Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8083 

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 disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the State, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it 

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 SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D 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, section 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 Populations 

Executive Order 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 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to disapprove certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not 

provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: January 28, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02499 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0913; FRL–9775–7] 

Partial Disapproval of State 

Implementation Plan; Arizona; 

Regional Haze Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove in part revisions to the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

to implement the regional haze program 

addressing visibility impairment in 

mandatory Class I areas covered by the 

requirements related to the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission, an optional program for 

certain western states. These SIP 

revisions were submitted to address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) requiring states to prevent any 

future and remedy any existing 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by man-made 

pollution. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Any comments must be received 

on or before March 7, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0913, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

8084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

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

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

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

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

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

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

Class I Federal area.’’ 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

II. Background 

A. What is regional haze? 

B. Clean Air Act, Visibility Impairment, 

and Regional Haze 

C. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission and the Regional Haze 

Regulations 

D. Legal Challenge and Revision of 309 

Regulations 

E. State Submittals and Previous EPA 

Actions 

F. EPA Approval of Burning and Smoke 

Management Rules 

III. The State Submittal 

A. What is the purpose of the state’s 

submittal? 

B. What did the state submit? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the submittal? 

B. Does the submittal meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

V. 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, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 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. Overview of Proposed Action 

The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the 

state agency in Arizona responsible for 

air quality planning. ADEQ submitted a 

SIP revision on December 24, 2008 

(which consisted of materials previously 

submitted on December 23, 2003 and 

December 30, 2004) to address the 

regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 

51.309 regarding visibility impairment 

in mandatory Class I areas covered by 

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission (GCVTC) Report. In this 

action, pursuant to CAA Section 110, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove in part 

this regional haze SIP submittal because 

it does not meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.309. This proposed action is a 

partial disapproval because EPA 

previously approved certain burning 

and smoke management rules that were 

part of the 2008 SIP submittal. 

II. Background 

A. What is regional haze? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities that are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon 

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

(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), and in some cases, 

ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC)). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form particulate matter (PM), which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks (NPs) and wilderness 

areas (WAs). The average visual range 1

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

memorial parks, WAs, and international 

parks meeting certain size criteria) in 

the western United States is 100–150 

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

exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. Clean Air Act, Visibility Impairment, 

and Regional Haze 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

EPA promulgated regulations on 

December 2, 1980, to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

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

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 

1980). These regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–307 represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

As part of the 1990 Amendments to 

the CAA, Congress added section 169B 

to focus attention on regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) codified at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8085 

3Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.301, ‘‘BART-eligible 

source’’ means a source in one of 26 categories, 

which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, 

and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has 

the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of 

any air pollutant. 

4See 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991. 

5The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid 

tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona, 

northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The 

16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand 

Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, 

Petrified Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon 

Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, 

Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San 

Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National Park, 

Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National 

Park, Capital Reef National Park, and Zion National 

Park. 

6See Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission, ‘‘Recommendations for Improving 

Western Vistas,’’ Report of the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Commission to the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, June 10, 

1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘GCVTC 

Report’’). 

7A 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.’’ 40 CFR 51.309(a). 

8ADEQ also submitted provisions to address the 

regulations that pertain to reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (‘‘RAVI’’) at 40 CFR 51.302, 

303, 304, 305, 306, and 307. Although these RAVI 

provisions were submitted along with Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP, EPA is only proposing action on 

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP at this time. 

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

Nastri, EPA (December 24, 2008). 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional 

Haze Rule). EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

provides two paths to address regional 

haze. One is through 40 CFR 51.308, 

which requires states to submit a SIP 

that establishes reasonable progress 

goals and a long-term strategy for 

achieving those goals. During the first 

implementation period for the Regional 

Haze Program (through 2018), states 

must also impose best available retrofit 

technology (‘‘BART’’) on ‘‘BART-eligible 

sources,’’ 3 or adopt alternative 

measures that can be shown to achieve 

greater reasonable progress than sourcespecific BART controls. The other path 

for addressing regional haze is through 

40 CFR 51.309, which is an option for 

certain western states as described 

below. In this notice, the regional haze 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.309 will be 

referred to as ‘‘the 309 regulations.’’ 

C. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission and the Regional Haze 

Regulations 

Pursuant to Section 169B(c)(1) and 

Section 169B(e) of the CAA, EPA 

established the GCVTC on November 

12, 1991.4 The purpose of the GCVTC 

was to assess information about the 

adverse impacts on visibility in and 

around the 16 Class I areas on the 

Colorado Plateau 5 region and to provide 

policy recommendations to EPA to 

address such impacts. The nine states 

that are part of the Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport Region are Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and 

Wyoming. 

The CAA called for the GCVTC to 

evaluate visibility research as well as 

other available information ‘‘pertaining 

to adverse impacts on visibility from 

potential or projected growth in 

emissions from sources located in the 

region.’’ The GCVTC was required to 

issue a report to EPA recommending 

what measures, if any, should be taken 

to protect visibility. In June 1996, the 

GCVTC issued its policy 

recommendations to EPA.6 The GCVTC 

determined that all transport region 

states could potentially impact the 16 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 

The GCVTC recommendations included: 

Strategies for addressing smoke 

emissions from wildland fires and 

agricultural burning; provisions to 

prevent pollution by encouraging 

renewable energy development; and 

provisions to manage clean air 

corridors, mobile sources, and windblown dust, among other 

recommendations. 

The GCVTC’s recommendations were 

incorporated into EPA’s Regional Haze 

Rule at 40 CFR 51.309. The 309 

regulations provided states in the Grand 

Canyon Visibility Transport Region an 

alternative method of achieving 

reasonable progress for Class I areas that 

were covered by the GCVTC’s analysis.7

States electing to submit regional haze 

SIPs under the 309 regulations (309 

SIPs) may have other Class I areas that 

are not on the Colorado Plateau. Such 

states must either address these 

additional Class I areas through the 309 

SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g), or 

submit a regional haze SIP under 40 

CFR 51.308. 

The 1999 Regional Haze Rule at 40 

CFR 51.309(f) required the submittal of 

an Annex whose purpose was to 

provide the specific details needed to 

translate the GCVTC’s general 

recommendations for stationary source 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions into an 

enforceable regulatory program. The 

GCVTC’s recommendations for 

stationary sources included a declining 

SO2 emissions cap and an enforceable 

market trading program that would 

serve as a ‘‘backstop’’ if voluntary 

measures did not result in meeting the 

SO2 emissions cap. The Western 

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), a 

regional planning body formed to 

implement the GCVTC 

recommendations, submitted the Annex 

and EPA approved the Annex on June 

5, 2003 as 40 CFR 51.309(h) (‘‘the 

Annex Rule’’). 

D. Legal Challenge and Revision of 309 

Regulations 

In 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court granted 

a petition for review challenging EPA’s 

revision to section 309 of the regional 

haze rule incorporating the 

recommendations in the Annex. The 

court concluded that EPA had 

established too high a bar in 

establishing the parameters for the SO2

stationary source program. Center for 

Energy & Economic Development v. 

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

response to this ruling, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.309 on October 13, 2006, 

making a number of substantive 

changes. The regulations required, for 

those states electing to submit 309 SIPs, 

that 309 SIPs be submitted by December 

17, 2007. See 71 FR 60612. 

E. State Submittals and Previous EPA 

Actions 

Since four of its twelve Class I areas 

are on the Colorado Plateau, Arizona 

had the option of submitting a regional 

haze SIP under section 309 of the 

Regional Haze Rule. When these 

regulations were first promulgated in 

1999, 309 SIP submissions were due no 

later than December 31, 2003. 

Accordingly, ADEQ submitted to EPA 

on December 23, 2003, a 309 SIP for 

Arizona’s four Class I Areas on the 

Colorado Plateau.8 On December 31, 

2004, 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 

Following the court’s 2005 ruling in 

Center for Energy & Economic 

Development v. EPA and EPA’s 

subsequent October 2006 promulgation 

of revised 309 regulations, ADEQ sent a 

letter to EPA dated December 24, 2008, 

resubmitting the 309 SIPs that were 

previously submitted on December 31, 

2003 and December 31, 2004. ADEQ 

acknowledged, however, 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 Class I areas outside of 

the Colorado Plateau.9

The stationary source provisions in 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4) are a central and 

fundamental part of the GCVTC’s 

recommendations and of the 309 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

8086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

10EPA recently took final action to approve in 

part and disapprove in part a portion of Arizona’s 

308 SIP. 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). EPA has 

also proposed to approve in part and disapprove in 

part the remainder of Arizona’s 308 SIP. 77 FR 

75704 (December 21, 2012). 

11The Maricopa County Environmental Services 

Department is currently known as the Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department. 

12ADEQ, MCESD, PCDEQ, and PCAQCD regulate 

many sources of air pollution within their county 

boundaries, and in addition to ADEQ, develop and 

implement regulations that apply within their 

jurisdictions. The submitted rules are: ADEQ Rule 

R18–2–602, R18–2–1501 through 1513, PCDEQ 

Rule 17.12.480, PCAQCD Rule 3–8–700 and 3–8– 

710, and MCESD Rule 314. 

13Pursuant to Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA 

may approve a SIP revision in part, if a separable 

portion of a submittal meets all applicable 

requirements of the CAA. ‘‘By separable, EPA 

means that the action it anticipates taking will not 

result in the approved rule(s) being more stringent 

than the State anticipated.’’ See Memo from John 

Calcagni entitled, Processing of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals (July 21, 

1992) at 2. 

14See CAA section 110(k)(3) ‘‘If a portion of the 

plan revision meets all the applicable requirements 

of this chapter, the Administrator may approve the 

plan revision in part and disapprove the plan 

revision in part.’’ 

regional haze program. Of particular 

importance, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i) 

requires reductions in stationary source 

emissions of SO2 sufficient to ensure 

greater reasonable progress than would 

be achieved by application of BART 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). In addition, 

40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) requires 

implementation of any necessary longterm strategies and BART requirements 

for stationary source PM and NOX

emissions. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(a), each 

state electing to submit a 309 SIP must 

also address reasonable progress 

requirements for Class I areas that are 

outside of the Colorado Plateau, but are 

within the state or affected by emissions 

from the state. These areas may be 

addressed either under 40 CFR 51.308 

or under 40 CFR 51.309(g). Arizona 

ultimately chose to address these other 

areas in a SIP submittal under 40 CFR 

51.308. 

For the purposes of this Federal 

Register notice, the Arizona regional 

haze SIP submitted by ADEQ on 

December 24, 2008 (which included the 

regional haze SIPs that were previously 

submitted on December 23, 2003 and 

December 30, 2004) will be referred to 

as ‘‘Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP.’’ 

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. See 74 FR 2392. 

Specifically, EPA found that Arizona 

failed to submit the plan elements 

required by 40 CFR 51.309(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 

subsequently decided to submit a SIP to 

address the regional haze requirements 

in 40 CFR 51.308. Arizona’s 308 SIP is 

not the subject of this proposed action.10

F. EPA’s Approval of Burning and 

Smoke Management Rules 

As part of ADEQ’s December 30, 2004 

309 SIP submittal, ADEQ submitted 

rules pertaining to fire, open and 

prescribed burning, and smoke 

management. In addition to its own 

rules, ADEQ submitted rules from three 

other local agencies: the Maricopa 

County Environmental Services 

Department (MCESD),11 the Pima 

County Department of Environmental 

Quality (PCDEQ), and the Pinal County 

Air Quality Control District 

(PCAQCD).12 ADEQ indicated that these 

rules were submitted to meet the 

requirements of Arizona’s Enhanced 

Smoke Management Plan. These rules 

control PM emissions which may 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

Although the burning rules were 

submitted as part of the 309 SIP, EPA 

determined that these rules were 

separable from the remainder of the 309 

SIP submittals.13 Accordingly, EPA 

reviewed these burning rules to 

determine if the rules met the general 

criteria for approval into the SIP under 

CAA Section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51. 

EPA did not review the rules for 

purposes of meeting any of the 

requirements of the 309 regulations. On 

May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28270), EPA 

approved the rules from ADEQ, PCDEQ, 

and PCAQCD, and on May 8, 2007 (72 

FR 25973), EPA approved the rules from 

MCESD. The effect of these final actions 

taken in 2006 and 2007 is that EPA has 

approved part of Arizona’s 309 regional 

haze SIP submittals, but has not taken 

action on the remainder of those 

submittals.14

III. The State’s Submittal 

A. What is the purpose of the state’s 

submittal? 

While states are required to submit 

SIPs to assure reasonable progress 

toward meeting the national goal of 

preventing any future and remedying 

any existing impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas which impairment results 

from man-made pollution, the 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.309 are 

optional for certain western states. 

ADEQ elected to submit a SIP pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.309, which address 

regional haze visibility impairment in 

the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado 

Plateau. 

B. What did the state submit? 

On December 24, 2008, ADEQ resubmitted Arizona’s 309 SIP pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.309. ADEQ previously 

submitted a 309 regional haze SIP on 

December 23, 2003 and a revision on 

December 30, 2004. As described above, 

following the court’s ruling in Center for 

Energy & Economic Development v. 

EPA, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.309 on 

October 13, 2006 making a number of 

substantive changes. ADEQ resubmitted 

their regional haze SIP on December 24, 

2008 and stated that its submittal 

consisted of SIPs that were previously 

submitted to EPA on December 23, 2003 

and December 30, 2004. As stated 

earlier, the Arizona regional haze SIP 

submitted by ADEQ on December 24, 

2008 (which included the regional haze 

SIPs that were previously submitted on 

December 23, 2003 and December 30, 

2004) will be referred to as ‘‘Arizona’s 

309 Regional Haze SIP.’’ 

ADEQ also stated that the submittal 

did not include provisions to address 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4)—provisions for the 

implementation of stationary source 

reductions, and 40 CFR 51.309(g)— 

provisions to address additional Class I 

areas other the 16 Class I areas covered 

by the GCVTC. 

ADEQ’s December 24, 2008 letter 

identified the specific requirements of 

40 CFR 51.309 that were addressed by 

the submittal. 

TABLE 1—309 REQUIREMENTS

ADDRESSED BY ADEQ’S SUBMITTAL

Subsections of 

40 CFR 51.309 Description 

309(d)(1) ........ Time period covered. 

309(d)(2) ........ Projection of visibility improvement. 

309(d)(3) ........ Treatment of clean air corridors. 

309(d)(5) ........ Mobile sources. 

309(d)(6) ........ Programs related to fire. 

309(d)(7) ........ Area sources of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads. 

309(d)(8) ........ Pollution prevention. 

309(d)(9) ........ Implementation of additional 

recommendations. 

309(d)(10) ...... Periodic implementation revision. 

309(d)(11) ...... State planning and interstate 

coordination. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the submittal? 

The primary requirements applicable 

to Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP are 

the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 

51.309, which comprise a 

comprehensive long-term strategy for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8087 

15See 40 CFR 51.309(d): (‘‘Except as provided for 

in paragraph (e) of this section, each Transport 

Region State must submit an implementation plan 

that meets the following requirements * * *’’). See 

also 64 FR 35754, July 1, 1999 (explaining that ‘‘the 

requirements of Section 51.309 * * * are not 

severable. States that wish to take advantage of the 

GCVTC’s efforts and EPA’s acceptance thereof are 

obligated to meet all of the requirements of section 

51.309.’’ (emphasis added)). 

16 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). 

17National Parks Conservation Association v. 

Jackson (D.D.C. Case 1:11–cv–01548). 

18We note that Arizona is appealing the district 

court’s entry and modification of the consent decree 

that sets the deadlines for EPA action on regional 

haze plans for Arizona. National Parks 

Conservation Association v. EPA (USCA Case #12– 

5211). If this challenge ultimately results in any 

limitations on the scope of EPA’s current FIP duty 

with respect to regional haze in Arizona, then 

today’s action, if finalized, could result in a new or 

altered FIP duty. 

addressing sources that contribute to 

visibility impairment within the 16 

Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. 

The 309 regulations require that 309 

SIPs include provisions to address the 

projection of visibility improvement, the 

treatment of clean-air corridors, 

emissions from mobile sources, fire 

programs, area sources of dust 

emissions from paved and unpaved 

roads, pollution prevention, and the 

implementation of a program for 

stationary source reductions. EPA’s 

Technical Support Document (TSD) at 

sections 4 and 5 has more details on the 

309 requirements. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), the 

stationary source program must: 

establish quantitative SO2 emission 

‘‘milestones’’ (e.g., emission caps) that 

provide for continuing emission 

reductions for each year of the program 

through 2018, include provisions that 

allow states to determine whether the 

milestones have been met, and include 

provisions that implement the backstop 

trading program in the event that a 

milestone is exceeded and the trading 

program is triggered. 

Arizona must also demonstrate that 

its stationary source program will 

provide greater reasonable progress than 

would be achieved by application of 

BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), 

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP must 

also address NOX and PM emissions at 

stationary sources and require the 

implementation of any necessary long 

term strategies and BART requirements 

for stationary source PM and NOX

emissions. 

Lastly, regional haze SIP submittals 

must also meet general criteria for SIP 

approval under CAA Section 110 and 40 

CFR Part 51. 

B. Does the submittal meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

As stated earlier, the 309 regulations 

comprise an optional program and 

provide an alternative method for 

GCVTC states to meet the regional haze 

reasonable progress requirements. The 

309 regulations include the GCVTC 

recommendations and cover a wide 

range of control strategies and 

approaches. The regulations recognized 

that the 309 program is one that must be 

taken together as a whole and evaluated 

collectively.’’ 15

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP did 

not include provisions to address 40 

CFR 51.309(d)(4), i.e., provisions for the 

implementation of stationary source 

reductions. As described in the 

preceding section, the stationary source 

provisions in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) are a 

central and fundamental part of the 

GCVTC’s recommendations and of the 

309 regional haze program. Based on 

this deficiency alone, Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP is not approvable. 

EPA’s TSD has more details on our 

evaluation. 

In addition to lacking provisions to 

address 309(d)(4), Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP also did not address 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(g) 

pertaining to Class I areas that are not 

on the Colorado Plateau. However, 

Arizona ultimately chose to address 

these other areas in a SIP submittal 

under 40 CFR 51.308. Therefore, the 

absence of these provisions from the 309 

SIP does not form part of the basis for 

today’s proposed disapproval. 

C. Proposed Action and Public 

Comment 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a partial disapproval of Arizona’s 309 

Regional Haze SIP. The proposed action 

is a partial disapproval because EPA 

had previously approved, in 2006 and 

2007, the burning and smoke 

management rules from ADEQ, MCESD, 

PCDEQ, and PCAQCD. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D, title 

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

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

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

sanctions clock. Arizona’s 309 Regional 

Haze SIP was not submitted to meet 

either of these requirements. Therefore, 

any action we take to finalize the 

described partial disapproval will not 

trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA 

section 179. 

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

requires EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) within two 

years after finding that a State has failed 

to make a required submission or 

disapproving a SIP submission in whole 

or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP 

revision correcting the deficiencies 

within that two-year period. Due to our 

previous finding that Arizona had failed 

to make part of the required regional 

haze submission,16 EPA is already 

subject to a ‘‘FIP duty’’ under section 

110(c)(1) with respect to the regional 

haze requirements for Arizona. We are 

also subject to a set of court-ordered 

deadlines for approval of a SIP and/or 

promulgation of a FIP that collectively 

meet the regional haze implementation 

plan requirements for Arizona.17 Thus, 

our proposed partial disapproval of 

Arizona’s 309 Regional Haze SIP, if 

finalized, will not create a new FIP 

obligation.18

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed partial 

disapproval for the next 30 days. 

V. 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 SIP disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

8088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act will not in-andof itself create any new requirements 

but simply disapproves certain 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. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

may flow from this disapproval does not 

mean that EPA either can or must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this action. 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.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove 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 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 disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing 

to disapprove would not apply in Indian 

country located in the state, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

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 

SIP disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D 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 No. 

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, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: January 23, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02498 Filed 2–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS