[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29292-29306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11976]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 Long-term 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

[[Page 29294]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Proposed 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ National Parks Conservation Association v. Jackson (D.D.C. 
Case 1:11-cv-01548).
    \3\ National 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).
    \4\ National Parks Conservation Association v. Jackson (D.D.C. 
Case 1:11-cv-01548) Minute Order (November 13, 2012).

                      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,        July 2, 2012 \1\............  November 15, 2012 \2\.
     Cholla and Coronado.
Phase 2:
    All remaining elements of Arizona's    December 8, 2012 \3\........  July 15, 2013.
     RH SIP.
Phase 3

[[Page 29295]]

 
    FIP for disapproved elements of        September 6, 2013...........  February 6, 2014.
     Arizona's RH SIP (if required).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012, 77 FR 42834.
\2\ Published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2012, 77 FR 72512.
\3\ Published 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 51.309(a).
    \6\ 71 FR 28270 and 72 FR 25973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 
653 (D.C. Circuit 2005).
    \8\ 71 FR 60612.
    \9\ Letter from Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, EPA 
(December 14, 2008).
    \10\ 78 FR 8083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 74 FR 2392.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ CAA section 110(k)(1)(B).
    \13\ ``Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional Haze Under 
Section 308 Of the Federal Regional Haze Rule,'' February 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, PMcoarse\14\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These are particles smaller than 10 microns, but larger 
than 2.5 microns.
    \15\ 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).

[[Page 29296]]



                      Table 2--Emissions Inventory for Arizona Regional Haze Pollutants by Source Category for 2002, 2008 and 2018
                                                                  [Tons per year] \16\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           SO2 [tpy]                           NOX [tpy]                           VOC [tpy]
                  Category                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 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\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NH3 [tpy]                          PM2.5 [tpy]                       PMcoarse [tpy]
                  Category                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 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/a\18\         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 Mobile\19\.........................          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 WestJump2008\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Emissions 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.
    \17\ Emissions 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.
    \18\ The 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.
    \19\ The Arizona RH SIP did not include any PM10 
emissions directly attributed to off-road vehicles.
    \20\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Section 8.6.2. More information 
about WestJump is available at http://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx.
    \21\ Supplemental TSD, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 off-
road 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Supplemental TSD, page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29297]]

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29298]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Supplemental TSD, Table 14 and Section III.D.
    \28\ See the ``11-year trend for 20% worse coarse matter days,'' 
Supplemental TSD, Table 16, Column 1.
    \29\ Supplemental TSD, Table 14 and Section III.D.
    \30\ PM10 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Arizona 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.
    \32\ Supplemental TSD, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/allstandards.html for 
a list of EPA vehicle emission and fuel standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 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.
    \35\ EPA 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.

                              Table 4--Rules To Control Fugitive Dust and Road Dust
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Adoption or   FR publication
          Rule No.                     Title           amendment date       date              FR Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Maricopa County Air Quality Department
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
310.........................  Fugitive Dust From Dust-     01/27/2010      12/15/2010  75 FR 78167
                               Generating Operations.
310.01......................  Fugitive Dust From Non-      01/27/2010      12/15/2010  75 FR 78167
                               Traditional Sources of
                               Fugitive Dust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    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--              12/04/2002      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Definitions.
4-2-040.....................  Standards [Fugitive          06/29/1993      08/01/2007  72 FR 41896
                               Dust].
4-2-050.....................  Monitoring and Records       06/29/1993      08/01/2007  72 FR 41896
                               [Fugitive Dust].
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            06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Records Retention.

[[Page 29299]]

 
4-5-150.....................  Applicability..........      06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
4-5-160.....................  Residential Parking          06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Control Requirement.
4-5-170.....................  Deferred enforcement         06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               date.
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;               06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Development Activity.
4-7-222.....................  Owner and/or Operator        06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Liability.
4-7-226.....................  Objective Standards;         06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Sites.
4-7-230.....................  Obligatory Work              06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Practices Standards;
                               Sites.
4-7-234.....................  Nonattainment-Area Dust      06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Permit Program;
                               General Provisions.
4-7-238.....................  Nonattainment Area Site      06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Permits.
4-7-242.....................  Nonattainment Area           06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Block Permits.
4-7-246.....................  Recordkeeping and            06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Records Retention.
4-9-320.....................  Test Methods for             06/03/2009      04/06/2010  75 FR 17307
                               Stabilization For
                               Unpaved Roads and
                               Unpaved Parking Lots.
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 four-factor 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-
to-year 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 
nitrate-driven 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ More 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'').
    \37\ Supplemental TSD, Tables 12 and 14.
    \38\ Supplemental TSD, Table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 four-factor 
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

[[Page 29300]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, pages 52-53.
    \40\ PCC's comments including its ``Summary of SNCR Costs for 
PCC'' are available in the docket for this action (EPA-R09-OAR-2012-
0904).
    \41\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA/
452/B-02-001, January 2002, Section 4.2, Chapter 1, pages 1-37.
    \42\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 53.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id. at page 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Sec.  169A(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id. at page 53.
    \47\ See EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance section 5.2.
    \48\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Enclosure 3, Appendix E, 
Responsiveness Summary at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See e.g., Table 11.2 of the Arizona RH SIP Supplement.
    \50\ See Arizona RH SIP Supplement Section 11.5.2 (Ammonium 
Nitrate Q/D Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 29301]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The 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.
    \52\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Section 10.7, page 39, and 
Appendix D, section IV.E, page 27.
    \54\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ As described on page 5 of FMMI's March 6, 2013 comment 
letter, and page 153 of the February 28, 2011, Arizona Regional Haze 
SIP.
    \56\ Table 11, 77 FR 75721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, page 53.
    \58\ Emission calculations included as an attachment to the 
Arizona RH SIP Supplement.
    \59\ See ADEQ Responsiveness Summary, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ``Clarification of Methodology for Calculating Potential to 
Emit of Batch Chemical Production Operations,'' August 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 29302]]

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 BART-eligible. ADEQ also confirmed that anode furnaces 1 and 
2 are BART-eligible and anode furnace 0, constructed in 2001, is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Section 10.7, page 39, and 
Appendix D, section IV.E, page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Arizona 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 five-factor analysis for 
each unit would be required. ADEQ has not performed separate analyses 
for each subject-to-BART unit. Moreover, we note that the preamble to 
the RHR specifically explains that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ When 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.
    \66\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section II.A.3; 70 FR 
39104, 39115-17.
    \67\ See 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.'').
    \68\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section II.A.3 (``How do I 
identify whether a plant has more than one ``stationary source?'').

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 70 FR 39117.

This language indicates that aggregation from the unit-level to a 
broader ``plant-wide 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See ``Asarco Hayden BART submittal 2013-03-20.pdf'' 
included as an attachment to the Arizona RH SIP Supplement (May 3, 
2013).
    \71\ Relevant 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).
    \72\ Relevant 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).

[[Page 29303]]



                                                     Table 5--ASARCO Hayden Baseline PM10 Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Acid plant exhaust emissions      Converter            PM10 Emissions
                                                                         --------------------------------    fraction    -------------------------------
                   Unit                             Exhaust stack                                        ----------------
                                                                              (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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based 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.
\2\ Based 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-to-BART 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The 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 6--ASARCO Hayden Visibility Impact of PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Class I area                                                     Min distance          98th Percentile impact (deciview)
----------------------------------------------------------------          State            from facility -----------------------------------------------
               Abbr                            Name                                            (km)            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

[[Page 29304]]

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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         98th Percentile impact (deciview)
                          Class I area                           -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Spreadsheet (Hayden--Visibility--Impacts.xlsx) of full 
modeling results is available in the docket (EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0904).
    \75\ Letter 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's Assessment: Pursuant to long-standing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
    \77\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Appendix D, page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Arizona RH SIP Supplement, Appendix D, page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 29305]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Memo dated May 8, 2013, from Colleen McKaughan regarding 
EPA Region 9 communications with SRPMIC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29306]]

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