Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration, 56322-56331 [2014-22403]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56322
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
8. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
9. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
the human environment. This proposed
rule involves the consolidation and
rationalization of existing Apra Harbor
navigation regulations. This rule is
categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure
2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination
and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this proposed rule.
10. Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically
significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to
safety that might disproportionately
affect children.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
11. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect 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.
■
12. Energy Effects
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13. Technical Standards
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
14. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023–01
and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Revise § 165.1401 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.1401
zones.
Apra Harbor, Guam—safety
(a) Location. (1) The following is
designated Safety Zone A: The waters of
Apra Outer Harbor encompassed within
an arc of 1,000 yards radius centered at
the center of Naval Wharf Kilo, located
at 13 degrees 26′’44.5″ N and 144
degrees 37′50.7″ E. (Based on World
Geodetic System 1984 Datum).
(2) The following is designated Safety
Zone B: The waters of Apra Outer
Harbor encompassed within an arc of
1,400 yards radius centered at the center
of Naval Wharf Kilo, located at 13
degrees 26′44.5″ N and 144 degrees
37′50.7″ E. (Based on World Geodetic
System 1984 Datum).
(b) Special regulations. (1) Safety
Zone A, described in paragraph (a) of
this section, will only be enforced when
Naval Wharf Kilo, or a vessel berthed at
Naval Wharf Kilo, is displaying a red
(BRAVO) flag by day or a red light by
night, accompanied by a ‘‘SAFETY
ZONE A’’ sign.
(2) Safety Zone B described in
paragraph (a) of this section will only be
enforced when Naval Wharf Kilo, or a
vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
displaying a red (BRAVO) flag by day or
a red light by night, accompanied by a
‘‘SAFETY ZONE B’’ sign.
(3) Under general regulations in
§ 165.23, entry into the zones described
in paragraph (a) of this section is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Guam.
§ 165.1402
[Removed]
3. Remove § 165.1402.
4. In § 165.1405, remove paragraph
(a)(4), and revise the section heading
and paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
■
■
§ 165.1405 Regulated Navigation Areas
and Security Zones; Designated Escorted
Vessels–Philippine Sea and Apra Harbor,
Guam, and Tanapag Harbor, Saipan,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI).
(a) * * *
(2) All waters from surface to bottom
of Apra Outer Harbor, Guam, shoreward
of the COLREGS Demarcation line as
described in 33 CFR part 80.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 4, 2014.
C. B. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fourteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014–22428 Filed 9–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647, FRL–9916–85Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans;
Reconsideration
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
source-specific revision to the Arizona
State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
establishes an alternative to best
available retrofit technology (BART) for
Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative’s
(AEPCO) Apache Generating Station
(Apache). The SIP revision also revises
the emission limit for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) applicable to Steam Unit 1 (ST1),
when it is operated in combined-cycle
mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA
proposes to find that the BART
alternative for ST2 and ST3 would
provide greater reasonable progress
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
toward natural visibility conditions than
BART, in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR).
We also propose to approve the revision
to the NOX emission limit for ST1 and
GT1. In conjunction with this proposed
approval, we propose to withdraw those
portions of the federal implementation
plan (FIP) that address BART for
Apache. We previously partially granted
AEPCO’s petition for reconsideration of
that FIP and are now proposing to find
that withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies
to Apache, constitutes our action on
AEPCO’s Petition for Reconsideration of
the FIP.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before November 3,
2014. Requests for public hearing must
be received on or before October 6,
2014.
ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further
instructions on where and how to learn
more about this proposal, request a
public hearing, or submit comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at
telephone number (415) 947–4139 and
via electronic mail at webb.thomas@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
• The initials CBI mean or refer to
Confidential Business Information.
• The initials EGU mean or refer to
Electric Generating Unit.
• The words EPA, we, us or our mean
or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
• The initials FIP mean or refer to
Federal Implementation Plan.
• The initials GT1 mean or refer to
Gas Turbine Unit 1.
• The initials LNB mean or refer to
low-NOX burners.
• The initials MMBtu mean or refer to
million British thermal units
• The initials NOX mean or refer to
nitrogen oxides.
• The initials OFA mean or refer to
over fire air.
• The initials PM10 mean or refer to
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
• The initials RHR mean or refer to
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule.
• The initials SCR mean or refer to
Selective Catalytic Reduction.
• The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
• The initials SO2 mean or refer to
sulfur dioxide.
• The initials ST1 mean or refer to
Steam Unit 1.
• The initials ST2 mean or refer to
Steam Unit 2.
• The initials ST3 mean or refer to
Steam Unit 3.
Table of Contents
The proposed action relies on
documents, information, and data that
are listed in the index on https://
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647.
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 https://
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 PDT, excluding Federal
holidays.
I. General Information
II. Background
III. The Apache SIP Revision
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. General Information
A. Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
• The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to
the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
• The initials AEPCO mean or refer to
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative.
• The words Arizona and State mean
the State of Arizona.
• The initials BART mean or refer to
Best Available Retrofit Technology.
• The term Class I area refers to a
mandatory Class I Federal area.1
1 Although states and tribes may designate as
Class I additional areas which they consider to have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
B. Docket
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56323
C. Instructions for Submitting
Comments to EPA
Written comments must be submitted
on or before November 3, 2014. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647, by one
of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov..
• Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention:
Thomas Webb).
• Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier:
Thomas Webb, 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.–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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://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
to EPA, without going through https://
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.
D. Submitting Confidential Business
Information
Do not submit CBI to EPA through
https://www.regulations.gov or by 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
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
56324
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
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.
E. Tips for Preparing Your 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.
F. Public Hearings
If anyone contacts EPA by October 6,
2014 requesting to speak at a public
hearing, EPA will schedule a public
hearing and announce the hearing in the
Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb
at (415) 947–4139 or at webb.thomas@
epa.gov to request a hearing or to
determine if a hearing will be held.
II. Background
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
This section provides a brief overview
of the requirements of the CAA and
RHR, as they apply to this particular
action. Please refer to our previous
rulemakings on the Arizona Regional
Haze SIP for additional background
regarding the visibility protection
provisions of the CAA and the RHR.2
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
2 77 FR 42834, 42837–42839 (July 20, 2012),
(Arizona Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 1’’ Rule) 77 FR
75704, 75709–75712 (December 21, 2012), (Arizona
Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 2’’ Rule).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ 3 It also
directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 (known as ‘‘BART-eligible’’
sources) procure, install, and operate
BART. In the 1990 CAA Amendments,
Congress amended the visibility
provisions in the CAA to focus attention
on the problem of regional haze, which
is visibility impairment produced by a
multitude of sources and activities
located across a broad geographic area.4
In 1999, we promulgated the RHR,
which requires states to develop and
implement SIPs to ensure reasonable
progress toward improving visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I
areas) 5 by reducing emissions that
cause or contribute to regional haze.6
Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for
BART-eligible sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.7
In lieu of requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt alternative measures,
as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions than BART
(i.e., the alternative must be ‘‘better than
BART’’).8
B. Summary of State Submittals and
EPA Actions
1. 2011 Arizona RH SIP
On February 28, 2011, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP
3 42
U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
5 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). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this
action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
area.’’
6 See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
7 40 CFR 51.308(e).
8 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
4 See
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
under Section 308 of the RHR (‘‘Arizona
RH SIP’’) to EPA. This submittal
included BART determinations for
nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of
less than 10 micrometers (PM10), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) at Apache Units
ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is a wallfired boiler with a net unit output of 85
MW that burns pipeline-quality natural
gas as its primary fuel. Units ST2 and
ST3 are both dry-bottom, Riley Stoker
turbo-fired boilers, operating on subbituminous coal, each with a gross unit
output of 204 MW.
2. 2012 EPA Action on Arizona RH SIP
and FIP
On December 5, 2012, we issued a
final rule approving in part and
disapproving in part ADEQ’s BART
determinations for three sources,
including Apache.9 In particular, we
approved ADEQ’s BART determinations
for NOX, PM10, and SO2 at Apache ST1
and PM10 and SO2 at ST2 and ST3, but
disapproved ADEQ’s BART
determinations for NOX at ST2 and ST3.
We also found that the SIP lacked
enforceable emission limits for all units
and pollutants. In the same action, we
promulgated a FIP for the disapproved
portions of the SIP, including NOX
BART determinations for ST2 and ST3.
We determined that BART for NOX at
ST2 and ST3 was an emission limit of
0.070 pounds per million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) determined as
an average across the two units, based
on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day
average, which is achievable with the
use of low-NOX burners (LNB), overfire
air (OFA) and selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). We also established
compliance dates and requirements for
equipment maintenance, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for all
units and all pollutants.
3. 2013 AEPCO Petition for
Reconsideration of RH FIP for Apache
Generating Station
On February 4, 2013, AEPCO
submitted a petition to EPA seeking
reconsideration of the final rule
(‘‘AEPCO Petition’’).10 On May 29, 2013,
AEPCO submitted a supplemental
petition providing an alternative to the
BART determinations in that rule
(‘‘Apache BART Alternative’’).11 The
Apache BART Alternative consisted of a
conversion to pipeline natural gas (PNG)
combustion at ST2 and a NOX emission
9 77
FR 72512.
from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and
Hiser, to Lisa Jackson, EPA (February 2, 2013).
11 Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and
Hiser, to Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld,
EPA (May 29, 2013).
10 Letter
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
limit based upon selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) at ST3. On June 6,
2013, we sent a letter to representatives
of AEPCO granting partial
reconsideration of the final rule under
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).12
Specifically, we stated that we were
granting reconsideration of the emission
limits for NOX, PM10, and SO2 at ST2
and ST3, the compliance methodology
for NOX at ST2 and ST3, and the
provisions of the rule applicable to ST1
and GT1.
4. 2013 Arizona RH SIP Revision and
Clarification
On May 3, 2013, ADEQ submitted a
revision to the Arizona RH SIP.13
Among other things, the SIP revision
clarified that the BART emission limits
for ST1 apply when ST1 operates alone
or if ST1 is operated in combined-cycle
mode with the adjacent GT1, but not to
(a) GT1 in stand-alone simple-cycle
operation or (b) ST1/GT1 when ST1
burners are shut off and ST1 is not
producing electricity.14 EPA approved
this clarification in our July 30, 2013
Phase 2 final rule on the Arizona RH
SIP.15
5. 2014 Arizona RH SIP Revision for
Apache Generating Station
56325
III. The Apache SIP Revision
A. Summary of the Apache SIP Revision
The Apache SIP Revision consists of
two components: a BART Alternative
for ST2 and ST3, and a revised NOX
emission limit for ST1 and GT1 when
operated in combined-cycle mode.
1. Apache BART Alternative
On May 13, 2014, ADEQ submitted a
revision to the Arizona RH SIP that
incorporated the Apache BART
Alternative (‘‘Apache SIP Revision’’).16
The Apache SIP Revision also revised
the NOX emission limit for ST1 during
combined-cycle operation. The Apache
SIP Revision is the subject of this
proposal.
Under the Apache BART Alternative,
ST2 would be converted from a
primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that
combusts pipeline-quality natural gas,
while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired
unit and would be retrofitted with
SNCR. The emission limits associated
with the Alternative are summarized in
Table 1. The compliance date for all
limits is December 5, 2017, except that
a more stringent limit for PM10 at ST2
(0.008 lb/MMBtu) that will be effective
on December 5, 2018.
TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE BART ALTERNATIVE
Emission limit
(lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days)
Unit
NOX
PM10
ST2 .........................................................................................................................
0.085
ST3 .........................................................................................................................
0.23
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADEQ incorporated the revised
emission limits, as well as associated
compliance deadlines and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, as an addendum to
Apache’s Operating Permit, which was
submitted as part of the Apache SIP
Revision.17 The SIP revision also
includes ADEQ’s determination that the
Apache BART Alternative is ‘‘better
than BART,’’ based on total estimated
emissions reductions, reductions in
visibility impairing pollutants,
IMPROVE monitoring data, and
improvements in modeled visibility
impacts from Apache.18 More
information regarding ADEQ’s analysis
is set forth below, along with EPA’s
evaluation of the analysis. On July 18,
2014, EPA determined that the Apache
SIP Revision was complete under CAA
section 110(k)(1)(B).19
12 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Eric
Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser (June 6, 2013).
13 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared
Blumenfeld, EPA (May 3, 2013), Enclosure 3,
Arizona RH SIP Revision.
14 Id. Appendix D, pages 5–6 (footnotes to tables
1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) and page 49. The reason for this
distinction is that gas turbines are not among the
26 industrial source categories included in the
definition of ‘‘existing stationary facility’’ in the
Regional Haze Rule, whereas combined cycle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
2. Revised Emission Limit for ST1 and
GT1
The Apache SIP Revision revises the
NOX emission limit for the combinedcycle operation of ST1 with GT1 from
0.056 lb/MMBtu to 0.10 lb/MMBtu,
based on a determination that the 0.056
lb/MMBtu limit is not achievable during
combined cycle operations and that
inclusion of emissions from GT1 would
result in an emission rate of 0.10 lb/
MMbtu.20 In order to ensure that this
revision does not result in an overall
increase in NOX emissions, the SIP
Revision also sets a 1205 lb/day limit,
based on a 30-calendar-day average, for
ST1 operating in standalone mode or in
combined-cycle mode with GT1. ADEQ
derived this emission limit based on the
existing emission limit of 0.056 lb/
MMBtu (the original NOX emission limit
required for ST1 and GT1 in combinedcycle mode), and a conservative
turbines are included in this list. See 40 CFR
51.301; 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section II.A.1.
15 See Supplemental Proposal, 78 FR 46142,
46175 (codified at 40 CFR
52.120(c)(158)(ii)(A)(1)(iii)).
16 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared
Blumenfeld, EPA (May 13, 2014), Enclosure 3,
Revision to the Arizona RH Plan for AEPCO Apache
Generating Station.
17 Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant
Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.01, then 0.008 (effective
December 5, 2018).
0.03 ....................................
SO2
0.00064
0.15
estimate of the heat rate (10,985 Btu/
kWhr) over the primary operating range
of ST1 and GT1 in combined-cycle
operation.21
B. EPA’s Evaluation of Apache BART
Alternative
The RHR requires that a SIP revision
establishing a BART alternative include
three elements as listed below. We have
evaluated the Apache BART Alternative
with respect to each of these elements.
• A demonstration that the emissions
trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable
progress than would have resulted from
the installation and operation of BART
at all sources subject to BART in the
State and covered by the alternative
program.22
• A requirement that all necessary
emissions reductions take place during
No. 55412 (‘‘Apache Permit Revision’’)(issued May
13, 2014).
18 Apache SIP Revision, sections 2.2 and 2.3.
19 Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Eric
Massey, ADEQ (July 18, 2014).
20 See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and
Hiser, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013).
21 Id. section 3.1, footnote 9.
22 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
56326
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze.23
• A demonstration that the emissions
reductions resulting from the alternative
measure will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures
adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.24
1. Demonstration of the Alternative
Measure Will Achieve Greater
Reasonable Progress
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i),
ADEQ must demonstrate that the
alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would have
resulted from the installation and
operation of BART at all sources subject
to BART in the State and covered by the
alternative program. This demonstration
must be based on five criteria, which are
addressed below.
a. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources
Within the State
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A),
the SIP must include a list of all BARTeligible sources within the State. ADEQ
included a list of BART-eligible sources
in the Arizona RH SIP.25 As part of the
Phase 2 Arizona regional haze
rulemaking, EPA approved the majority
of ADEQ’s BART-eligibility
determinations, but disapproved
ADEQ’s finding that Tucson Electric
Power (TEP) Sundt Unit 4 was not
BART-eligible.26 In the Phase 3 Arizona
regional haze rulemaking, EPA
determined that TEP Sundt Unit 4 was
BART-eligible and subject-to-BART and
made final BART determinations for
this unit.27 Thus, all BART-eligible
sources in the State have been
addressed either in a SIP or FIP. We
propose to find that the existing Arizona
RH SIP and FIP fulfill the requirement
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) for a list of
all BART-eligible sources within the
State.
b. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources
and All Bart Source Categories Covered
by the Alternative Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B),
each BART-eligible source in the State
must be subject to the requirements of
the alternative program or have a
federally enforceable emission
limitation determined by the State and
approved by EPA as meeting BART. In
this instance, the alternative program
covers only Apache ST2 and ST3. All
other BART-eligible sources and units
in the State have already been addressed
in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP.28
Therefore, we propose to find that the
Apache SIP Revision meets the
requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
c. Analysis of BART and Associated
Emission Reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C),
the SIP must include an analysis of
BART and associated emission
reductions at ST2 and ST3. As noted
above, ADEQ’s BART analyses and
determinations for ST2 and ST3 were
included in the Arizona RH SIP. EPA
approved ADEQ’s BART determinations
for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved
ADEQ’s BART determination for NOX at
ST2 and ST3 and conducted our own
BART analysis and determination for
NOX BART for ST2 and ST3 in a FIP.
In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ
compared the BART Alternative both to
ADEQ’s original BART determinations
and to EPA’s BART determinations in
the FIP. For purposes of our evaluation,
we consider BART for ST2 and ST3 to
consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ’s
BART determinations for PM10 and SO2,
which were approved into the
applicable SIP, and (2) EPA’s BART
determination for NOX in the Arizona
RH FIP. These BART determinations are
summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2—BART EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE
Emission limit
(lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days)
Unit
NOX
ST2 .........................................................................................................................
ST3 .........................................................................................................................
In the Technical Support Document
(TSD) included with the Apache SIP
Revision, ADEQ calculated estimated
annual emission reductions achievable
with BART by comparing projected
emissions from ST2 and ST3 with
PM10
0.070 (across two units) .....
.............................................
BART 29 to baseline emissions.30 The
results of these calculations are shown
in Table 3. Because BART for PM10 and
SO2 was determined to be consistent
with existing controls, no emission
reductions are expected to result from
SO2
0.03
0.03
0.15
0.15
BART. However, significant NOX
emission reductions (4,502 tpy) are
expected to result from implementation
of BART.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH BART AT APACHE
ST2 and ST3 Total emissions
(tpy)
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX
Baseline (‘‘2013 Baseline’’) a .......................................................................................................
BART (‘‘2013 SCR’’) b ..................................................................................................................
Emission Reduction (‘‘2013 SCR’’ minus ‘‘2013 Baseline’’) c .....................................................
a Apache
PM10
5,441
939
4,502
SO2
403
403
0
2,013
2,013
0
SIP Revision TSD Table 6.
23 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
25 See 77 FR 75704, 75719–75720; 78 FR 46142,
46151–46152.
26 Id.
27 79 FR 52420.
24 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
28 See
generally 77 FR 72512, 78 FR 46142.
refers to the BART control scenario as
‘‘2013 SCR.’’ See TSD page 4 (‘‘This scenario
assumes SCR, LNB, and OFA implementation as
well as ESP and wet scrubber upgrades.’’).
30 ADEQ considered two different baseline
scenarios—2007 (assuming use of Electrostatic
29 ADEQ
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Precipitation (ESP) and wet scrubber upgrades) and
2013 (assuming use of OFA, ESP, and wet scrubber
upgrades). See SIP TSD at 3. We have chosen to
employ the 2013 Baseline, consistent with our
original BART analysis, which used a baseline with
OFA. See 78 FR 42856, Table 16.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
56327
b Id.
c Id.
Table 7.
We propose to find that ADEQ has met
the requirement for an analysis of BART
and associated emission reductions
achievable at Apache ST2 and ST3
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
d. Analysis of Projected Emissions
Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
In the Apache SIP Revision TSD,
ADEQ calculated emissions reductions
achievable through the BART
Alternative by comparing estimated
annual emissions from ST2 and ST3
under the BART Alternative 31 with
baseline emissions. The results of these
calculations are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH APACHE BART ALTERNATIVE
ST2 and ST3 Total emissions
(tpy)
NOX
Baseline (‘‘2013 Baseline’’) a .......................................................................................................
BART Alternative (‘‘2013 9bv2 PNGt’’) b .....................................................................................
Emission Reduction (‘‘2013 9bv2 PNGt’’ minus ‘‘2013 Baseline’’) c .....................................
a Apache
PM10
5,441
2,122
3,318
SO2
403
262
141
2,013
1,056
957
SIP Revision TSD Table 6.
b Id.
c Id.
Table 7.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
We propose to find that ADEQ has met
the requirement for an analysis of the
projected emissions reductions
achievable through the alternative
measure under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
e. A Determination That the Alternative
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than Would Be Achieved Through the
Installation and Operation of BART
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the State must provide a determination
that the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based
on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides two
different tests for determining whether
the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. If the
distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under
BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emission reductions,
then the alternative measure may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress. If the distribution of emissions
is significantly different, however, then
the State must conduct dispersion
modeling to determine differences in
visibility between BART and the trading
program for each impacted Class I area,
for the worst and best 20 percent of
days. The modeling would demonstrate
‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ if both of
31 ADEQ refers to the BART Alternative as ‘‘2013
9bv2 PNGt.’’ See TSD page 4 (‘‘The 2013 9bv2 PNGt
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
the following two criteria are met: (1)
Visibility does not decline in any Class
I area, and; (2) there is an overall
improvement in visibility, determined
by comparing the average differences
between BART and the alternative over
all affected Class I areas.
In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ
determined that neither of the two tests
under 51.308(e)(3) was appropriate for
evaluating the Apache BART
Alternative. Therefore, ADEQ
conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis
based on reductions in visibilityimpairing pollutants, IMPROVE
monitoring data, and improvements in
modeled visibility impacts from
Apache.
The reductions in visibility-impairing
pollutants from the Apache BART
Alternative, as estimated by ADEQ, are
summarized in Table 4 above. As noted
above, compared with BART, ADEQ
projects that the Apache BART
Alternative will result in 1183 tpy more
NOX emissions, 957 tpy fewer SO2
emissions, and 141 tpy fewer PM10
emissions than BART.
ADEQ next considered historical
emission inventory and ambient
monitoring data. In particular, ADEQ
noted that, in 2008, state-wide
emissions of SO2 (84,784 tons) were less
than a third of state-wide NOX
emissions (290,344 tons). ADEQ also
reviewed ambient monitoring data from
scenario reflects the implementation of the AEPCO
alternative controls . . .’’).
32 Apache SIP Revision page 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Class I areas impacted by emissions
from Apache and found that visibility
impairment due to SO2 was more than
three times greater than impairment
from NOX.32 Based on the monitoring
and emission inventory data, ADEQ
concluded that, ‘‘for the State of
Arizona, it is likely more beneficial to
reduce SO2 emissions as compared to
NOX emissions when applying pollution
controls to point sources to improve
class I area visibility. Therefore, ADEQ
believes AEPCO’s proposed alternative
control methodology would realize
higher real-world visibility benefits than
the other control methods tested.’’ 33
Finally, ADEQ considered the results
of air quality modeling (using the
CALPUFF model) performed by AEPCO
to assess the visibility impacts of
Apache under various control
scenarios.34 These results, summarized
in Table 5, show that, compared with
BART, the Apache BART Alternative
would result in greater visibility
improvement at all but two areas (Gila
Wilderness Area and Mount Baldy
Wilderness Area), and would result in
greater improvement on average across
all areas. In addition, implementation of
the Apache BART Alternative would
result in improvement at all affected
Class I areas, in comparison to the base
case.
33 Id.
34 Id.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
TSD page 13.
See also TSD pages 15–22.
19SEP1
56328
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—MODELED VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF APACHE
Baseline
(2013 baseline)
BART alternative
(2013 9bv2 PNGt)
Visibility impacts
(dv)
Class I area
BART
(2013 SCR)
Visibility impacts
(dv)
Visibility impacts
(dv)
Avg 98th
Chiricahua National Monument ...............
Chiricahua Wilderness Area ....................
Galiuro Wilderness Area ..........................
Gila Wilderness Area ...............................
Mazatzal Wilderness Area .......................
Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area ......................
Saguaro National Park .............................
Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area ................
Superstition Wilderness Area ..................
Average ....................................................
22nd high
3.328
3.418
2.178
0.642
0.266
0.269
2.502
0.289
0.596
1.499
Avg 98th
3.409
3.464
2.219
0.629
0.277
0.282
2.493
0.287
0.612
1.519
22nd high
1.978
1.886
1.208
0.262
0.156
0.109
1.421
0.153
0.313
0.832
1.996
1.979
1.205
0.279
0.147
0.114
1.463
0.158
0.315
0.851
Avg 98th
1.882
1.851
1.111
0.287
0.126
0.112
1.346
0.130
0.275
0.791
22nd high
1.909
1.852
1.135
0.295
0.124
0.116
1.317
0.128
0.283
0.795
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOTES: ‘‘Avg 98th’’ refers to the average of the annual 98th percentile visibility impacts in deciviews (dv) from 2001–2003. ‘‘22nd high’’ refers
to the 22nd highest visibility impact in deciviews for combined 2001–2003 data. In all modeling scenarios, background ammonia concentrations
are 1 ppb for Method 8 estimations using best 20-percent days visibility.
In evaluating ADEQ’s weight-ofevidence demonstration, we have
considered all elements of ADEQ’s
analysis, but we have given the most
weight to the visibility impacts based on
air quality modeling. In order to
evaluate whether the Apache BART
Alternative is indeed better than BART,
we have applied a modified version of
the two-prong modeling test set forth in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), using the air
quality modeling results. In particular,
rather than considering the best twentypercent days and worst twenty-percent
days, as provided for under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), we have considered the
98th percentile impacts (averaged across
three years), consistent with the
approach recommended by the BART
Guidelines for comparing control
alternatives at a single source.35 Under
the first prong of the test (the ‘‘nodegradation prong’’), we compared the
Apache BART Alternative to baseline
conditions to ensure that the alternative
will not result in worsened conditions
anywhere than would otherwise exist.36
The Apache BART Alternative clearly
meets this prong, as the visibility
modeling results indicated that the
Alternative will result in improved
visibility at all affected Class I areas
compared with baseline conditions, as
shown in Table 5. Under the second
prong, we compared the average
differences between BART and the
Apache BART Alternative over all
affected Class I areas to ensure that there
is an overall improvement in
35 70 FR 39170. CALPUFF is the single source air
quality model that is recommended in the BART
Guidelines. Since CALPUFF was used for this
analysis, the modeling results were post-processed
in a manner consistent with the BART Guidelines.
36 See 70 FR 39137.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
visibility.37 The Apache BART
Alternative also meets this prong, as the
modeling results indicated that the
Alternative would result in improved
visibility, on average, across all Class I
Areas, compared with BART.
Based on the weight-of-evidence
presented, we propose to approve
ADEQ’s determination that the Apache
BART Alternative would achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). In particular,
the BART Alternative will result in 957
tpy fewer SO2 emissions compared to
BART. In spite of more NOX emissions
(1183 tpy) compared to BART, modeling
submitted by ADEQ shows that the
BART Alternative will result in
improved visibility at all affected Class
I areas compared with baseline
conditions and will result in improved
visibility, on average, across all Class I
Areas, compared with BART. This
conclusion is further supported by the
IMPROVE visibility monitoring data,
which indicates that all of the affected
Class I areas have more than three times
the visibility impairment due to SO2
compared to NOX.
2. Requirement That Emission
Reductions Take Place During Period of
First Long-Term Strategy
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii),
the State must ensure that all necessary
emission reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze, i.e. by December 31,
2018. The RHR further provides that, to
meet this requirement, the State must
provide a detailed description of the
alternative measure, including
schedules for implementation, the
emission reductions required by the
37 40
PO 00000
CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii).
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
program, all necessary administrative
and technical procedures for
implementing the program, rules for
accounting and monitoring emissions,
and procedures for enforcement.38
As noted above, the Apache SIP
Revision incorporates the Apache
Permit Revision, which includes
conditions implementing the Apache
BART Alternative. In addition to the
emission limitations for NOX, PM10, and
SO2 listed in Table 1 above, the Apache
Permit Revision includes compliance
dates, operation and maintenance
requirements, and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. We propose to find that
these provisions meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration That Emissions
Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv),
the SIP must demonstrate that the
emissions reductions resulting from the
alternative measure will be surplus to
those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP. The baseline date for regional haze
SIPs is 2002.39 All of the emission
reductions required by the Apache
BART Alternative are surplus to
reductions resulting from measures
applicable to Apache as of 2002.
Therefore, we propose to find that the
Apache BART Alternative complies
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
38 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and
Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory
SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
Programs, November 8, 2002. https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf.
39 See
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
In sum, we propose to find that the
Apache BART Alternative meets all of
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
C. EPA’s Evaluation of the ST1 Emission
Limit Revision
In addition to the Apache BART
Alternative, which applies to ST2 and
ST3, the Apache SIP Revision includes
a revision in the NOX limit for ST1
when operating in combined-cycle
mode with GT1. The SIP Revision
would raise this limit from 0.056 lb/
MMbtu to 0.10 lb/MMbtu based on a
determination that the 0.056 lb/MMbtu
limit is unachievable when ST1 is
operated in combined cycle with GT1.40
The revised limit of 0.10 is lb/MMbtu
achievable when ST1 is operated in
combined cycle with GT1 and is
consistent with the use of natural gas,
which ADEQ previously determined to
constitute BART for this unit. Therefore,
we propose to find that this revision to
the emission limit for ST1, when
operated in combined cycle mode with
GT1, is consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR 51.308(e) requiring SIPs to
contain emission limits representing
BART.
D. EPA’s Evaluation of Other Applicable
Requirements
1. Enforceable Emission Limits
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emissions
limitations necessary or appropriate to
meet the applicable requirements of the
Act. In addition, SIPs must contain
regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for applicable emissions
limitations.41 The Apache Permit
Revision includes such enforceable
emission limits, as well as associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, for all units and
pollutants. Therefore, we propose to
find that the Apache SIP Revision meets
the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations for
enforceable emission limitations.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Non-Interference With Applicable
Requirements
The CAA requires that any revision to
an implementation plan shall not be
approved by the Administrator if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
40 See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and
Hiser, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013).
41 See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR
51.212(c).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
requirement of the Act.42 EPA has
promulgated health-based standards,
known as the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), for seven
pollutants, including SO2, PM10, NO2 (a
component of NOX), and pollutants
such as ozone and PM2.5 that are formed
in the atmosphere from reactions
between NOX and other pollutants.
Using a process that considers air
quality data and other factors, EPA
designates areas as ‘‘nonattainment’’ if
those areas cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS. Reasonable
further progress, as defined in section
171 of the CAA, is related to attainment
and means annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutant for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable NAAQS.
Apache is located in north central
Cochise County, Arizona, which is
designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment
for all of the NAAQS.43 Therefore, we
propose to find that a revision to the
BART emission limits for NOX will not
interfere with attainment or reasonable
further progress for any air quality
standard.
The other requirements of the CAA
that are applicable to Apache are:
• Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR part
60, subpart D;
• National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40
CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU;
• Compliance Assurance Monitoring
(CAM), 40 CFR part 64; and
• BART and other visibility
protection requirements under CAA
section 169A and 40 CFR Part 52,
subpart P.
Today’s proposed revisions would not
affect the applicable requirements of the
NESHAP, NSPS or CAM. Furthermore,
as noted by ADEQ, a switch from coal
to gas at ST2 will result in significant
reductions in hazardous air
pollutants.44 Therefore, we propose to
find that these revisions would not
interfere with these requirements.
The proposed revisions would alter
the applicable emission limits for NOX,
SO2 and PM10 at Apache under CAA
section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e).
However, as explained above, the
visibility improvement expected to
result from the Apache BART
Alternative for ST2 and ST3 is expected
to result in greater visibility
improvement on average across all
affected Class I areas compared with
BART. In addition, while there will be
an increase in the NOX limit for ST1
42 CAA
Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
SIP Revision, pages 9–10, Table 1.5.
44 Id. page 12.
when operating in combined-cycle
mode with GT1, from 0.056 lb/MMbtu
to 0.10 lb/MMbtu, the addition of a lb/
day limit will ensure that there will not
be an increase in overall emissions from
this unit.45 Therefore, we propose to
find that the Apache SIP Revision
would not interfere with any applicable
requirement of the CAA.
IV. EPA’s Proposed Action
For the reasons described above, EPA
proposes to approve the Apache SIP
Revision and withdraw the provisions
of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to Apache. We also propose to
find that withdrawal of the FIP would
constitute our action on AEPCO’s
Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review 13563
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This
proposed rule applies to only one
facility and is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.
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. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute 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
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed 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
43 Apache
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56329
45 Id.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
page 11, footnote 9.
19SEP1
56330
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. Firms primarily
engaged in the generation, transmission,
and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale are small if, including affiliates, the
total electric output for the preceding
fiscal year did not exceed 4 million
megawatt hours. AEPCO sold under 3
million megawatt hours in 2013 and is
therefore a small entity.46
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed action on small
entities, I certify that this proposed
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The proposed
approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327
(D.C. Cir. 1985). The proposed FIP
withdrawal would alleviate economic
impacts on AEPCO and therefore would
not have a significant adverse impact on
any small entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, requires Federal agencies,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
Federal agencies must also develop a
plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly
or uniquely affected by any regulatory
requirements. The plan must enable
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must
inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
This proposed rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
proposed rule does not impose
regulatory requirements on any
government entity.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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 in the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Under 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.
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
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 does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. This
proposed action addresses regional haze
and visibility protection.
46 Arizona’s G&T Cooperatives Annual Report
(2013), page 17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is exempt 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(10)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by the VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable VCS.
EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 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 has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population, at a
lower cost than the FIP.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9916–91–
OAR]
charged for copying. The EPA has
established the official public docket
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198.
Worldwide Web. The EPA Web site
containing information for this
rulemaking is: https://www.epa.gov/
ozone/snap/regulations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code
6205T, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number (202) 343–9445; fax number
(202) 343–2338, email address:
vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov. Notices
and rulemakings under EPA’s SNAP
program are available on EPA’s
Stratospheric Ozone Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
regulations.html.
RIN 2060–AS18
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 dioxide, Visibility.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014–22403 Filed 9–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
extension of public comment period.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is announcing that the
period for providing public comments
on the August 6, 2014, proposed
‘‘Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes Under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program’’ is being
extended by 14 days.
DATES: Comments. The public comment
period for the proposed rule published
August 6, 2014, (79 FR 46126) is being
extended by 14 days to October 20,
2014, in order to provide the public
additional time to submit comments and
supporting information.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written
comments on the proposed rule may be
submitted to the EPA electronically, by
mail, by facsimile or through hand
delivery/courier. Please refer to the
proposal (79 FR 46126) for the addresses
and detailed instructions.
Docket. Publicly available documents
relevant to this action are available for
public inspection either electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/
DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. A reasonable fee may be
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
ACTION:
56331
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement to update the
cancellation ceiling threshold for
multiyear contracts and to correct
statutory references.
DATES: Comment date: Comments on the
proposed rule should be submitted in
writing to the address shown below on
or before November 18, 2014, to be
considered in the formation of a final
rule.
SUMMARY:
48 CFR Part 217
Submit comments
identified by DFARS Case 2014–D019,
using any of the following methods:
Æ Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–D019’’
under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or
ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the
link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–
D019.’’ Follow the instructions provided
at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen.
Please include your name, company
name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–
D019’’ on your attached document.
Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2014–D019 in the subject
line of the message.
Æ Fax: 571–372–6094.
Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer
Hawes, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS,
Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
please check www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting (except
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room
3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Telephone 571–372–6115.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
RIN 0750–AI37
I. Background
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Multiyear
Contracts—Statutory References and
Cancellation Ceiling Threshold
(DFARS Case 2014–D019)
DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS
regarding multiyear contracts to correct
statutory references and to update the
cancellation ceiling threshold at DFARS
217.170(e)(1)(iv) and (e)(5) for
consistency with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
Currently, DFARS 217.170(e)(1)(iv)
requires DoD to provide notification to
Comment Period
The EPA is extending the public
comment period for an additional 14
days. The public comment period will
end on October 20, 2014, rather than
October 6, 2014. This will provide the
public additional time to review and
comment on all of the information
available, including the proposed rule
and other materials in the docket.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: September 12, 2014.
Janet G. McCabe,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2014–22382 Filed 9–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56322-56331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22403]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647, FRL-9916-85-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans;
Reconsideration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that establishes an alternative to best available retrofit
technology (BART) for Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at Arizona
Electric Power Cooperative's (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station
(Apache). The SIP revision also revises the emission limit for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) applicable to Steam Unit 1 (ST1), when it is
operated in combined-cycle mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA proposes
to find that the BART alternative for ST2 and ST3 would provide greater
reasonable progress
[[Page 56323]]
toward natural visibility conditions than BART, in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
(RHR). We also propose to approve the revision to the NOX
emission limit for ST1 and GT1. In conjunction with this proposed
approval, we propose to withdraw those portions of the federal
implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Apache. We previously
partially granted AEPCO's petition for reconsideration of that FIP and
are now proposing to find that withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies to
Apache, constitutes our action on AEPCO's Petition for Reconsideration
of the FIP.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 3,
2014. Requests for public hearing must be received on or before October
6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal,
request a public hearing, or submit comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at webb.thomas@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. The Apache SIP Revision
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
The initials AEPCO mean or refer to Arizona Electric Power
Cooperative.
The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
Federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business
Information.
The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating
Unit.
The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
The initials GT1 mean or refer to Gas Turbine Unit 1.
The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX
burners.
The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British
thermal units
The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen
oxides.
The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.
The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze
Rule.
The initials SCR mean or refer to Selective Catalytic
Reduction.
The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur
dioxide.
The initials ST1 mean or refer to Steam Unit 1.
The initials ST2 mean or refer to Steam Unit 2.
The initials ST3 mean or refer to Steam Unit 3.
B. Docket
The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that
are listed in the index on https://www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647. 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
https://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 PDT, excluding Federal holidays.
C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0647, by one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov..
Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).
Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Thomas Webb, 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.-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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://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 to EPA, without going through https://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.
D. Submitting Confidential Business Information
Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or by
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
[[Page 56324]]
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.
E. Tips for Preparing Your 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.
F. Public Hearings
If anyone contacts EPA by October 6, 2014 requesting to speak at a
public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the
hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at (415) 947-4139
or at webb.thomas@epa.gov to request a hearing or to determine if a
hearing will be held.
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
This section provides a brief overview of the requirements of the
CAA and RHR, as they apply to this particular action. Please refer to
our previous rulemakings on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP for
additional background regarding the visibility protection provisions of
the CAA and the RHR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 77 FR 42834, 42837-42839 (July 20, 2012), (Arizona Regional
Haze ``Phase 1'' Rule) 77 FR 75704, 75709-75712 (December 21, 2012),
(Arizona Regional Haze ``Phase 2'' Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \3\ It also directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger,
often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between
1962 and 1977 (known as ``BART-eligible'' sources) procure, install,
and operate BART. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the
visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of
regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude
of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
\4\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, we promulgated the RHR, which requires states to develop
and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I areas) \5\ by
reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.\6\ Under
the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for BART-
eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.\7\ In lieu of requiring
source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to
adopt alternative measures, as long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART
(i.e., the alternative must be ``better than BART'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
\7\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
\8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of State Submittals and EPA Actions
1. 2011 Arizona RH SIP
On February 28, 2011, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP under Section 308 of the
RHR (``Arizona RH SIP'') to EPA. This submittal included BART
determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers
(PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) at Apache Units
ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is a wall-fired boiler with a net unit
output of 85 MW that burns pipeline-quality natural gas as its primary
fuel. Units ST2 and ST3 are both dry-bottom, Riley Stoker turbo-fired
boilers, operating on sub-bituminous coal, each with a gross unit
output of 204 MW.
2. 2012 EPA Action on Arizona RH SIP and FIP
On December 5, 2012, we issued a final rule approving in part and
disapproving in part ADEQ's BART determinations for three sources,
including Apache.\9\ In particular, we approved ADEQ's BART
determinations for NOX, PM10, and SO2
at Apache ST1 and PM10 and SO2 at ST2 and ST3,
but disapproved ADEQ's BART determinations for NOX at ST2
and ST3. We also found that the SIP lacked enforceable emission limits
for all units and pollutants. In the same action, we promulgated a FIP
for the disapproved portions of the SIP, including NOX BART
determinations for ST2 and ST3. We determined that BART for
NOX at ST2 and ST3 was an emission limit of 0.070 pounds per
million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) determined as an average
across the two units, based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day
average, which is achievable with the use of low-NOX burners
(LNB), overfire air (OFA) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). We
also established compliance dates and requirements for equipment
maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for all units and
all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 77 FR 72512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 2013 AEPCO Petition for Reconsideration of RH FIP for Apache
Generating Station
On February 4, 2013, AEPCO submitted a petition to EPA seeking
reconsideration of the final rule (``AEPCO Petition'').\10\ On May 29,
2013, AEPCO submitted a supplemental petition providing an alternative
to the BART determinations in that rule (``Apache BART
Alternative'').\11\ The Apache BART Alternative consisted of a
conversion to pipeline natural gas (PNG) combustion at ST2 and a
NOX emission
[[Page 56325]]
limit based upon selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) at ST3. On
June 6, 2013, we sent a letter to representatives of AEPCO granting
partial reconsideration of the final rule under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B).\12\ Specifically, we stated that we were granting
reconsideration of the emission limits for NOX,
PM10, and SO2 at ST2 and ST3, the compliance
methodology for NOX at ST2 and ST3, and the provisions of
the rule applicable to ST1 and GT1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Lisa
Jackson, EPA (February 2, 2013).
\11\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to
Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (May 29, 2013).
\12\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Eric Hiser, Jorden,
Bischoff and Hiser (June 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2013 Arizona RH SIP Revision and Clarification
On May 3, 2013, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona RH
SIP.\13\ Among other things, the SIP revision clarified that the BART
emission limits for ST1 apply when ST1 operates alone or if ST1 is
operated in combined-cycle mode with the adjacent GT1, but not to (a)
GT1 in stand-alone simple-cycle operation or (b) ST1/GT1 when ST1
burners are shut off and ST1 is not producing electricity.\14\ EPA
approved this clarification in our July 30, 2013 Phase 2 final rule on
the Arizona RH SIP.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA
(May 3, 2013), Enclosure 3, Arizona RH SIP Revision.
\14\ Id. Appendix D, pages 5-6 (footnotes to tables 1.1, 1.2 and
1.3) and page 49. The reason for this distinction is that gas
turbines are not among the 26 industrial source categories included
in the definition of ``existing stationary facility'' in the
Regional Haze Rule, whereas combined cycle turbines are included in
this list. See 40 CFR 51.301; 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section
II.A.1.
\15\ See Supplemental Proposal, 78 FR 46142, 46175 (codified at
40 CFR 52.120(c)(158)(ii)(A)(1)(iii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 2014 Arizona RH SIP Revision for Apache Generating Station
On May 13, 2014, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona RH SIP
that incorporated the Apache BART Alternative (``Apache SIP
Revision'').\16\ The Apache SIP Revision also revised the
NOX emission limit for ST1 during combined-cycle operation.
The Apache SIP Revision is the subject of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA
(May 13, 2014), Enclosure 3, Revision to the Arizona RH Plan for
AEPCO Apache Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Apache SIP Revision
A. Summary of the Apache SIP Revision
The Apache SIP Revision consists of two components: a BART
Alternative for ST2 and ST3, and a revised NOX emission
limit for ST1 and GT1 when operated in combined-cycle mode.
1. Apache BART Alternative
Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 would be converted from a
primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality
natural gas, while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired unit and would be
retrofitted with SNCR. The emission limits associated with the
Alternative are summarized in Table 1. The compliance date for all
limits is December 5, 2017, except that a more stringent limit for
PM10 at ST2 (0.008 lb/MMBtu) that will be effective on
December 5, 2018.
Table 1--Emission Limits for Apache BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days)
Unit --------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2.................................. 0.085 0.01, then 0.008 (effective December 5, 0.00064
2018).
ST3.................................. 0.23 0.03..................................... 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ incorporated the revised emission limits, as well as
associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, as an addendum to Apache's Operating Permit,
which was submitted as part of the Apache SIP Revision.\17\ The SIP
revision also includes ADEQ's determination that the Apache BART
Alternative is ``better than BART,'' based on total estimated emissions
reductions, reductions in visibility impairing pollutants, IMPROVE
monitoring data, and improvements in modeled visibility impacts from
Apache.\18\ More information regarding ADEQ's analysis is set forth
below, along with EPA's evaluation of the analysis. On July 18, 2014,
EPA determined that the Apache SIP Revision was complete under CAA
section 110(k)(1)(B).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant Revision No.
59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412 (``Apache Permit
Revision'')(issued May 13, 2014).
\18\ Apache SIP Revision, sections 2.2 and 2.3.
\19\ Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (July
18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Revised Emission Limit for ST1 and GT1
The Apache SIP Revision revises the NOX emission limit
for the combined-cycle operation of ST1 with GT1 from 0.056 lb/MMBtu to
0.10 lb/MMBtu, based on a determination that the 0.056 lb/MMBtu limit
is not achievable during combined cycle operations and that inclusion
of emissions from GT1 would result in an emission rate of 0.10 lb/
MMbtu.\20\ In order to ensure that this revision does not result in an
overall increase in NOX emissions, the SIP Revision also
sets a 1205 lb/day limit, based on a 30-calendar-day average, for ST1
operating in standalone mode or in combined-cycle mode with GT1. ADEQ
derived this emission limit based on the existing emission limit of
0.056 lb/MMBtu (the original NOX emission limit required for
ST1 and GT1 in combined-cycle mode), and a conservative estimate of the
heat rate (10,985 Btu/kWhr) over the primary operating range of ST1 and
GT1 in combined-cycle operation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to
Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013).
\21\ Id. section 3.1, footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Evaluation of Apache BART Alternative
The RHR requires that a SIP revision establishing a BART
alternative include three elements as listed below. We have evaluated
the Apache BART Alternative with respect to each of these elements.
A demonstration that the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative
program.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take
place during
[[Page 56326]]
the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting
from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions
resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of
the baseline date of the SIP.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Demonstration of the Alternative Measure Will Achieve Greater
Reasonable Progress
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), ADEQ must demonstrate that the
alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would
have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative
program. This demonstration must be based on five criteria, which are
addressed below.
a. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the SIP must include a list
of all BART-eligible sources within the State. ADEQ included a list of
BART-eligible sources in the Arizona RH SIP.\25\ As part of the Phase 2
Arizona regional haze rulemaking, EPA approved the majority of ADEQ's
BART-eligibility determinations, but disapproved ADEQ's finding that
Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Sundt Unit 4 was not BART-eligible.\26\ In
the Phase 3 Arizona regional haze rulemaking, EPA determined that TEP
Sundt Unit 4 was BART-eligible and subject-to-BART and made final BART
determinations for this unit.\27\ Thus, all BART-eligible sources in
the State have been addressed either in a SIP or FIP. We propose to
find that the existing Arizona RH SIP and FIP fulfill the requirement
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) for a list of all BART-eligible sources
within the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 77 FR 75704, 75719-75720; 78 FR 46142, 46151-46152.
\26\ Id.
\27\ 79 FR 52420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All Bart Source Categories
Covered by the Alternative Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), each BART-eligible source in
the State must be subject to the requirements of the alternative
program or have a federally enforceable emission limitation determined
by the State and approved by EPA as meeting BART. In this instance, the
alternative program covers only Apache ST2 and ST3. All other BART-
eligible sources and units in the State have already been addressed in
the Arizona RH SIP and FIP.\28\ Therefore, we propose to find that the
Apache SIP Revision meets the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See generally 77 FR 72512, 78 FR 46142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP must include an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at ST2 and ST3. As
noted above, ADEQ's BART analyses and determinations for ST2 and ST3
were included in the Arizona RH SIP. EPA approved ADEQ's BART
determinations for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved
ADEQ's BART determination for NOX at ST2 and ST3 and
conducted our own BART analysis and determination for NOX
BART for ST2 and ST3 in a FIP.
In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ compared the BART Alternative both
to ADEQ's original BART determinations and to EPA's BART determinations
in the FIP. For purposes of our evaluation, we consider BART for ST2
and ST3 to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART determinations
for PM10 and SO2, which were approved into the
applicable SIP, and (2) EPA's BART determination for NOX in
the Arizona RH FIP. These BART determinations are summarized in Table
2.
Table 2--BART Emission Limits for Apache
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days)
Unit --------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2.................................. 0.070 (across two units)................. 0.03 0.15
ST3.................................. ......................................... 0.03 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Technical Support Document (TSD) included with the Apache
SIP Revision, ADEQ calculated estimated annual emission reductions
achievable with BART by comparing projected emissions from ST2 and ST3
with BART \29\ to baseline emissions.\30\ The results of these
calculations are shown in Table 3. Because BART for PM10 and
SO2 was determined to be consistent with existing controls,
no emission reductions are expected to result from BART. However,
significant NOX emission reductions (4,502 tpy) are expected
to result from implementation of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ADEQ refers to the BART control scenario as ``2013 SCR.''
See TSD page 4 (``This scenario assumes SCR, LNB, and OFA
implementation as well as ESP and wet scrubber upgrades.'').
\30\ ADEQ considered two different baseline scenarios--2007
(assuming use of Electrostatic Precipitation (ESP) and wet scrubber
upgrades) and 2013 (assuming use of OFA, ESP, and wet scrubber
upgrades). See SIP TSD at 3. We have chosen to employ the 2013
Baseline, consistent with our original BART analysis, which used a
baseline with OFA. See 78 FR 42856, Table 16.
Table 3--Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With BART at Apache
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2 and ST3 Total emissions (tpy)
-----------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (``2013 Baseline'') \a\................................ 5,441 403 2,013
BART (``2013 SCR'') \b\......................................... 939 403 2,013
Emission Reduction (``2013 SCR'' minus ``2013 Baseline'') \c\... 4,502 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Apache SIP Revision TSD Table 6.
[[Page 56327]]
\b\ Id.
\c\ Id. Table 7.
We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of
BART and associated emission reductions achievable at Apache ST2 and
ST3 under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
d. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
In the Apache SIP Revision TSD, ADEQ calculated emissions
reductions achievable through the BART Alternative by comparing
estimated annual emissions from ST2 and ST3 under the BART Alternative
\31\ with baseline emissions. The results of these calculations are
shown in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ADEQ refers to the BART Alternative as ``2013 9bv2 PNGt.''
See TSD page 4 (``The 2013 9bv2 PNGt scenario reflects the
implementation of the AEPCO alternative controls . . .'').
Table 4--Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With Apache BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2 and ST3 Total emissions (tpy)
-----------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (``2013 Baseline'') \a\................................ 5,441 403 2,013
BART Alternative (``2013 9bv2 PNGt'') \b\....................... 2,122 262 1,056
Emission Reduction (``2013 9bv2 PNGt'' minus ``2013 Baseline'') 3,318 141 957
\ c\...........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Apache SIP Revision TSD Table 6.
\b\ Id.
\c\ Id. Table 7.
We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of
the projected emissions reductions achievable through the alternative
measure under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
e. A Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation
of BART
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the State must provide a
determination that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress
than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear
weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides two
different tests for determining whether the alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART. If the distribution of emissions
is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative
measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative
measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the
distribution of emissions is significantly different, however, then the
State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in
visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class
I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would
demonstrate ``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the following
two criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I
area, and; (2) there is an overall improvement in visibility,
determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the
alternative over all affected Class I areas.
In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ determined that neither of the two
tests under 51.308(e)(3) was appropriate for evaluating the Apache BART
Alternative. Therefore, ADEQ conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis
based on reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants, IMPROVE
monitoring data, and improvements in modeled visibility impacts from
Apache.
The reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants from the Apache
BART Alternative, as estimated by ADEQ, are summarized in Table 4
above. As noted above, compared with BART, ADEQ projects that the
Apache BART Alternative will result in 1183 tpy more NOX
emissions, 957 tpy fewer SO2 emissions, and 141 tpy fewer
PM10 emissions than BART.
ADEQ next considered historical emission inventory and ambient
monitoring data. In particular, ADEQ noted that, in 2008, state-wide
emissions of SO2 (84,784 tons) were less than a third of
state-wide NOX emissions (290,344 tons). ADEQ also reviewed
ambient monitoring data from Class I areas impacted by emissions from
Apache and found that visibility impairment due to SO2 was
more than three times greater than impairment from NOX.\32\
Based on the monitoring and emission inventory data, ADEQ concluded
that, ``for the State of Arizona, it is likely more beneficial to
reduce SO2 emissions as compared to NOX emissions
when applying pollution controls to point sources to improve class I
area visibility. Therefore, ADEQ believes AEPCO's proposed alternative
control methodology would realize higher real-world visibility benefits
than the other control methods tested.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Apache SIP Revision page 5.
\33\ Id. TSD page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, ADEQ considered the results of air quality modeling (using
the CALPUFF model) performed by AEPCO to assess the visibility impacts
of Apache under various control scenarios.\34\ These results,
summarized in Table 5, show that, compared with BART, the Apache BART
Alternative would result in greater visibility improvement at all but
two areas (Gila Wilderness Area and Mount Baldy Wilderness Area), and
would result in greater improvement on average across all areas. In
addition, implementation of the Apache BART Alternative would result in
improvement at all affected Class I areas, in comparison to the base
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id. See also TSD pages 15-22.
[[Page 56328]]
Table 5--Modeled Visibility Impacts of Apache
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2013 baseline) BART (2013 SCR) BART alternative (2013 9bv2
---------------------------------------------------------------- PNGt)
Visibility impacts (dv) Visibility impacts (dv) -------------------------------
Class I area ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visibility impacts (dv)
-------------------------------
Avg 98th 22nd high Avg 98th 22nd high Avg 98th 22nd high
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiricahua National Monument............................ 3.328 3.409 1.978 1.996 1.882 1.909
Chiricahua Wilderness Area.............................. 3.418 3.464 1.886 1.979 1.851 1.852
Galiuro Wilderness Area................................. 2.178 2.219 1.208 1.205 1.111 1.135
Gila Wilderness Area.................................... 0.642 0.629 0.262 0.279 0.287 0.295
Mazatzal Wilderness Area................................ 0.266 0.277 0.156 0.147 0.126 0.124
Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area............................... 0.269 0.282 0.109 0.114 0.112 0.116
Saguaro National Park................................... 2.502 2.493 1.421 1.463 1.346 1.317
Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area............................ 0.289 0.287 0.153 0.158 0.130 0.128
Superstition Wilderness Area............................ 0.596 0.612 0.313 0.315 0.275 0.283
Average................................................. 1.499 1.519 0.832 0.851 0.791 0.795
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: ``Avg 98th'' refers to the average of the annual 98th percentile visibility impacts in deciviews (dv) from 2001-2003. ``22nd high'' refers to the
22nd highest visibility impact in deciviews for combined 2001-2003 data. In all modeling scenarios, background ammonia concentrations are 1 ppb for
Method 8 estimations using best 20-percent days visibility.
In evaluating ADEQ's weight-of-evidence demonstration, we have
considered all elements of ADEQ's analysis, but we have given the most
weight to the visibility impacts based on air quality modeling. In
order to evaluate whether the Apache BART Alternative is indeed better
than BART, we have applied a modified version of the two-prong modeling
test set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), using the air quality modeling
results. In particular, rather than considering the best twenty-percent
days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided for under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), we have considered the 98th percentile impacts (averaged
across three years), consistent with the approach recommended by the
BART Guidelines for comparing control alternatives at a single
source.\35\ Under the first prong of the test (the ``no-degradation
prong''), we compared the Apache BART Alternative to baseline
conditions to ensure that the alternative will not result in worsened
conditions anywhere than would otherwise exist.\36\ The Apache BART
Alternative clearly meets this prong, as the visibility modeling
results indicated that the Alternative will result in improved
visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with baseline
conditions, as shown in Table 5. Under the second prong, we compared
the average differences between BART and the Apache BART Alternative
over all affected Class I areas to ensure that there is an overall
improvement in visibility.\37\ The Apache BART Alternative also meets
this prong, as the modeling results indicated that the Alternative
would result in improved visibility, on average, across all Class I
Areas, compared with BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 70 FR 39170. CALPUFF is the single source air quality model
that is recommended in the BART Guidelines. Since CALPUFF was used
for this analysis, the modeling results were post-processed in a
manner consistent with the BART Guidelines.
\36\ See 70 FR 39137.
\37\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the weight-of-evidence presented, we propose to approve
ADEQ's determination that the Apache BART Alternative would achieve
greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
In particular, the BART Alternative will result in 957 tpy fewer
SO2 emissions compared to BART. In spite of more
NOX emissions (1183 tpy) compared to BART, modeling
submitted by ADEQ shows that the BART Alternative will result in
improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with
baseline conditions and will result in improved visibility, on average,
across all Class I Areas, compared with BART. This conclusion is
further supported by the IMPROVE visibility monitoring data, which
indicates that all of the affected Class I areas have more than three
times the visibility impairment due to SO2 compared to
NOX.
2. Requirement That Emission Reductions Take Place During Period of
First Long-Term Strategy
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the State must ensure that
all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the
first long-term strategy for regional haze, i.e. by December 31, 2018.
The RHR further provides that, to meet this requirement, the State must
provide a detailed description of the alternative measure, including
schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the
program, all necessary administrative and technical procedures for
implementing the program, rules for accounting and monitoring
emissions, and procedures for enforcement.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Apache SIP Revision incorporates the Apache
Permit Revision, which includes conditions implementing the Apache BART
Alternative. In addition to the emission limitations for
NOX, PM10, and SO2 listed in Table 1
above, the Apache Permit Revision includes compliance dates, operation
and maintenance requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. We propose to find that these provisions meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration That Emissions Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that
the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The
baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002.\39\ All of the emission
reductions required by the Apache BART Alternative are surplus to
reductions resulting from measures applicable to Apache as of 2002.
Therefore, we propose to find that the Apache BART Alternative complies
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002.
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56329]]
In sum, we propose to find that the Apache BART Alternative meets
all of the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
C. EPA's Evaluation of the ST1 Emission Limit Revision
In addition to the Apache BART Alternative, which applies to ST2
and ST3, the Apache SIP Revision includes a revision in the
NOX limit for ST1 when operating in combined-cycle mode with
GT1. The SIP Revision would raise this limit from 0.056 lb/MMbtu to
0.10 lb/MMbtu based on a determination that the 0.056 lb/MMbtu limit is
unachievable when ST1 is operated in combined cycle with GT1.\40\ The
revised limit of 0.10 is lb/MMbtu achievable when ST1 is operated in
combined cycle with GT1 and is consistent with the use of natural gas,
which ADEQ previously determined to constitute BART for this unit.
Therefore, we propose to find that this revision to the emission limit
for ST1, when operated in combined cycle mode with GT1, is consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e) requiring SIPs to contain
emission limits representing BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to
Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. EPA's Evaluation of Other Applicable Requirements
1. Enforceable Emission Limits
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emissions limitations necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the Act. In addition, SIPs must contain regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
applicable emissions limitations.\41\ The Apache Permit Revision
includes such enforceable emission limits, as well as associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for all units
and pollutants. Therefore, we propose to find that the Apache SIP
Revision meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations for enforceable emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 51.212(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements
The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.\42\
EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including
SO2, PM10, NO2 (a component of
NOX), and pollutants such as ozone and PM2.5 that
are formed in the atmosphere from reactions between NOX and
other pollutants. Using a process that considers air quality data and
other factors, EPA designates areas as ``nonattainment'' if those areas
cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS. Reasonable further
progress, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to
attainment and means annual incremental reductions in emissions of the
relevant air pollutant for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS. Apache is located in north central Cochise County,
Arizona, which is designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment for all of
the NAAQS.\43\ Therefore, we propose to find that a revision to the
BART emission limits for NOX will not interfere with
attainment or reasonable further progress for any air quality standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
\43\ Apache SIP Revision, pages 9-10, Table 1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to Apache
are:
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
(NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, subpart D;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU;
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM), 40 CFR part 64; and
BART and other visibility protection requirements under
CAA section 169A and 40 CFR Part 52, subpart P.
Today's proposed revisions would not affect the applicable requirements
of the NESHAP, NSPS or CAM. Furthermore, as noted by ADEQ, a switch
from coal to gas at ST2 will result in significant reductions in
hazardous air pollutants.\44\ Therefore, we propose to find that these
revisions would not interfere with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id. page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed revisions would alter the applicable emission limits
for NOX, SO2 and PM10 at Apache under
CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e). However, as explained above, the
visibility improvement expected to result from the Apache BART
Alternative for ST2 and ST3 is expected to result in greater visibility
improvement on average across all affected Class I areas compared with
BART. In addition, while there will be an increase in the
NOX limit for ST1 when operating in combined-cycle mode with
GT1, from 0.056 lb/MMbtu to 0.10 lb/MMbtu, the addition of a lb/day
limit will ensure that there will not be an increase in overall
emissions from this unit.\45\ Therefore, we propose to find that the
Apache SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id. page 11, footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
For the reasons described above, EPA proposes to approve the Apache
SIP Revision and withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze
FIP that apply to Apache. We also propose to find that withdrawal of
the FIP would constitute our action on AEPCO's Petition for
Reconsideration of the FIP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This proposed rule applies to
only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
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.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 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
[[Page 56330]]
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. Firms primarily engaged in the
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for
the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.
AEPCO sold under 3 million megawatt hours in 2013 and is therefore a
small entity.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Arizona's G&T Cooperatives Annual Report (2013), page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The proposed
FIP withdrawal would alleviate economic impacts on AEPCO and therefore
would not have a significant adverse impact on any small entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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 in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under 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.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.
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 does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed action addresses
regional haze and visibility protection.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt 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(10)(15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population, at a lower cost than the FIP.
[[Page 56331]]
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 dioxide,
Visibility.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-22403 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
