emissions inventory categorizes them as 

area sources. This particular issue 

accounts for over 22,000 tpy of NOX in 

2008.22 The apparent steady growth in 

NOX and SO2 emissions from area 

sources will need more attention in 

future planning periods as other source 

categories are controlled and contribute 

less to visibility impairment. The State 

should carefully review the assumptions 

and data underlying the emissions 

estimates for the area source category in 

future RH SIP submittals to understand 

the extent of these sources and properly 

assess whether they are reasonable to 

control. 

The significant drop in VOC 

emissions was due to a change in the 

method for calculating biogenic 

emissions. This is not an actual change 

in VOC emissions, but rather a more 

accurate estimate of biogenic emissions 

than was previously available. This 

change in method (along with a 

coincidental decrease in wildfire 

activity in 2008) increases the relative 

importance of anthropogenic VOC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29297 

23Supplemental TSD, Table 14 and Section III.D. 

24 77 FR 75728. 25 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A); 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

26Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 97. 

27Supplemental TSD, Table 14 and Section III.D. 

28See the ‘‘11-year trend for 20% worse coarse 

matter days,’’ Supplemental TSD, Table 16, Column 

1. 

29Supplemental TSD, Table 14 and Section III.D. 

emissions compared to natural sources 

of VOC. The anthropogenic VOC 

emissions were estimated to be less than 

15 percent of the total emissions in 

2002. With the new, more accurate 

method of calculating biogenic 

emissions, the anthropogenic portion is 

now estimated to be 22 percent of the 

total VOC emissions. This new estimate 

of a higher anthropogenic fraction has 

the potential to make VOC emissions a 

more important factor in reasonable 

progress analyses for future planning 

periods. However, since VOC emissions 

are still primarily from natural and 

uncontrollable sources, EPA is not 

changing our proposal to approve the 

State’s decision to exclude VOC 

emissions from their reasonable 

progress analysis for this first planning 

period. 

The emissions inventories for 

particulate matter remain highly 

uncertain. This is not surprising, as the 

emissions are driven, in large part, by 

three categories that are difficult to 

accurately calculate: fugitive dust, road 

dust and windblown dust. There is a 

great deal of uncertainty in the 

calculations of these categories. EPA is 

working closely with the State on this 

issue to ensure compliance with the 

PM10 NAAQS in Maricopa and Pinal 

Counties. Given the current uncertainly 

in these inventory data for coarse mass 

and fine soil in Arizona, it is more 

informative to review the IMPROVE 

monitoring data for these pollutants. An 

analysis of the monitoring data 23 shows 

that the degree of visibility impairment 

from these compounds is generally 

stable and not increasing. In conclusion, 

EPA has reviewed and assessed the 

2008 emissions inventory for Arizona 

and proposes to approve that it meets 

the requirement in the RHR for the 

‘‘most recent inventory.’’ 

B. Reasonable Progress Goals 

In our previous Federal Register 

notice (77 FR 75727), we proposed to 

disapprove the State’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals (RPGs) for the worst 20 

percent of days. We explained that, 

since Arizona’s RPGs for the worst 20 

percent of days provide for a rate of 

improvement in visibility slower than 

the rate needed to show attainment of 

natural conditions by 2064 (i.e., the 

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

RHR requires the State to demonstrate 

why its RPGs are reasonable and why 

RPGs consistent with the URP are not 

reasonable.24 This demonstration must 

be based on an analysis of 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 (collectively 

‘‘the four RP factors’’).25 We proposed to 

find that the State had not conducted an 

adequate analysis of these four factors to 

support its determination that it was not 

reasonable to achieve the URP at any of 

the State’s Class I areas. Nonetheless, 

based on our own supplemental 

analysis, we proposed to approve the 

State’s finding that it is not reasonable 

to require additional controls on mobile 

sources of NOX, SO2 or VOCs or on 

point sources of SO2 during this 

planning period. By contrast, we 

proposed to disapprove the State’s 

findings with respect to coarse mass and 

fine soil emissions, point sources of 

NOX, and area sources of NOX and SO2. 

The supplemental regional haze SIP 

submitted by the State on May 3, 2013, 

includes a new Chapter 11 (‘‘Reasonable 

Progress Goal Demonstration’’), which 

supersedes the version of Chapter 11 

included in the SIP submitted on 

February 28, 2011. Sections 11.1 

(‘‘Reasonable Progress Requirements’’), 

11.2 (‘‘The Process for Determining 

Reasonable Progress’’) and 11.3 

(‘‘Summary of the Four-Factor 

Analysis’’) of the 2013 version of 

Chapter 11 are essentially identical to 

the 2011 version, except that subsection 

11.3.3 now includes a four-factor 

analysis for Phoenix Cement Company’s 

(PCC) plant near Clarkdale, Arizona. 

Sections 11.4 (‘‘Affirmative 

Demonstration of Reasonable Progress’’) 

and 11.5 (‘‘Demonstration of Reasonable 

Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days’’) 

contain new analyses of trends in 

monitored visibility conditions, which 

are set forth in greater detail in a 

Technical Support Document 

(‘‘Supplemental TSD’’) submitted with 

the supplemental SIP revision. Section 

11.6 (‘‘Affirmative Demonstration of 

Reasonable Progress’’) summarizes the 

results of these new analyses and 

Section 11.7 (‘‘Major Reductions in 

Mobile Sources Emissions by 2018’’) 

provides an updated summary of 

reductions in emissions of SO2, NOX

and VOCs from mobile sources, 

reflecting actual reductions that 

occurred between 2002 and 2008. 

Section 11.8 (‘‘Emission Reductions to 

With Respect to Out-of-State Class I 

Areas’’) states that: ‘‘Based on the 

demonstration in the preceding chapters 

showing reasonable progress at 

Arizona’s Class I areas, ADEQ asserts 

that the measures contained in the SIP 

are adequate to achieve reductions 

necessary to prevent visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in 

neighboring states.’’ 26 Sections 11.9 

(‘‘Additional Emission Reductions 

Expected by 2018 due to the Long-Term 

Strategy’’) and 11.10 (‘‘Long-Term 

Strategy ‘Next Steps’ in Analyzing Major 

Source Categories’’) of the supplement 

are essentially identical to subsections 

11.4.5 and 11.4.6 of the SIP submittal in 

2011. Likewise, section 11.11 (‘‘Years to 

Reach Natural Conditions Based on 

Reasonable Progress Goals’’) is 

essentially identical to section 11.5 of 

the submittal in 2011. 

Based on the new analyses contained 

in the supplemental submittal and our 

own supplemental analysis, we are now 

proposing to approve the State’s finding 

that it is not reasonable to require 

additional controls on sources of coarse 

mass and fine soil during the first 

planning period. However, the 

supplemental SIP did not provide 

sufficient analysis for EPA to change our 

proposal with respect to point sources 

of NOX or area sources of NOX and SO2. 

Therefore, we are still proposing to 

disapprove the State’s determinations 

that it is not reasonable to control point 

sources and area sources for the stated 

pollutants. The following is our 

evaluation of the new analyses provided 

in Chapter 11 of the State’s 

supplemental submittal. 

1. Coarse Mass and Fine Soil 

The EPA is proposing to concur with 

the State’s decision to exclude coarse 

mass and fine soils from its four-factor 

reasonable progress analysis for the first 

planning period. Our concurrence is 

based on Arizona’s supplemental 

analysis of monitoring data and our own 

analysis of potential emission sources. 

ADEQ’s Submittal: Arizona provided 

in its supplemental submittal an 

analysis of coarse mass and fine soil 

based on monitoring data.27 The 

monitoring data show that visibility 

impairment from coarse mass and fine 

soil is increasing in some Class I areas 

and decreasing in other areas, but is not 

changing significantly on a statewide 

basis.28 This indicates, even with 

statewide population growth, that there 

was no resulting general increase in 

impairment from these pollutants. The 

State also found that IMPROVE 

monitors located close together showed 

significant differences in coarse mass 

and fine soil impairment on the worst 

20 percent of days.29 This variation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29298 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

30PM10 includes both the coarse mass partition of 

particulate matter and the smaller PM2.5 partition. 

As a result, it is a good indicator of possible sources 

of coarse mass and fine soil impairment. One 

disadvantage of this approach is that it may over 

predict the impact of the sources by assuming all 

of the PM2.5 is fine soil, which may not be the case 

for combustion sources. 

31Arizona RH SIP Supplement Tables 8.3–8.6 

provide a breakdown between anthropogenic and 

natural fire emissions. The State did not break out 

these subcategories of fire emissions in the 2008 

inventory, but the ratio is likely comparable to 2002 

and 2018. Also note that Arizona’s Enhanced 

Smoke Management Program is described in detail 

in Section 12.7.5 of the RH SIP Supplement. 

32Supplemental TSD, Appendix A. 

33See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/

allstandards.html for a list of EPA vehicle emission 

and fuel standards. 

34See http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/ 

notmeet.html for information on the State adoption 

of the PM10 plan for the Maricopa County and 

Apache Junction nonattainment area, including 

links to the plans. 

35EPA finalized a rule on May 31, 2012, 

designating parts of Pinal County as nonattainment 

for the PM10 NAAQS (see 77 FR 32024). This 

designation requires the State to submit a plan to 

attain the standard. This plan must be submitted 

within 18 months of the designation. EPA has been 

providing technical assistance and guidance to the 

State on the development of this plan. 

suggests that local sources may 

contribute significantly to coarse mass 

and fine soil impairment. In order to 

investigate the potential contributions of 

sources close to the Class I areas, ADEQ 

examined the monitored visibility 

impairment at Class I areas near large 

stationary sources of PM10.30 ADEQ 

found no relationship between an area’s 

proximity to large sources of PM10 and 

significantly greater levels of visibility 

impairment due to coarse mass that 

would explain the observed 

concentrations statewide. This analysis 

of the monitoring data implies that there 

may be another cause of the visibility 

impairment from coarse mass, since the 

size and proximity of the existing point 

sources of PM10 do not solely explain 

the variability in the visibility 

impairment from these pollutants. 

EPA’s Assessment: EPA finds that 

Arizona’s analysis of monitoring data 

for coarse mass and fine soil was 

conducted in a scientifically valid 

manner. However, we also find that this 

analysis alone is insufficient to support 

Arizona’s decision to exclude these 

pollutants from a complete four-factor 

analysis. Therefore, we conducted a 

supplemental analysis, in which we 

reviewed each of the seven categories of 

coarse mass and fine soil emission 

sources to determine if additional 

controls on these categories may be 

needed to ensure reasonable progress in 

this planning period. These categories 

are: point, area, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile, fugitive and road dust, 

windblown dust, and fire. We find that, 

since emissions from fire are 

predominantly from uncontrollable 

wildfires, this source does not need to 

be addressed.31 Likewise, windblown 

dust may be excluded to the extent that 

it is from natural sources. According to 

the analysis supplied in Arizona’s 

supplemental TSD, the vast majority of 

emissions from windblown dust on a 

statewide, annual basis are from 

uncontrollable, natural sources.32

Therefore, this source category can also 

be excluded from the reasonable 

progress analysis for this planning 

period. 

In the case of point sources, Arizona’s 

analysis of the monitoring data indicates 

that it is not clear whether coarse mass 

emissions from these sources 

significantly contribute to visibility 

impairment at the Class I areas. Given 

the mixed results among the Class I 

areas, we are not confident that controls 

on particular point sources will be 

effective in reducing visibility 

impairment. Therefore, we propose to 

concur with the State’s conclusion that 

point sources should be excluded from 

this area of the reasonable progress 

analysis. Mobile sources (on-road and 

off-road) comprise 12 percent of the 

2008 coarse mass inventory. These 

sources are already subject to stringent 

EPA rules limiting particulate matter 

emissions. The full benefits of these 

rules will be realized before the end of 

this planning period.33 EPA concurs 

that this category of sources does not 

need to be considered for additional 

controls to ensure reasonable progress. 

The remaining category, fugitive and 

road dust, is a significant portion of the 

inventory, comprising 58 percent of the 

State’s total coarse mass emissions. 

While there is no clear indication that 

dust emissions are causing or 

contributing to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas, it is important to note that 

the State is making substantial 

reductions in these emissions in an 

effort to ensure compliance with the 

PM10 NAAQS. EPA has approved into 

the Arizona SIP various rules adopted 

by Maricopa and Pinal Counties related 

to fugitive and road dust, as shown in 

Table 4. Moreover, Maricopa County 

(which comprises 60 percent of the 

State’s population) has a State-approved 

plan,34 currently under EPA review, that 

makes additional reductions in fugitive 

and road dust emissions. A similar plan 

is under development for Pinal 

County.35 Given, the lack of a clear 

relationship between dust emissions 

and observed visibility impairment at 

Class I areas, EPA proposes to approve 

ADEQ’s determination that it is not 

reasonable to consider further controls 

on this source category at this time. 

However, it will be necessary to more 

closely examine the potential visibility 

impacts of fugitive and road dust on 

Arizona’s Class I areas in future 

planning periods. 

TABLE 4—RULES TO CONTROL FUGITIVE DUST AND ROAD DUST

Rule No. Title 

Adoption or 

amendment 

date 

FR publication 

date FR Citation 

Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

310 .................... Fugitive Dust From Dust-Generating Operations ......................................... 01/27/2010 12/15/2010 75 FR 78167 

310.01 ............... Fugitive Dust From Non-Traditional Sources of Fugitive Dust .................... 01/27/2010 12/15/2010 75 FR 78167 

Pinal County Air Quality Control District 

4–2–020 ............ Fugitive Dust—General ................................................................................ 12/04/2002 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–2–030 ............ Fugitive Dust—Definitions ............................................................................ 12/04/2002 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–2–040 ............ Standards [Fugitive Dust] ............................................................................. 06/29/1993 08/01/2007 72 FR 41896 

4–2–050 ............ Monitoring and Records [Fugitive Dust] ....................................................... 06/29/1993 08/01/2007 72 FR 41896 

4–4–100 ............ General Provisions ....................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–4–110 ............ Definitions ..................................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–4–120 ............ Objective Standards ..................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–4–130 ............ Work Practice Standards ............................................................................. 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–4–140 ............ Recordkeeping and Records Retention ....................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29299 

36More information on the State’s analysis and 

our assessment of it is in the Supplemental TSD 

and in the EPA document ‘‘EPA Summary and 

Assessment of ADEQ’s Visibility Analysis’’, May 9, 

2013 (‘‘EPA Assessment Document’’). 

37Supplemental TSD, Tables 12 and 14. 38Supplemental TSD, Table 14. 

39Arizona RH SIP Supplement, pages 52–53. 

40PCC’s comments including its ‘‘Summary of 

SNCR Costs for PCC’’ are available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904). 

TABLE 4—RULES TO CONTROL FUGITIVE DUST AND ROAD DUST—Continued 

Rule No. Title 

Adoption or 

amendment 

date 

FR publication 

date FR Citation 

4–5–150 ............ Applicability ................................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–5–160 ............ Residential Parking Control Requirement .................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–5–170 ............ Deferred enforcement date .......................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–210 ............ Definitions ..................................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–214 ............ General Provisions ....................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–218 ............ Applicability; Development Activity ............................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–222 ............ Owner and/or Operator Liability ................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–226 ............ Objective Standards; Sites ........................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–230 ............ Obligatory Work Practices Standards; Sites ................................................ 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–234 ............ Nonattainment-Area Dust Permit Program; General Provisions .................. 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–238 ............ Nonattainment Area Site Permits ................................................................. 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–242 ............ Nonattainment Area Block Permits .............................................................. 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–7–246 ............ Recordkeeping and Records Retention ....................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–9–320 ............ Test Methods for Stabilization For Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking 

Lots.

06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

4–9–340 ............ General Provisions ....................................................................................... 06/03/2009 04/06/2010 75 FR 17307 

In conclusion, EPA proposes to 

concur with the State’s decision to omit 

coarse mass and fine soil from its fourfactor reasonable progress analysis for 

this planning period. In particular, there 

is a lack of a clear relationship between 

any particular source category of these 

pollutants and observed visibility 

impairment at the State’s Class I areas. 

Therefore, EPA agrees with the State 

that it is more urgent to focus controls 

in this planning period on other 

pollutants. EPA will work with the State 

and appropriate multi-jurisdictional 

planning organization to better 

understand the causes of coarse mass 

and fine soil visibility impairment at 

Arizona’s Class I areas. This additional 

analysis may indicate that it is 

necessary to control sources of these 

pollutants to ensure reasonable progress 

in future planning periods. 

2. Visibility Trends in Arizona’s Class I 

Areas 

Arizona provided in its supplemental 

SIP an analysis of visibility trends at its 

Class I areas as measured by the 

IMPROVE monitoring network to 

indicate that the State is making 

reasonable progress.36 EPA agrees with 

Arizona that, in general, visibility 

appears to be improving across the 

State. For the most part, however, this 

improvement does not appear to be 

significant, given the normal year-toyear variations that one would expect in 

monitored visibility levels.37 In these 

year-to-year variations, it is difficult to 

distinguish whether significant trends 

are related to changes in source 

emissions or are from intermittent 

natural events. EPA agrees that nitratedriven visibility impairment does 

appear to decrease moderately 

statewide, as one would expect when 

NOX emissions decline. In particular, 

there appears to be a significant 

decrease in nitrate-driven visibility 

impairment at Saguaro West and 

Saguaro East,38 the two Class I areas 

with the longest projected time lines to 

reach natural visibility background 

levels. This trend indicates these two 

areas may achieve greater improvement 

in visibility than the WRAP’s analysis 

projected. While ADEQ’s analysis of 

visibility trends provides helpful 

information in support of the State’s 

overall RH planning efforts, this 

analysis cannot substitute for a 

complete four-factor analysis, as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) 

and 51.308(d)(1)(ii). Nonetheless, EPA 

encourages Arizona to continue to 

develop and refine this monitoring 

trends analysis as part of its 5-year 

progress report required under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h). 

3. Point Sources of NOX and Area 

Sources of NOX and SO2

In our original proposal published on 

December 21, 2012, we proposed to 

disapprove the State’s determination 

that it was not appropriate to require 

additional controls on point sources of 

NOX or area sources of NOX and SO2 in 

order to ensure reasonable progress. The 

supplemental information submitted on 

May 3, 2013, did not provide sufficient 

additional analysis for us to change our 

original position. In addition to the 

analysis of visibility trends based on 

monitoring data described in IV.B.2, 

ADEQ performed a four-factor analysis 

of NOX emissions from the Phoenix 

Cement Company (PCC) plant located 

near Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 

Area. ADEQ did not perform a fourfactor analysis for any other point 

sources or area source categories as part 

of its supplemental SIP. 

a. Reasonable Progress Analysis of 

Phoenix Cement Company 

The EPA finds that the four-factor 

analysis of PCC is inadequate to support 

ADEQ’s determination that no 

additional controls are reasonable for 

this source. In particular, EPA finds that 

ADEQ’s assessment of the cost of 

compliance and the potential visibility 

benefits of control are not supported by 

the underlying data. With regard to the 

cost of compliance, the supplement 

states: ‘‘Based in part on estimates 

provided by the EPA and PCC, which 

are incorporated in PCC’s March 6, 2013 

comments, and applicable cost-estimate 

guidance, ADEQ finds that the cost of 

installing selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) control technology at 

PCC would be in excess of $1,700,000 

and the cost of operating SNCR at PCC 

would be in excess of $1,200,000 

annually.’’ 39 The supplemental SIP 

contains no explanation or 

documentation of how ADEQ calculated 

these costs, but they appear to derive 

exclusively from PCC’s own 

calculations contained in Attachment 4 

(‘‘Summary of SNCR Costs for PCC’’) to 

PCC’s March 6, 2013, comments to 

EPA.40 In that analysis, PCC estimates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29300 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

41EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA/452/B–02–001, January 2002, Section 

4.2, Chapter 1, pages 1–37. 

42See e.g., BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix Y, section IV.D.4.b; See, e.g. BART 

Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section 

IV.D.4.b; 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 (‘‘Reasonable Progress Guidance’’) 

section 5.1. 

43Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 53. 

44 Id. 

45 Id. at page 89. 46 Id. at page 53. 47See EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

section 5.2. 48Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Enclosure 3, 

Appendix E, Responsiveness Summary at page 3. 

49See e.g., Table 11.2 of the Arizona RH SIP 

Supplement. 50See Arizona RH SIP Supplement Section 11.5.2 

(Ammonium Nitrate Q/D Analysis). 

51The BART sources in today’s action are in 

addition to Apache, Cholla and Coronado that were 

the focus of our final rule published on December 

5, 2012. 

52See Arizona RH SIP Supplement Chapter 10, 

sections 10.4, 10.7 and 10.8; Appendix D, Sections 

VI (C), VII, IX, XII (B&C), XIII (B, C & D). 

that the total capital cost of SNCR 

would be $1,744,560 and the total 

annual cost (including both annualized 

capital costs and operating costs) would 

be $1,287,789. However, this analysis 

includes certain assumptions which are 

unsupported and inconsistent with 

EPA’s Control Cost Manual. In 

particular, the analysis assumes an 

equipment lifetime of 10 years, whereas 

the Control Cost Manual provides for 

assumed economic lifetime of 20 years 

for an SNCR system.41 Given that PCC 

estimates that the remaining useful life 

of Kiln 4 is roughly 50 years, the 

equipment lifetime used for calculating 

annualized costs should be at least 20 

years. ADEQ’s assumption of 10 years 

has the effect of significantly overstating 

the annualized cost of SNCR. 

Furthermore, neither PCC’s analysis nor 

the supplemental SIP provides any 

calculation of cost effectiveness (i.e., the 

cost per ton of emissions removed) of 

SNCR, which is the recommended 

metric of cost used for both BART and 

RP cost analyses.42

The supplemental SIP also states that, 

‘‘ADEQ has considered the visibility 

modeling issues incorporated in PCC’s 

March 6, 2013 comments and concludes 

that changes to visibility impairment in 

the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area 

that might be achieved by the 

installation and operation of SNCR at 

PCC are not warranted in light of these 

costs and given the revised reasonable 

progress demonstration for the 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area.’’ 43

However, no quantitative assessment of 

the potential visibility benefits is 

provided. In addition, the supplemental 

SIP states that ‘‘As demonstrated 

elsewhere in this SIP, reasonable 

progress will already be achieved for the 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area,’’ 44

although no specific reference is 

provided. This statement appears to 

refer to section 11.5 of the supplemental 

submittal (‘‘Demonstration of 

Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% 

Worst Days’’), in which ‘‘ADEQ presents 

reasonable progress towards reaching 

the previously presented RPGs as 

interpreted through IMPROVE monitor 

data.’’ 45 However, as previously noted, 

this analysis of visibility trends cannot 

substitute for a complete four-factor 

analysis. 

Finally, under the ‘‘Time Necessary 

for Compliance’’ factor, ADEQ states 

that ‘‘even if additional controls were 

identified, they would not need to be 

installed by 2018, because the 5-year 

requirement at CAA § 169A(g)(4), 42 

U.S.C. § 7491(g)(4), applies only to 

sources subject to BART, which PCC is 

not, and because reasonable progress 

will already be achieved for the 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area 

significantly in excess of the 

corresponding URP, as demonstrated 

elsewhere in this SIP.’’ 46 We wish to 

clarify that, while ADEQ is correct that 

the five-year requirement for control 

installation does not apply to non-BART 

sources, this does not mean that the 

State may postpone indefinitely 

reasonable controls for non-BART 

sources. Rather, if such controls are 

necessary to ensure reasonable progress 

for the first planning period, installation 

is required by 2018, which is the final 

year in this planning period. If, by 

contrast, it is not practicable to install 

controls during the first planning 

period, one should take this into 

consideration as part of the four-factor 

analysis.47 We also note that ADEQ’s 

statement that ‘‘reasonable progress will 

already be achieved for the Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness Area significantly in 

excess of the corresponding URP, as 

demonstrated elsewhere in this SIP’’ 

appears to be an inadvertent error, since 

ADEQ’s responsiveness statement 

indicates that ADEQ has retracted this 

statement and that Sycamore Canyon 

does not, in fact, meet the glide path.48

In summary, while we appreciate 

ADEQ’s effort to conduct a four-factor 

analysis of NOX at PCC in a short period 

of time, we find that this analysis is 

inadequate. 

b. Other Elements of Arizona’s 

Supplemental Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

With the exception of PCC, ADEQ did 

not perform a four-factor analysis for 

any other point source or area source 

category as part of its supplemental SIP. 

In particular, the SIP still contains no 

four-factor analysis for external 

combustion boilers, internal combustion 

engines or combustion turbines, despite 

the fact that these source categories are 

projected to comprise the vast majority 

of the State’s NOX emissions from point 

source in 2018.49 The supplement does 

include an initial ‘‘Q/D analysis’’ (i.e., a 

calculation of annual NOX emissions (Q) 

in tons per year divided by distance to 

the closest Class I area (D) in kilometers) 

for major NOX sources in the State, as 

well as an analysis of ammonium nitrate 

trends at the relevant Class I areas.50

However, given that the State has 

elected to focus on NOX emissions from 

point and area sources for this planning 

period, we find it is not reasonable for 

the State to exclude the majority of 

these emissions from a four-factor 

analysis based solely on monitoring 

trends. 

c. Conclusions Regarding Point Sources 

of NOX and Area Sources of NOX and 

SO2

Based on the foregoing assessment, 

we therefore are proposing to 

disapprove ADEQ’s determination that 

no additional controls for point sources 

of NOX and area sources of NOX and 

SO2 are reasonable. It should be noted 

that EPA is not proposing to find that 

such additional controls are in fact 

reasonable. Rather, we find that further 

analysis is needed to determine whether 

such controls are reasonable. If we 

finalize our proposed disapproval of 

ADEQ’s determination in this regard, we 

would perform this analysis as part of 

our development of a proposed partial 

Regional Haze FIP for Arizona. 

C. BART Analyses and Determinations 

We proposed on December 21, 2012, 

to approve in part and disapprove in 

part certain elements of the BART 

analyses in Arizona’s RH SIP submitted 

on February 28, 2011.51 In Arizona’s 

supplemental SIP dated May 3, 2013, 

ADEQ revised aspects of its BART 

analyses and determinations for four 

facilities: Miami Smelter, Hayden 

Smelter, Catalyst Paper and Apache 

Generating Station.52 Based on our 

assessment of updated information, we 

now propose to approve a revised set of 

BART-eligible units for the Miami and 

Hayden smelters. However, regarding 

the Miami smelter, we are proposing to 

disapprove ADEQ’s new determination 

that this source is exempt from a BART 

analysis for NOX controls. Regarding the 

Hayden smelter, we are proposing to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29301 

53Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Section 10.7, page 

39, and Appendix D, section IV.E, page 27. 

54The FMMI documents and diagrams are 

contained in FMMI’s comment letter, which is 

available in the docket for this action (EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0904). 

55As described on page 5 of FMMI’s March 6, 

2013 comment letter, and page 153 of the February 

28, 2011, Arizona Regional Haze SIP. 

56Table 11, 77 FR 75721. 

57Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 53. 

58Emission calculations included as an 

attachment to the Arizona RH SIP Supplement. 

59See ADEQ Responsiveness Summary, page 6. 

60 40 CFR 51.301. 

61 ‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit of 

a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V 

of the Clean Air Act,’’ January 25, 1995. 

62 ‘‘Clarification of Methodology for Calculating 

Potential to Emit of Batch Chemical Production 

Operations,’’ August 29, 1996. 

63Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Section 10.7, page 

39, and Appendix D, section IV.E, page 27. 

disapprove ADEQ’s new determination 

that this source is exempt from a BART 

analysis for PM10. Despite its 

determination that the Hayden smelter 

is exempt from a BART analysis for 

PM10, ADEQ in fact conducted such an 

analysis, and we are proposing to 

approve ADEQ’s determination that 

BART for PM10 is no additional 

controls. We also propose to approve 

the State’s finding that a BART analysis 

is not required for Catalyst Paper. 

Finally, we propose to approve a 

clarification in the application of the 

State’s BART determination for Apache 

Unit 1. We have limited the scope of our 

review to the facilities or elements of a 

facility’s BART analysis that were 

revised in the supplemental SIP. Please 

refer to our proposed rule of December 

21, 2012, for further details on our 

proposed partial approvals and partial 

disapprovals. 

1. FMMI Miami Smelter 

a. Identification of BART-Eligible Units 

ADEQ’s Submittal: In its 

supplemental SIP, ADEQ clarified that 

the units at the Miami Smelter 

constituting the BART-eligible source 

do not include the Remelt/Mold Pouring 

Vessel. Previously, ADEQ and FMMI 

had identified the Remelt Vessel as 

BART-eligible.53 Although the precise 

construction date of the Remelt Vessel 

could not be determined, ADEQ 

referenced certain facility diagrams 

provided by FMMI indicating that the 

Remelt Vessel was in operation before 

1962,54 which is prior to the BART time 

period for eligibility from 1962 to 1977. 

EPA’s Assessment: Based on the 

information contained in the 

supplemental SIP, we propose to 

approve ADEQ’s finding that the Remelt 

Vessel unit is not BART-eligible. As a 

result, the BART-eligible source at the 

Miami Smelter now consists of the 

electric furnace, converter numbers 2–5, 

and the acid plant.55 Today’s proposal 

supersedes our previous proposal of 

December 21, 2012, that identified a 

different set of emission units as 

constituting the BART-eligible source.56

b. Exemption of NOX Emissions 

ADEQ’s Submittal: ADEQ states in its 

supplemental SIP that ‘‘[b]ased on an 

emission analysis for FMMI, it has been 

concluded that the potential emissions 

from the BART-subject units is less than 

40 tpy thus rendering the outcome that 

those units should not be subject to a 

BART analysis for NOX.’’ 57 FMMI’s 

analysis consists of identifying the 

maximum annual natural gas usage for 

each BART-eligible unit during the 

period of 2007 to 2011, which 

corresponds to a total emission rate of 

31.6 tpy.58 Further, ADEQ notes that ‘‘in 

2010 the converter process gas cooling 

system was changed from an air-to-gas 

tubing to water spray cooling. This 

conversion reduced the number of burn 

outs and holding fires due to plugging. 

The net effect is that natural gas usage 

is significantly lower after the change. 

ADEQ considers this change to be an 

inherent physical limitation and 

therefore a limitation on the potential 

emissions from these convertors.’’ 59 As 

a result of this analysis, ADEQ asserts 

that the BART-eligible units at FMMI 

have a potential to emit (PTE) of 31.6 

tpy, which is less than the 40 tpy de 

minimis threshold for NOX emissions. 

EPA’s Assessment: EPA disagrees 

with FMMI’s and ADEQ’s analysis. The 

RHR defines PTE as ‘‘the maximum 

capacity of a stationary source to emit 

a pollutant under its physical and 

operational design. Any physical or 

operational limitation on the capacity of 

the source to emit a pollutant including 

air pollution control equipment and 

restrictions on hours of operation or on 

the type or amount of material 

combusted, stored, or processed, shall 

be treated as part of its design if the 

limitation or the effect it would have on 

emissions is federally enforceable. 

Secondary emissions do not count in 

determining the potential to emit of a 

stationary source.’’ 60 This definition 

essentially is identical to those used by 

other programs under the Clean Air Act 

such as New Source Review under Title 

I and Operating Permits under Title V. 

According to a 1995 memorandum 

from John Seitz of OAQPS to EPA Air 

Directors, there are sources for which 

inherent physical limitations restrict 

operations and, as a result, PTE.61 For 

the most part, these are simple sources 

that have a single emission unit 

responsible for most of the emissions 

(e.g., grain elevators and spray booths at 

auto body shops). For larger source 

types with multiple emission units and 

complex operations, these limitations 

can be difficult or problematic to 

identify. In these cases, EPA strongly 

recommends that sources obtain legally 

and practically enforceable limitations 

on PTE. 

Determining PTE from batch 

processes can be especially problematic 

and difficult because emissions and 

operation profiles are not uniform. In 

1996, John Seitz issued a memorandum 

to the EPA Air Directors providing 

guidance on determining the maximum 

capacity of batch chemical production 

operations which may be useful for 

determining the maximum capacity of 

other kinds of batch processes.62 Three 

steps are identified in this 

memorandum. These are identifying 

potential batch operations, determining 

the emissions associated with each 

cycle, and determining worst-case 

emissions based on the highest emitting 

combination of production cycles. 

FMMI did not identify any inherent 

physical or operational limitations to 

determine the PTE of NOX from the 

BART-eligible units, and did not 

identify legally and practically 

enforceable limitations on the 

operations or emissions from these 

units. Historical records of actual 

emissions, fuel usage, or material 

throughput are not inherent physical 

limitations and do not demonstrate the 

maximum capacity of a source. Because 

an unestablished capacity reduced by an 

undefined ‘‘significant’’ amount remains 

unknown, we find that FMMI’s and 

ADEQ’s analysis is insufficient to 

establish that the BART-eligible units 

have a PTE of less than 40 tpy of NOX

emissions. Therefore, we proposed to 

disapprove ADEQ’s determination that 

these units do not require a BART 

analysis for NOX. 

2. ASARCO Hayden Smelter 

a. Identification of BART-Eligible Units 

ADEQ’s Submittal: Arizona’s original 

RH SIP submitted on February 28, 2011, 

identified anode furnaces 1 and 2 and 

converters 1, 2 and 4 at ASARCO’s 

Hayden Smelter as subject to BART for 

one or more pollutants. This 

determination was based on information 

provided by ASARCO stating that these 

units were in existence on August 7, 

1977, and began operation after August 

7, 1962. In the supplemental SIP dated 

May 3, 2013, ADEQ found that units 1, 

3, 4 and 5 of the five converters are 

BART-eligible.63 ADEQ noted that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29302 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

64Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Appendix D, page 

24. ADEQ’s March 6, 2013, comment letter is 

available in the docket for this action (EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0904). 

65When the dual definition was originally 

promulgated, EPA explained that this it was 

intended ‘‘to accommodate the reconstruction 

provisions of BART applicability, and to be 

consistent with the nonattainment [new source 

review] regulations (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980)’’. 

Although this dual definition was later removed 

from the NSR regulations, 46 FR 50766, 50771, 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(ii) it was retained for purposes of 

the RAVI (and later, the Regional Haze) regulations, 

presumably in order to continue ‘‘to accommodate 

the reconstruction provisions of BART 

applicability,’’ that is, to ensure that, when a single 

unit at source was reconstructed during the BART 

window, it would become BART eligible, even if 

the rest of the facility remained ineligible. 66See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section II.A.3; 

70 FR 39104, 39115–17. 

67See e.g., 70 FR 39104, 39108 (July 6, 2005) (‘‘In 

response to State concerns about equitable 

application of the BART requirement to source 

owners with similar sources in different States, we 

do encourage States to follow the guidelines for all 

source categories but are not requiring States to do 

so. States should view the guidelines as helpful 

guidance for these other categories.’’). 

68See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section II.A.3 

(‘‘How do I identify whether a plant has more than 

one ‘‘stationary source?’’). 

69 70 FR 39117. 

70See ‘‘Asarco Hayden BART submittal 2013–03– 

20.pdf’’ included as an attachment to the Arizona 

RH SIP Supplement (May 3, 2013). 

71Relevant excerpts from the November 4, 2002, 

performance tests are included as attachments to 

the Arizona RH SIP Supplement (May 3, 2013). 

Emissions calculations based on this test are also 

included on page 6 in Asarco’s March 6, 2013 

comment letter to EPA, which is available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904). 

72Relevant excerpts from the fugitive emission 

study ‘‘Final Report, Fugitive SO2 Emission Study, 

Asarco Ray Complex, Hayden, Arizona’’ prepared 

by TRC North American Weather Consultants, 

conducted from October 1994 through May 1995, 

are included as attachments to the Arizona RH SIP 

Supplement (May 3, 2013). 

revised information provided by 

ASARCO showed that converter 1 was 

installed in 1966, converter 2 was 

installed in 1949 or 1950, and 

converters 3, 4 and 5 were replaced 

between 1965 and 1975. Based on these 

installation and replacement dates, all 

the converters except unit 2 are BARTeligible. ADEQ also confirmed that 

anode furnaces 1 and 2 are BARTeligible and anode furnace 0, 

constructed in 2001, is not. 

EPA’s Assessment: EPA proposes to 

approve ADEQ’s finding that converters 

1, 3, 4 and 5 and anode furnaces 1 and 

2 constitute the BART-eligible source at 

the Hayden Smelter. This designation 

supersedes the proposed approval of the 

BART-eligible source at the Hayden 

Smelter contained in our proposal of 

December 21, 2012, in which we 

identified a different set of converters 

and anode furnaces as constituting the 

BART-eligible source. 

b. Exemption of PM10 Emissions 

ADEQ’s Submittal: In its 

supplemental SIP, ADEQ references 

comments submitted on EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking that states ‘‘stationary 

source’’ is defined under the RHR as 

‘‘any building, structure, facility, or 

installation which emits or may emit 

any air pollutant.’’ 64 In contrast to the 

new source review rules, the regional 

haze rule incorporates a dual definition 

of stationary source. In other words, it 

contains one definition for ‘‘building, 

structure or facility’’ and another for 

‘‘installation.’’ While ‘‘building, 

structure or facility’’ is defined as all of 

the pollutant-emitting activities that 

belong to the same industrial grouping, 

the term ‘‘installation’’ is defined as ‘‘an 

identifiable piece of process 

equipment.’’ ADEQ asserts that since 

the Hayden and Miami smelter plants 

were in operation long before 1962, they 

cannot be BART-eligible under the 

‘‘building, structure or facility’’ prong of 

the definition and instead, the 

‘‘installation’’ prong applies. Noting that 

each anode furnace, copper converter 

and shaft furnace is an ‘‘identifiable 

piece of process equipment,’’ ADEQ 

asserts that each constitutes a separate 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ and that each 

therefore has to be evaluated 

individually against the de minimis 

emissions threshold for BART of 15 tpy 

of PM10. Since the average PTE for the 

process equipment is below 15 tpy, 

ADEQ believes the BART-eligible 

sources must be exempt from a BART 

analysis for PM10. 

EPA’s Assessment: As noted by 

ADEQ, the terms ‘‘BART-eligible 

source’’ and ‘‘stationary source’’ are 

defined in the RHR in a manner that can 

extend to include multiple emission 

units or pieces of process equipment, or 

to include only a single emission unit or 

single piece of process equipment.65

However, ADEQ appears to 

misunderstand how this dual definition 

applies in the context of identifying 

BART-eligible sources. The BART 

Guidelines and the preamble to the RHR 

discuss at length the meaning of 

‘‘stationary source’’ and how to identify 

the composition of the ‘‘BART-eligible 

source’’ within the fence line of 

particular facility.66 Although the 

preamble and the Guidelines are not 

binding with respect to copper smelters, 

they provide important guidance on 

how to apply the requirements of the 

RHR, including the generally applicable 

definition of ‘‘stationary source.’’ 67 In 

particular, the Guidelines explain that 

‘‘For emission units within the 

‘contiguous or adjacent’ boundary and 

under common control, you must group 

emission units that are within the same 

industrial grouping (that is, associated 

with the same 2-digit SIC code) in order 

to define the stationary source.’’ 68 Thus, 

the Guidelines suggest that the only 

circumstance under which there could 

be more than one ‘‘stationary source’’ at 

a single facility is if the facility includes 

BART-eligible units categorized under 

different 2-digit SIC codes. This 

circumstance does not appear to apply 

to either ASARCO Hayden or FMMI 

Miami. Therefore, we do not agree with 

ADEQ’s assertion that each unit at the 

smelters constitutes a separate source. 

We also note that, if each unit were in 

fact a separate source, a separate fivefactor analysis for each unit would be 

required. ADEQ has not performed 

separate analyses for each subject-toBART unit. Moreover, we note that the 

preamble to the RHR specifically 

explains that: 

The de minimis levels [set forth in 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(C)] discussed today apply on 

a plant-wide basis. Applying de minimis 

levels on a unit by unit basis as suggested by 

certain commenters could exempt hundreds 

of tons of emissions of a visibility impairing 

pollutant from BART analysis.69

This language indicates that aggregation 

from the unit-level to a broader ‘‘plantwide basis’’ is required when 

determining if de minimis levels apply. 

Therefore, a subject-to-BART source can 

only be exempted from a BART analysis 

for PM10 where the total PM10 emissions 

from all BART-eligible units at the plant 

are less than 15 tpy. As a result, we are 

proposing to disapprove ADEQ’s finding 

that the ASARCO Hayden Smelter is 

exempt from a BART analysis for PM10.

c. BART Determination for PM10

ADEQ’s Submittal: In its 

supplemental SIP, ADEQ provided a 

BART analysis of PM10 that is based on 

updated emission calculations and new 

CALPUFF visibility modeling. Elements 

of this analysis are based upon an 

updated BART analysis submitted by 

ASARCO to ADEQ on March 20, 2013.70

For the converters, the revised baseline 

emission estimates of PM10 are based 

primarily on the results of the stack tests 

performed during the 2001 to 2003 

baseline period, as summarized in Table 

5.71 For anode furnace emissions, which 

are fugitive in nature, baseline emission 

estimates of PM10 are based on a 

historical fugitive emission study.72

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29303 

73The results of this visibility modeling are 

contained in an attachment to ASARCO’s March 6, 

2013, comment letter, which was as attachment to 

the revised Arizona Regional Haze SIP. 

TABLE 5—ASARCO HAYDEN BASELINE PM10 EMISSIONS

Unit Exhaust stack 

Acid plant exhaust emissions Converter 

fraction 

PM10 Emissions 

(lb/hr) (g/s) % (lb/hr) (g/s) 

Converters 1, 3, 4, 5 ........... Primary hooding 1 ............... 9.34 1.18 0.20 1.91 0.24 

Secondary hooding ............ ........................ ........................ ........................ 8.02 1.01 

Fugitives ............................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 7.23 0.91 

Anode Furnaces 1, 2 2 ........ Fugitives ............................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 18.33 2.31 

1Based on test results from the acid plant exhaust, which receives exhaust from the converter primary hooding as well from the flash furnace. 

In order to apportion the performance test results between the converters and the flash furnace, an 80/20 ratio developed from AP–42 emission 

factors was used. See AP–42 (10/86), Table 12.3–3. 2Based on historical fugitive emissions study. PM10 emissions from the study were scaled upwards based on the concentrate use at the time 

of the study and the highest month of concentrate use from 2001–03. 

ADEQ identified the following 

existing particulate control devices for 

each of the BART-eligible units/exhaust 

stacks listed in Table 5: 

• Converter primary hooding: routed 

to a combination of cyclones, wet 

scrubbers, wet gas cleaning, and acid 

plant; 

• Converter secondary hooding: 

baghouse; 

• Converter fugitives: no controls; 

and 

• Anode furnaces: no controls (during 

2001–2003 baseline period). 

In addition, the following control 

options were considered for each of the 

BART-eligible units/exhaust stacks: 

• Converter primary hooding: no 

further controls considered; the current 

configuration represents the most 

stringent set of particulate controls; 

• Converter secondary hooding: no 

further controls considered; a baghouse 

is considered the most stringent 

particulate control; 

• Converter fugitives: baghouse, wet 

scrubber; and 

• Anode furnaces: baghouse, wet 

scrubber. 

ASARCO also performed updated 

CALPUFF visibility modeling using the 

revised PM10 emission rates 

summarized in Table 5.73 In order to be 

consistent with the previous subject-toBART modeling performed by the 

WRAP, the updated CALPUFF modeling 

was performed using the same 

procedures and approach outlined in 

the WRAP RMC’s CALPUFF BART 

Modeling Protocol dated August 15, 

2006. The results of this updated 

visibility modeling are summarized in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6—ASARCO HAYDEN VISIBILITY IMPACT OF PM10

Class I area 

State 

Min distance 

from facility 

(km) 

98th Percentile impact (deciview) 

Abbr Name 2001 2002 2003 

chir .................... Chiricahua NM ................................................ AZ 169 0.01 0.01 0.01 

gali .................... Galiuro Wilderness .......................................... AZ 47 0.04 0.03 0.04 

gila .................... Gila Wilderness ............................................... NM 186 0.00 0.00 0.00 

maza ................. Mazatzal Wilderness ....................................... AZ 121 0.01 0.01 0.01 

moba ................. Mount Baldy Wilderness ................................. AZ 151 0.00 0.00 0.00 

pefo ................... Petrified Forest NP ......................................... AZ 215 0.00 0.00 0.00 

pimo .................. Pine Mountain Wilderness .............................. AZ 167 0.00 0.00 0.00 

sagu .................. Saguaro NP .................................................... AZ 86 0.01 0.01 0.01 

sian ................... Sierra Ancha Wilderness ................................ AZ 84 0.01 0.01 0.01 

supe .................. Superstition Wilderness .................................. AZ 49 0.04 0.03 0.03 

syca ................... Sycamore Canyon Wilderness ....................... AZ 239 0.00 0.00 0.00 

For the converter primary and 

secondary hooding, ADEQ indicated 

that the existing controls represent the 

most stringent level of control, and that 

no further particulate controls are 

required as BART. For the converter 

fugitives and anode furnace emissions 

(which are fugitive in nature) ADEQ 

determined that no additional 

particulate controls are required as 

BART. ADEQ’s determination is based 

primarily on cost of controls and 

anticipated visibility improvement. 

Citing a maximum visibility 

improvement at a single Class I area of 

0.04 dv, ADEQ stated that the benefits 

of control are outweighed by the costs 

of control and, in the case of wet 

scrubbers, the adverse environmental 

effects of water consumption and sludge 

management. 

EPA’s Assessment: We now propose 

to approve ADEQ’s determination that 

BART for PM10 at the Hayden smelter is 

no additional controls, based upon the 

small amount of anticipated visibility 

improvement from additional 

particulate controls. The approval of 

this BART determination should not be 

construed to represent an acceptance of 

the entirety of the analysis supporting 

the determination. For example, the 

supporting calculations for control costs 

were not included, which did not allow 

us to perform a detailed review. In 

addition, we note that the CALPUFF 

modeling to support the BART 

determination was not performed using 

the current regulatory-approved version 

of CALPUFF. 

As a result, EPA performed CALPUFF 

modeling to check ADEQ’s PM10

conclusion. EPA used the regulatory 

version of the model, a version of the 

WRAP-developed meteorological inputs 

that incorporates upper air data, and the 

revised IMPROVE equation. As shown 

in Table 7, which includes all Class I 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29304 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

74Spreadsheet (Hayden_Visibility_Impacts.xlsx) 

of full modeling results is available in the docket 

(EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0904). 

75Letter from John Groothuizen, Site Manager at 

the Catalyst Paper Snowflake to Eric Massey, 

Director Air Quality Division, ADEQ, Re: Catalyst 

Paper (Snowflake) Inc Facility Closure, Title V 

Permit No. 46898 Termination (December 21, 2012); 

Letter from Eric Massey, Director Air Quality 

Division, ADEQ to John Groothuizen, Site Manager 

at the Catalyst Paper Snowflake, Re: Termination of 

Air Quality Control Permit No. 46898, Snowflake 

Paper Mill (Jan. 24, 2013). 

76 In re Monroe Electric Generating (Petition No. 

6–99–2), EPA Order Partially Granting and Partially 

Denying Petition for Objection to Permit at 8 (June 

11, 1999). 

77Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Appendix D, page 

41. 

78Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Appendix D, page 

49. 

79See 40 CFR 51.301; 40 CFR part 51 appendix 

Y, section II.A.1. (‘‘combined cycle turbines are . . . 

considered ‘steam electric plants’ because such 

facilities incorporate heat recovery steam 

generators. Simple cycle turbines, in contrast, are 

not ‘steam electric plants’ because these turbines 

typically do not generate steam.’’). 

areas within 300 kilometers of the 

Hayden Smelter, the 98th percentile 

deciview results confirm ADEQ’s 

conclusion that PM10 visibility impacts 

are so small that additional controls are 

not warranted for BART. 

TABLE 7—EPA MODELING OF ASARCO HAYDEN PM10 VISIBILITY IMPACT 74

Class I area 

98th Percentile impact (deciview) 

2001 2002 2003 

Chiricahua National Monument ................................................................................................... 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Chiricahua Wilderness ................................................................................................................. 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Galiuro Wilderness ...................................................................................................................... 0.13 0.11 0.12 

Gila Wilderness ............................................................................................................................ 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Mazatzal Wilderness .................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.01 0.02 

Mount Baldy Wilderness .............................................................................................................. 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Petrified Forest National Park ..................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Pine Mountain Wilderness ........................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Saguaro National Park ................................................................................................................ 0.04 0.03 0.04 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness ...................................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Sierra Ancha Wilderness ............................................................................................................. 0.02 0.02 0.02 

Superstition Wilderness ............................................................................................................... 0.09 0.07 0.08 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness .................................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.01 

3. Catalyst Paper (Snowflake Mill) 

ADEQ’s Submittal: Previously, the 

Arizona RH SIP included BART 

determinations for NOX and SO2 at 

Catalyst Paper (Snowflake Mill). In the 

May 3, 2013 Supplement, ADEQ revised 

sections 10.4 (‘‘Subject-to-BART 

Determination’’) and 10.8 (‘‘Arizona 

Sources that Required a BART 

Analysis’’), as well as various sections 

of Appendix D, to state this facility is 

permanently closed and that a BART 

analysis is not being conducted for the 

facility. As part of its comments on our 

December 2, 2012 proposal, ADEQ 

submitted two letters regarding closure 

of the Snowflake Mill: A letter from the 

site manager seeking termination of the 

facility’s operating permit and a letter 

from the ADEQ Air Division Director 

terminating the permit.75

EPA’s Assessment: Pursuant to longstanding EPA policy, ‘‘reactivation of a 

permanently shutdown facility will be 

treated as operation of a new source for 

purposes of PSD review.’’ 76 Consistent 

with this policy, ADEQ’s supplemental 

RH SIP revision affirms that reactivation 

of the Snowflake Mill will be subject to 

new source review.77 Given that the 

mill’s operating permit has been 

terminated, that both the mill’s manager 

and ADEQ view the plant’s closure as 

permanent and that ADEQ has stated 

that reactivation of the plant would 

trigger new source review, we agree that 

no BART analysis is necessary for this 

source. Therefore, we propose to 

approve ADEQ’s decision not to include 

such an analysis in the SIP. 

4. Arizona Electric Power Cooperative— 

Apache Generating Station 

ADEQ’s Submittal: The original SIP 

submittal dated February 28, 2011, 

included a BART limit for NOX

emissions from Apache Unit 1 of 0.056 

lb/MMBtu, which we approved in a 

final rule on December 5, 2012. Apache 

Unit 1 consists of a simple cycle turbine 

(GT1) and a boiler (steam turbine or 

ST1), each with a separate stack, that 

have the ability to operate separately or 

together in a combined cycle mode. In 

the supplemental SIP, ADEQ clarified 

that the NOX BART limit for Apache 

Unit 1 will apply when ST1 operates 

alone or when ST1 and GT1 operate 

together in combined cycle mode. The 

BART limit does not apply to (a) GT1 

during stand-alone simple cycle 

operation or (b) ST1 and GT1 when ST1 

burners are shut off and ST1 is not 

producing electricity.78

EPA’s Assessment: Gas turbines are 

not among the 26 industrial source 

categories for BART included in the 

definition of ‘‘existing stationary 

facility’’ in the Regional Haze Rule, 

whereas combined cycle turbines are 

included.79 The supplemental SIP 

clarifies that emissions from GT1 are not 

subject to the BART emission limit 

during instances in which GT1 operates 

alone, as a simple cycle turbine. We 

propose to incorporate this clarification 

into the applicable SIP. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve in part 

and disapprove in part Arizona’s 

revised RH SIP submitted on May 3, 

2013, which supplements its submittal 

of February 28, 2011, by addressing 

some of the elements of EPA’s proposed 

rule published on December 21, 2012. In 

today’s action, we propose to approve 

Arizona’s emissions inventory for 2008, 

the reasonable progress analysis for 

coarse mass and fine soils, and certain 

aspects of the analyses and 

determinations of BART controls for 

Miami Smelter, Hayden Smelter, 

Catalyst Paper and Apache Generating 

Station. In particular, we are proposing 

to approve the determination that BART 

for PM10 at the Hayden Smelter is no 

additional controls. We also propose to 

disapprove some elements of the new 

submittal, and propose some minor 

corrections and clarifications. We 

acknowledge the progress ADEQ has 

made in its BART analysis and 

reasonable progress analysis, two of the 

RHR’s major requirements. We look 

forward to working with ADEQ in the 

future on its regional haze program. We 

will address both our proposal of 

December 21, 2012, and today’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29305 

80Memo dated May 8, 2013, from Colleen 

McKaughan regarding EPA Region 9 

communications with SRPMIC. 

proposed action in our final rule due in 

July 2013. 

VI. 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 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

‘‘Policies that have tribal implications’’ 

is defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that ‘‘have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes.’’ 

This action does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on any Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

because it merely proposes to approve 

certain State requirements, and to 

disapprove certain other State 

requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. 

EPA also notes that this action will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

Nonetheless, we note that PCC is 

owned by the tribal government of the 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community (SRPMIC). Our proposed 

disapproval of ADEQ’s determination 

not to require additional controls on this 

source leaves open the possibility that 

this source could be regulated in a 

future regional haze FIP. Therefore, 

consistent with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes (May 2, 2011), we have 

shared our initial analyses with SRPMIC 

and PCC to ensure that the tribe has an 

early opportunity to provide feedback 

on such a potential FIP. In addition EPA 

Region 9 has offered opportunities for 

meetings and formal consultation.80

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

29306 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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: May 9, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11976 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0692; FRL–9814–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, and disapprove in part, the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) on 

October 31, 2011, to demonstrate that 

the State meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. FDEP certified that 

the Florida SIP contains provisions that 

ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Florida (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘infrastructure submission’’). EPA 

is now taking two related actions on 

FDEP’s infrastructure submission for 

Florida. First, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove in part portions of Florida’s 

infrastructure submission as it relates to 

the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. Second, EPA is proposing to 

determine that Florida’s infrastructure 

submission, addresses all other required 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception 

of the aforementioned portions and the 

requirement that the SIP include 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility in another state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0692, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0692,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0692. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS