ST,.

.., UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX pRO1° 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

E1D 00 OFFICEOFTHE I LU 0 LUIJ REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Ms Diane Enos, President SaltRiverPima-MaricopaIndian Community 10005 East Osborn Road. Scottsdale, Arizona 85256-9722 DearPresident Enos: Thank you for yourletter ofDecember 20, 2012, regarding EPA’s Proposed Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval ofArizona’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA’s proposed action was published in the Federal Registeron December 21, 2012. I understandthat the Salt RiverPima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) is requesting assurances thatEPA Region 9 will satisfy the tribal consultation requirements in relation to theproposal’s potential impacts on the SRPMIC. Specifically, yourletternotes thatthe proposal contains “certain statements that, iftaken to their logical conclusion, could impose significant economic burdens on Phoenix Cement Company, (PCC) a division ofthe 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 commentperiod on ourproposal. We granted an extension of30 days until March 6, 2013, resulting in a commentperiod of75 days in total. While this was not as long as SRPMIC requested, it is significantly longerthan the usual 30-day commentperiod provided for SIP actions. A further extension ofthe commentperiod 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 forwardto receiving comments from SRPMIC and PCC to inform our final action on the SIP. In ourFederal Registernotice ofDecember 21, 2012, we proposed to disapprove Arizona’s detenriination that no additional airpollution controls are required to ensure reasonable progress toward eliminating human-made visibility impairment at Arizona’s Class I areas. IfEPA finalizes that disapproval, we will have to propose aFederal ImplementationPlan (FTP) to address this requirement. Pursuant to a court-ordered deadline, thatproposal will be issued no laterthan September 6, 2013. Based on ourinitial technical analysis, it appears that it maybe reasonable to require PCC to install air pollution controls thatwould contribute to reasonableprogress in improving visibility. Given thatthis potential future FTP could possibly impact PCC, we shared drafttechnical information with representatives ofPCC beginning in November2012 and continuing through January 2013. This included the modeling datathat you requested in your letter. We sharedthe draft information from our contractor concurrently with our internal review in orderto be transparent and to provide an opportunity to the company for input. It is highly unusual forus to share our technical information in advance ofa 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 PaperWe 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 staff to improve visibility in Arizona’s Class I areas. Sincerely,J d Blumenfel