ST,.

.., UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

pRO1° 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

E1D 00 OFFICEOFTHE

I LU 0 LUIJ REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Ms Diane Enos, President

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

10005 East Osborn Road.

Scottsdale, Arizona 85256-9722

Dear President Enos:

Thank you for your letter of December 20, 2012, regarding EPA’s Proposed Partial Approval and Partial

Disapproval of Arizona’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA’s proposed action was

published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2012. I understand that the Salt River Pima

Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) is requesting assurances that EPA Region 9 will satisfy the

tribal consultation requirements in relation to the proposal’s potential impacts on the SRPMIC.

Specifically, your letter notes that the proposal contains “certain statements that, iftaken to their logical

conclusion, could impose significant economic burdens on Phoenix Cement Company, (PCC) a division

of the Community government.” I can assure you that we intend to honor our responsibilities to consult

with the SRPMIC.

SRPMIC also requested an extension ofthe public comment period on our proposal. We granted an

extension of 30 days until March 6, 2013, resulting in a comment period of 75 days in total. While this

was not as long as SRPMIC requested, it is significantly longer than the usual 30-day comment period

provided for SIP actions. A further extension ofthe comment period would be impracticable in light of

EPA’s court-ordered deadline ofJuly 15, 2013, to take final action on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP.

We look forward to receiving comments from SRPMIC and PCC to inform our final action on the SIP.

In our Federal Register notice of December 21, 2012, we proposed to disapprove Arizona’s

detenriination that no additional air pollution controls are required to ensure reasonable progress toward

eliminating human-made visibility impairment at Arizona’s Class I areas. If EPA finalizes that

disapproval, we will have to propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FTP) to address this requirement.

Pursuant to a court-ordered deadline, that proposal will be issued no later than September 6, 2013. Based

on our initial technical analysis, it appears that it may be reasonable to require PCC to install air

pollution controls that would contribute to reasonable progress in improving visibility.

Given that this potential future FTP could possibly impact PCC, we shared draft technical information

with representatives of PCC beginning in November 2012 and continuing through January 2013. This

included the modeling data that you requested in your letter. We shared the draft information from our

contractor concurrently with our internal review in order to be transparent and to provide an opportunity

to the company for input. It is highly unusual for us to share our technical information in advance of a

proposed action. However, we felt it was important for PCC to be engaged from the beginning and have

an opportunity to correct any errors in the information.

Printed on Recycled Paper
We are committed to working with SRPMIC and providing an opportunity for consultation. To that end,

Colleen McKaughan, the Regional Haze Associate Director at EPA Region 9 (520-498-011 8), has

contacted Gary Bohnee of your Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs to arrange consultation.

Mr. Bohnee is looking at potential dates and we are awaiting that information.

We look forward to our future discussions and working with you and your staffto improve visibility in

Arizona’s Class I areas.

Sincerely,

J d Blumenfel