[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8083-8088]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02498]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0913; FRL-9775-7]

Partial Disapproval of State Implementation Plan; Arizona;
Regional Haze Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove in part revisions to the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) to implement the regional haze
program addressing visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas
covered by the requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission, an optional program for certain western states.
These SIP revisions were submitted to address the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requiring states to prevent any future and
remedy any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by man-made pollution. We are taking comments on this proposal
and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must be received on or before March 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0913, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous

access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background
    A. What is regional haze?
    B. Clean Air Act, Visibility Impairment, and Regional Haze
    C. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Regional
Haze Regulations
    D. Legal Challenge and Revision of 309 Regulations
    E. State Submittals and Previous EPA Actions
    F. EPA Approval of Burning and Smoke Management Rules
III. The State Submittal
    A. What is the purpose of the state's submittal?
    B. What did the state submit?
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the submittal?
    B. Does the submittal meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Proposed Action and Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Overview of Proposed Action

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the state
agency in Arizona responsible for air quality planning. ADEQ submitted
a SIP revision on December 24, 2008 (which consisted of materials
previously submitted on December 23, 2003 and December 30, 2004) to
address the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.309 regarding
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas covered by the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) Report. In this action,
pursuant to CAA Section 110, EPA is proposing to disapprove in part
this regional haze SIP submittal because it does not meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. This proposed action is a partial
disapproval because EPA previously approved certain burning and smoke
management rules that were part of the 2008 SIP submittal.

II. Background

A. What is regional haze?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particulates (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in
the atmosphere to form particulate matter (PM), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks (NPs)
and wilderness areas (WAs). The average visual range \1\ in many Class
I areas (i.e., NPs and memorial parks, WAs, and international parks
meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150
kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act, Visibility Impairment, and Regional Haze

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' EPA promulgated
regulations on December 2, 1980, to address visibility impairment in
Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or
small group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-307 represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section
169B to focus attention on regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule
to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999)
codified at

40 CFR part 51, subpart P (Regional Haze Rule). EPA's Regional Haze
Rule provides two paths to address regional haze. One is through 40 CFR
51.308, which requires states to submit a SIP that establishes
reasonable progress goals and a long-term strategy for achieving those
goals. During the first implementation period for the Regional Haze
Program (through 2018), states must also impose best available retrofit
technology (``BART'') on ``BART-eligible sources,'' \3\ or adopt
alternative measures that can be shown to achieve greater reasonable
progress than source-specific BART controls. The other path for
addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, which is an option
for certain western states as described below. In this notice, the
regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.309 will be referred to as ``the
309 regulations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.301, ``BART-eligible source'' means a
source in one of 26 categories, which was not in operation prior to
August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977, and has the
potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any air pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the Regional Haze
Regulations

    Pursuant to Section 169B(c)(1) and Section 169B(e) of the CAA, EPA
established the GCVTC on November 12, 1991.\4\ The purpose of the GCVTC
was to assess information about the adverse impacts on visibility in
and around the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau \5\ region and
to provide policy recommendations to EPA to address such impacts. The
nine states that are part of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Region are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 56 FR 57522, November 12, 1991.
    \5\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are as follows: Grand
Canyon National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest
National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon
Bells Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness,
West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Arches National
Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA called for the GCVTC to evaluate visibility research as
well as other available information ``pertaining to adverse impacts on
visibility from potential or projected growth in emissions from sources
located in the region.'' The GCVTC was required to issue a report to
EPA recommending what measures, if any, should be taken to protect
visibility. In June 1996, the GCVTC issued its policy recommendations
to EPA.\6\ The GCVTC determined that all transport region states could
potentially impact the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The
GCVTC recommendations included: Strategies for addressing smoke
emissions from wildland fires and agricultural burning; provisions to
prevent pollution by encouraging renewable energy development; and
provisions to manage clean air corridors, mobile sources, and wind-
blown dust, among other recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission,
``Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,'' Report of the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, June 10, 1996 (hereinafter referred
to as the ``GCVTC Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GCVTC's recommendations were incorporated into EPA's Regional
Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.309. The 309 regulations provided states in the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region an alternative method of
achieving reasonable progress for Class I areas that were covered by
the GCVTC's analysis.\7\ States electing to submit regional haze SIPs
under the 309 regulations (309 SIPs) may have other Class I areas that
are not on the Colorado Plateau. Such states must either address these
additional Class I areas through the 309 SIP pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(g), or submit a regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.'' 40 CFR 51.309(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1999 Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.309(f) required the
submittal of an Annex whose purpose was to provide the specific details
needed to translate the GCVTC's general recommendations for stationary
source sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions into an enforceable
regulatory program. The GCVTC's recommendations for stationary sources
included a declining SO2 emissions cap and an enforceable
market trading program that would serve as a ``backstop'' if voluntary
measures did not result in meeting the SO2 emissions cap.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), a regional planning body
formed to implement the GCVTC recommendations, submitted the Annex and
EPA approved the Annex on June 5, 2003 as 40 CFR 51.309(h) (``the Annex
Rule'').

D. Legal Challenge and Revision of 309 Regulations

    In 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court granted a petition for review
challenging EPA's revision to section 309 of the regional haze rule
incorporating the recommendations in the Annex. The court concluded
that EPA had established too high a bar in establishing the parameters
for the SO2 stationary source program. Center for Energy &
Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In response
to this ruling, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.309 on October 13, 2006, making a
number of substantive changes. The regulations required, for those
states electing to submit 309 SIPs, that 309 SIPs be submitted by
December 17, 2007. See 71 FR 60612.

E. State Submittals and Previous EPA Actions

    Since four of its twelve Class I areas are on the Colorado Plateau,
Arizona had the option of submitting a regional haze SIP under section
309 of the Regional Haze Rule. When these regulations were first
promulgated in 1999, 309 SIP submissions were due no later than
December 31, 2003. Accordingly, ADEQ submitted to EPA on December 23,
2003, a 309 SIP for Arizona's four Class I Areas on the Colorado
Plateau.\8\ On December 31, 2004, ADEQ submitted a revision to its 309
SIP, consisting of rules on emissions trading and smoke management, and
a correction to the State's regional haze statutes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ADEQ also submitted provisions to address the regulations
that pertain to reasonably attributable visibility impairment
(``RAVI'') at 40 CFR 51.302, 303, 304, 305, 306, and 307. Although
these RAVI provisions were submitted along with Arizona's 309
Regional Haze SIP, EPA is only proposing action on Arizona's 309
Regional Haze SIP at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the court's 2005 ruling in Center for Energy & Economic
Development v. EPA and EPA's subsequent October 2006 promulgation of
revised 309 regulations, ADEQ sent a letter to EPA dated December 24,
2008, resubmitting the 309 SIPs that were previously submitted on
December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2004. ADEQ acknowledged, however,
that it had not submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of
309(d)(4) related to stationary sources and 309(g) which governs
reasonable progress requirements for Class I areas outside of the
Colorado Plateau.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Letter from Stephen A. Owens, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, EPA
(December 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The stationary source provisions in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) are a
central and fundamental part of the GCVTC's recommendations and of the
309

regional haze program. Of particular importance, 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i)
requires reductions in stationary source emissions of SO2
sufficient to ensure greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
by application of BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). In addition, 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii) requires implementation of any necessary long-term
strategies and BART requirements for stationary source PM and
NOX emissions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(a), each state electing to submit a 309
SIP must also address reasonable progress requirements for Class I
areas that are outside of the Colorado Plateau, but are within the
state or affected by emissions from the state. These areas may be
addressed either under 40 CFR 51.308 or under 40 CFR 51.309(g). Arizona
ultimately chose to address these other areas in a SIP submittal under
40 CFR 51.308.
    For the purposes of this Federal Register notice, the Arizona
regional haze SIP submitted by ADEQ on December 24, 2008 (which
included the regional haze SIPs that were previously submitted on
December 23, 2003 and December 30, 2004) will be referred to as
``Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP.''
    EPA made a finding on January 15, 2009, that 37 states, including
Arizona, had failed to make all or part of the required SIP submissions
to address regional haze. See 74 FR 2392. Specifically, EPA found that
Arizona failed to submit the plan elements required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4) and (g). EPA sent a letter to ADEQ on January 14, 2009,
notifying the state of this failure to submit a complete SIP. ADEQ
subsequently decided to submit a SIP to address the regional haze
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308. Arizona's 308 SIP is not the subject of
this proposed action.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA recently took final action to approve in part and
disapprove in part a portion of Arizona's 308 SIP. 77 FR 72512
(December 5, 2012). EPA has also proposed to approve in part and
disapprove in part the remainder of Arizona's 308 SIP. 77 FR 75704
(December 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. EPA's Approval of Burning and Smoke Management Rules

    As part of ADEQ's December 30, 2004 309 SIP submittal, ADEQ
submitted rules pertaining to fire, open and prescribed burning, and
smoke management. In addition to its own rules, ADEQ submitted rules
from three other local agencies: the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department (MCESD),\11\ the Pima County Department of
Environmental Quality (PCDEQ), and the Pinal County Air Quality Control
District (PCAQCD).\12\ ADEQ indicated that these rules were submitted
to meet the requirements of Arizona's Enhanced Smoke Management Plan.
These rules control PM emissions which may contribute to visibility
impairment. Although the burning rules were submitted as part of the
309 SIP, EPA determined that these rules were separable from the
remainder of the 309 SIP submittals.\13\ Accordingly, EPA reviewed
these burning rules to determine if the rules met the general criteria
for approval into the SIP under CAA Section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51. EPA
did not review the rules for purposes of meeting any of the
requirements of the 309 regulations. On May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28270), EPA
approved the rules from ADEQ, PCDEQ, and PCAQCD, and on May 8, 2007 (72
FR 25973), EPA approved the rules from MCESD. The effect of these final
actions taken in 2006 and 2007 is that EPA has approved part of
Arizona's 309 regional haze SIP submittals, but has not taken action on
the remainder of those submittals.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department is
currently known as the Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
    \12\ ADEQ, MCESD, PCDEQ, and PCAQCD regulate many sources of air
pollution within their county boundaries, and in addition to ADEQ,
develop and implement regulations that apply within their
jurisdictions. The submitted rules are: ADEQ Rule R18-2-602, R18-2-
1501 through 1513, PCDEQ Rule 17.12.480, PCAQCD Rule 3-8-700 and 3-
8-710, and MCESD Rule 314.
    \13\ Pursuant to Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA may approve a
SIP revision in part, if a separable portion of a submittal meets
all applicable requirements of the CAA. ``By separable, EPA means
that the action it anticipates taking will not result in the
approved rule(s) being more stringent than the State anticipated.''
See Memo from John Calcagni entitled, Processing of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals (July 21, 1992) at 2.
    \14\ See CAA section 110(k)(3) ``If a portion of the plan
revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter, the
Administrator may approve the plan revision in part and disapprove
the plan revision in part.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The State's Submittal

A. What is the purpose of the state's submittal?

    While states are required to submit SIPs to assure reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future and
remedying any existing impairment of visibility in Class I areas which
impairment results from man-made pollution, the regulations at 40 CFR
51.309 are optional for certain western states. ADEQ elected to submit
a SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309, which address regional haze visibility
impairment in the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.

B. What did the state submit?

    On December 24, 2008, ADEQ re-submitted Arizona's 309 SIP pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.309. ADEQ previously submitted a 309 regional haze SIP on
December 23, 2003 and a revision on December 30, 2004. As described
above, following the court's ruling in Center for Energy & Economic
Development v. EPA, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.309 on October 13, 2006
making a number of substantive changes. ADEQ resubmitted their regional
haze SIP on December 24, 2008 and stated that its submittal consisted
of SIPs that were previously submitted to EPA on December 23, 2003 and
December 30, 2004. As stated earlier, the Arizona regional haze SIP
submitted by ADEQ on December 24, 2008 (which included the regional
haze SIPs that were previously submitted on December 23, 2003 and
December 30, 2004) will be referred to as ``Arizona's 309 Regional Haze
SIP.''
    ADEQ also stated that the submittal did not include provisions to
address 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)--provisions for the implementation of
stationary source reductions, and 40 CFR 51.309(g)--provisions to
address additional Class I areas other the 16 Class I areas covered by
the GCVTC.
    ADEQ's December 24, 2008 letter identified the specific
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 that were addressed by the submittal.

         Table 1--309 Requirements Addressed by ADEQ's Submittal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subsections of 40 CFR 51.309                 Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
309(d)(1)..............................  Time period covered.
309(d)(2)..............................  Projection of visibility
                                          improvement.
309(d)(3)..............................  Treatment of clean air
                                          corridors.
309(d)(5)..............................  Mobile sources.
309(d)(6)..............................  Programs related to fire.
309(d)(7)..............................  Area sources of dust emissions
                                          from paved and unpaved roads.
309(d)(8)..............................  Pollution prevention.
309(d)(9)..............................  Implementation of additional
                                          recommendations.
309(d)(10).............................  Periodic implementation
                                          revision.
309(d)(11).............................  State planning and interstate
                                          coordination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the submittal?

    The primary requirements applicable to Arizona's 309 Regional Haze
SIP are the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.309, which comprise
a comprehensive long-term strategy for

addressing sources that contribute to visibility impairment within the
16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The 309 regulations require
that 309 SIPs include provisions to address the projection of
visibility improvement, the treatment of clean-air corridors, emissions
from mobile sources, fire programs, area sources of dust emissions from
paved and unpaved roads, pollution prevention, and the implementation
of a program for stationary source reductions. EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD) at sections 4 and 5 has more details on the 309
requirements.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), the stationary source program
must: establish quantitative SO2 emission ``milestones''
(e.g., emission caps) that provide for continuing emission reductions
for each year of the program through 2018, include provisions that
allow states to determine whether the milestones have been met, and
include provisions that implement the backstop trading program in the
event that a milestone is exceeded and the trading program is
triggered.
    Arizona must also demonstrate that its stationary source program
will provide greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by
application of BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP must also address
NOX and PM emissions at stationary sources and require the
implementation of any necessary long term strategies and BART
requirements for stationary source PM and NOX emissions.
    Lastly, regional haze SIP submittals must also meet general
criteria for SIP approval under CAA Section 110 and 40 CFR Part 51.

B. Does the submittal meet the evaluation criteria?

    As stated earlier, the 309 regulations comprise an optional program
and provide an alternative method for GCVTC states to meet the regional
haze reasonable progress requirements. The 309 regulations include the
GCVTC recommendations and cover a wide range of control strategies and
approaches. The regulations recognized that the 309 program is one that
must be taken together as a whole and evaluated collectively.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d): (``Except as provided for in
paragraph (e) of this section, each Transport Region State must
submit an implementation plan that meets the following requirements
* * *''). See also 64 FR 35754, July 1, 1999 (explaining that ``the
requirements of Section 51.309 * * * are not severable. States that
wish to take advantage of the GCVTC's efforts and EPA's acceptance
thereof are obligated to meet all of the requirements of section
51.309.'' (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP did not include provisions to
address 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), i.e., provisions for the implementation of
stationary source reductions. As described in the preceding section,
the stationary source provisions in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) are a central
and fundamental part of the GCVTC's recommendations and of the 309
regional haze program. Based on this deficiency alone, Arizona's 309
Regional Haze SIP is not approvable. EPA's TSD has more details on our
evaluation.
    In addition to lacking provisions to address 309(d)(4), Arizona's
309 Regional Haze SIP also did not address the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(g) pertaining to Class I areas that are not on the Colorado
Plateau. However, Arizona ultimately chose to address these other areas
in a SIP submittal under 40 CFR 51.308. Therefore, the absence of these
provisions from the 309 SIP does not form part of the basis for today's
proposed disapproval.

C. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a partial disapproval of Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP. The
proposed action is a partial disapproval because EPA had previously
approved, in 2006 and 2007, the burning and smoke management rules from
ADEQ, MCESD, PCDEQ, and PCAQCD.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA (CAA
sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of
substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call)
starts a sanctions clock. Arizona's 309 Regional Haze SIP was not
submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, any action
we take to finalize the described partial disapproval will not trigger
mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after finding that a
State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a SIP
submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision
correcting the deficiencies within that two-year period. Due to our
previous finding that Arizona had failed to make part of the required
regional haze submission,\16\ EPA is already subject to a ``FIP duty''
under section 110(c)(1) with respect to the regional haze requirements
for Arizona. We are also subject to a set of court-ordered deadlines
for approval of a SIP and/or promulgation of a FIP that collectively
meet the regional haze implementation plan requirements for
Arizona.\17\ Thus, our proposed partial disapproval of Arizona's 309
Regional Haze SIP, if finalized, will not create a new FIP
obligation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009).
    \17\ National Parks Conservation Association v. Jackson (D.D.C.
Case 1:11-cv-01548).
    \18\ We note that Arizona is appealing the district court's
entry and modification of the consent decree that sets the deadlines
for EPA action on regional haze plans for Arizona. National Parks
Conservation Association v. EPA (USCA Case 12-5211). If
this challenge ultimately results in any limitations on the scope of
EPA's current FIP duty with respect to regional haze in Arizona,
then today's action, if finalized, could result in a new or altered
FIP duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed partial
disapproval for the next 30 days.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a

city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences may flow from
this disapproval does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 23, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-02498 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P