Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans, 46903-46915 [2017-21604]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T05–0792 to read as
follows:
■
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
§ 165.T05–0792 Safety Zone, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway; Camp Lejeune, NC.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All waters on the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, from
approximate position 34°32′46″ N.,
77°19′17″ W. to 34°34′25″ N., 77°16′14″
W. (NAD 1983) at Camp Lejeune, NC.
(b) Definitions. As used in this
section, ‘‘designated representative’’
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
designated by the Captain of the Port
North Carolina (COTP) for the
enforcement of the safety zone.
‘‘Captain of the Port’’ means the
Commander, Sector North Carolina.
‘‘Participants’’ means persons and
vessels involved in support of a military
exercise.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations governing safety zones in
§ 165.23 apply to the area described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) With the exception of participants,
entry into or remaining in this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, North Carolina
or designated representative(s).
(3) All vessels within this safety zone
when this section becomes effective
must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North
Carolina can be reached through the
Coast Guard Sector North Carolina
Command Duty Officer, Wilmington,
North Carolina at telephone number
910–343–3882.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated
security vessels enforcing the safety
zone can be contacted on VHF–FM
marine band radio channel 13 (165.65
MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and
enforcement of the safety zone by
Federal, State, and local agencies.
(e) Enforcement periods. This section
will be enforced on the following dates
and times in October 2017:
Date
Time
10th–12th .....
8 a.m. through 11 a.m. and 1
p.m. through 4 p.m.
9 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1
p.m. through 4 p.m.
13th ..............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
Time
18th ..............
24th ..............
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Date
8 a.m. through 12 p.m.
8 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1
p.m. through 4 p.m.
9 a.m. through 1 p.m. and 2
p.m. through 5 p.m.
7 a.m. through 5 p.m.
7 a.m. through 11 a.m.
25th–26th .....
27th–28th .....
29th–30th .....
Dated: October 3, 2017.
Bion B. Stewart,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2017–21709 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
46903
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520)
999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@
epa.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
40 CFR Part 52
Table of Contents
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0092, FRL–9968–97–
Region 9]
I. General Information
II. Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a sourcespecific revision to the Arizona state
implementation plan (SIP) that provides
an alternative to Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for the Coronado
Generating Station (‘‘Coronado’’),
owned and operated by the Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District (SRP). The EPA has
determined that the BART alternative
for Coronado would provide greater
reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART, based
on the criteria established in the EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with
this approval, we are withdrawing those
portions of the federal implementation
plan (FIP) that address BART for
Coronado. We are also codifying the
removal of those portions of the Arizona
SIP that have either been superseded by
this approval of the SIP revision for
Coronado or by previously-approved
revisions to the Arizona SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective November
9, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established
Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–
0092 for this action. All documents in
the docket are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. General Information
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to
the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
• The words Arizona and State mean
the State of Arizona.
• The word Coronado refers to the
Coronado Generating Station.
• The initials BART mean or refer to
Best Available Retrofit Technology.
• The initials BOD mean or refer to
boiler operating day.
• The term Class I area refers to a
mandatory Class I Federal area.1
• The initials CAA mean or refer to
the Clean Air Act.
• 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 lb/MMBtu mean or refer
to pounds per million British thermal
units.
• The initials NAAQS mean or refer
to National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
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. When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this
action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
area.’’
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
46904
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
• The initials NOX mean or refer to
nitrogen oxides.
• The initials PM mean or refer to
particulate matter, which is inclusive of
PM10 (particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5
(particulate matter less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers).
• 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 SRP mean or refer to
the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District.
• The initials tpy mean or refer to
tons per year.
II. Proposed Action
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
On April 27, 2017, the EPA proposed
to approve a revision to the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP for Coronado
(‘‘Coronado SIP Revision’’) 2 that
provides an alternative to BART for
Coronado (‘‘Coronado BART
Alternative’’).3 The Coronado SIP
Revision and BART Alternative consist
of an interim operating strategy
(‘‘Interim Strategy’’) that will take effect
on December 5, 2017, and a final
operating strategy (‘‘Final Strategy’’) that
will take effect no later than December
31, 2025. The Coronado BART
Alternative was submitted pursuant to
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule
that allows states to adopt alternative
measures in lieu of source-specific
BART controls if they can demonstrate
that the alternative measures provide
greater reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions than
BART.4
The Interim Strategy includes three
different operating options, each of
which requires a period of seasonal
curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for
Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and
implement one of the three options
based on the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
2 As noted in our proposal, the Coronado SIP
Revision includes both the original version of the
revision (dated July 19, 2016) that was proposed by
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) for public comment, and an addendum
(‘‘Addendum’’ dated November 10, 2016), in
addition to various supporting materials. The
Addendum documents changes to the Coronado
BART Alternative since ADEQ’s July 19, 2016
proposal. Unless otherwise specified, references in
this document to the Coronado SIP Revision
include both of these documents, as well as the
other materials included in ADEQ’s submittal.
3 82 FR 19333. Please refer to the notice of
proposed rulemaking for background information
concerning the CAA, the Regional Haze Rule, and
the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, and a
detailed analysis of the Coronado BART
Alternative.
4 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
emissions performance of Unit 1 and the
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
performance of Units 1 and 2 in that
year. In addition, under each option, the
facility must comply with an annual
SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tons per year
(tpy) from Unit 1 and Unit 2 effective
beginning in 2018. The Final Strategy in
the Coronado SIP Revision requires the
installation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) on Unit 1 (‘‘SCR
Option’’) or the permanent cessation of
operation of Unit 1 (‘‘Shutdown
Option’’) no later than December 31,
2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ
and the EPA of its selection of either the
SCR Option or the Shutdown Option by
December 31, 2022. The Final Strategy
includes two additional features: An
SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu,
calculated on a 30-boiler operating day
(BOD) rolling average, which applies to
Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it continues
operating), and an annual SO2 emissions
cap of either 1,970 tpy from Unit 1 and
Unit 2, if both units continue operating,
or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down. ADEQ
incorporated the revised emission
limits, as well as associated compliance
deadlines and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, as a permit revision to
Coronado’s existing Operating Permit,
which was submitted as part of the
Coronado SIP Revision (‘‘Coronado
Permit Revision’’).5
We proposed to approve the Coronado
SIP Revision because in our assessment
it complied with the relevant
requirements of the CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule. In particular, we
proposed to find that the Coronado
BART Alternative would achieve greater
reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions than would be
achieved through the installation and
operation of BART at Coronado.6
Because this approval would fill the gap
in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by
the EPA’s prior partial disapproval with
respect to Coronado, we also proposed
to withdraw the provisions of the
5 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No.
64169 as amended by Significant Revision to
operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016).
The provisions implementing the Coronado BART
Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the
permit. Attachment E will become effective under
State law on the date of the EPA’s final action to
approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP and
rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze
FIP that apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E,
section I.A.
6 For purposes of our evaluation, we consider
BART for Coronado to consist of a combination of
(1) ADEQ’s BART determinations for PM10 and SO2,
which were approved into the applicable SIP, and
(2) the EPA’s BART determination for NOX in the
2016 BART Reconsideration (collectively the
‘‘Coronado BART Control Strategy’’). See 82 FR
19337.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to
Coronado. Finally, we proposed
revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to codify the
removal of those portions of the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP that have either been
superseded by previously-approved
revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be
superseded by final approval of the
Coronado SIP Revision.
III. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 45-day public comment period. During
this period, we received comment
letters from Earthjustice (on behalf of
the Sierra Club and the National Parks
Conservation Association),7
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),8
SRP,9 and two anonymous commenters.
Summaries of significant comments and
our responses are provided below.
Comments From Non-Governmental
Organizations
Comment: Earthjustice argued that the
EPA should not approve the Coronado
BART Alternative because ADEQ and
SRP’s rationale for replacing the original
BART determination with the BART
Alternative is now invalid. Citing
several administrative law cases, the
commenter stated that the EPA must
provide a valid rationale for issuing any
regulation, including an approval or
disapproval of a SIP, given that standard
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
requirements apply to such actions. The
commenter noted that both ADEQ and
SRP had indicated that the purpose of
the Coronado BART Alternative was to
delay Unit 1’s BART obligations until
SRP knew whether it would choose to
retire Coronado to comply with the
Clean Power Plan (CPP). In particular,
the commenter cited statements in the
Coronado SIP Revision that referred to
regulatory uncertainty related to the
CPP. The commenter noted that the
‘‘EPA and the new administration have
taken multiple actions to indefinitely
suspend and review the [CPP]’’ and
asserted that these actions undercut
ADEQ’s rationale for replacing the
original BART determination with the
Coronado BART Alternative.
Earthjustice acknowledged that the
EPA did not discuss the CPP in our
proposal. However, citing Arizona v.
EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016),
7 Letter from Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice, to
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017)
(‘‘Earthjustice comment letter’’).
8 Letter from Bruce Polkowsky and Graham
McCahan, EDF, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June
12, 2017) (‘‘EDF comment letter’’).
9 Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Krishna
Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (‘‘SRP comment
letter’’).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the
EPA’s disapproval of ADEQ’s original
NOX BART determination for Coronado,
the commenter asserted that, ‘‘if ADEQ’s
plan is based on an invalid rationale it
is unreasonable, and EPA’s approval of
the plan would also necessarily be
unreasonable and arbitrary.’’ The
commenter argued that the ‘‘EPA cannot
cure this fatal flaw with the BART
alternative by attempting to come up
with other rationales for the alternative
in response to these comments.’’
Earthjustice further asserted that
ADEQ should ‘‘propose a new BART
revision that is based on a valid
rationale.’’ The commenter also noted
that SRP could comply with the existing
BART determination by shutting down
Unit 1 and asserted that ‘‘this result
would be consistent with other recent
decisions across Arizona to shut down
coal plants or switch them to gas.’’
Response: We agree with the
commenter that APA requirements
generally apply to the EPA’s approval or
disapproval of a SIP revision and that
we must provide a reasoned justification
for such actions.10 We also agree with
the commenter that both ADEQ and SRP
previously indicated that the Coronado
BART Alternative was developed to
align SRP’s compliance obligations
under the CPP and the Regional Haze
Rule.
In reviewing a SIP submittal,
however, the EPA’s role is to evaluate
whether the submittal meets the
applicable requirements of the CAA and
the EPA’s regulations. If these
requirements are met, the EPA must
approve the submittal.11 As noted by the
commenter, ‘‘the EPA does not usurp a
state’s authority but ensures that such
authority is reasonably exercised.’’ 12
However, the state’s underlying
motivation in submitting the SIP
revision, which the commenter refers to
as the state’s ‘‘rationale’’ is not one of
the elements that the EPA is required to
evaluate under the CAA. Therefore, in
acting on the Coronado SIP Revision, we
have not considered the state’s
motivation in developing the SIP
revision. Rather, as described in our
10 We note that the EPA is issuing this final rule
under section 307(d) of the CAA, which provides
that that: ‘‘[t]he provisions of section 553 through
557 . . . of [the APA] shall not, except as expressly
provided in this section, apply to actions to which
[CAA section 307(d)] applies.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1).
Nonetheless, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(9)(A),
the same arbitrary-and-capricious standard of
review applies to an action under 307(d) as to an
action subject to the APA.
11 See CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3)
(‘‘[T]he) Administrator shall approve such submittal
as a whole if it meets all of the applicable
requirements of [the CAA].’’ (emphasis added)).
12 82 FR 15139, 15142 (March 27, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
proposal and elsewhere in this
document, we have evaluated the
Coronado SIP Revision in relation to the
relevant requirements of the CAA and
the EPA’s regulations, and we have
determined that it meets all of these
requirements. In particular, the
Coronado SIP Revision includes
detailed and technically sound analyses
supporting the State’s determination
that the Coronado BART Alternative
would provide greater reasonable
progress toward natural visibility
conditions than BART. In contrast to the
flawed analyses underlying ADEQ’s
original NOX BART determination for
Coronado, which we disapproved, the
analyses supporting the Coronado BART
Alternative were both ‘‘reasoned [and]
moored to the [Act]’s provisions,’’ 13 for
the reasons explained in our proposal
and elsewhere in this document.
Therefore, the commenter’s reliance on
the decision of the Ninth Circuit in
Arizona v. EPA, which upheld that prior
disapproval, is misplaced.
Furthermore, the State’s analyses
supporting its determination of greater
reasonable progress do not rely on the
requirements of the CPP or any
uncertainty related to those
requirements. While the State included
a discussion of the CPP in its proposed
SIP revision to explain the proposed
compliance schedule for the Coronado
BART Alternative,14 the Addendum,
which reflects the final requirements of
the Coronado SIP Revision, includes a
different compliance schedule and no
mention of the CPP.
Finally, while the commenter is
correct that SRP could choose to comply
with the existing BART determination
for Coronado Unit 1 by simply shutting
down that unit, this fact has no bearing
on the approvability of the Coronado
SIP Revision. Likewise, the fact that the
owners of units of other coal plants in
Arizona have chosen to shut down units
or switch them to natural gas is not
pertinent to the current action.15
13 Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir.
2016) (quoting North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750,
761 (8th Cir. 2013)).
14 See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), at
2–3.
15 We also note that, contrary to the commenters’
suggestion, none of the cited examples involve a
shutdown or switch to gas to comply with the
original BART determination for the facility. The
switch to natural gas at Apache Generating Station
Unit 2 is part of a BART alternative that replaced
the original BART determinations for that facility.
See 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2017). The closure of
Cholla Generating Station Unit 2 and cessation of
coal burning at Units 3 and 4 are part of a BART
reassessment that replaced the original BART
determinations for that facility. See 82 FR 15139
(March 27, 2017). Finally, as noted by the
commenter, the possible closure of Navajo
Generating Station is due to economic factors. See,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46905
Comment: EDF and Earthjustice both
objected to the EPA’s and ADEQ’s
reliance on the two-prong modeling test
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
demonstrate that the Interim Strategy
would achieve greater reasonable
progress than the Coronado BART
Alternative. The commenters noted that
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) outlines two
different tests for evaluating whether a
BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. In
particular, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides
that:
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, 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:
(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class
I area, and
(ii) There is an overall improvement in
visibility, determined by comparing the
average differences between BART and the
alternative over all affected Class I areas.16
The commenters noted that the EPA
has consistently interpreted the term
‘‘distribution’’ under the first test in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the ‘‘emissionsreduction test’’) to refer to geographic
distribution. Citing to prior EPA
rulemaking actions, EDF stated that the
‘‘EPA has traditionally applied the
modeling test only in cases where ‘the
distribution of emissions is significantly
different’ between BART and the BART
alternative.’’ Earthjustice further
asserted that, ‘‘[w]hen deciding which
‘Better than BART’ test applies, the
determinative factor is whether the
distribution of emissions between the
alternative and BART is substantially
different.’’ The commenters also noted
that, in our proposal to approve the
Coronado BART Alternative, we again
interpreted ‘‘distribution’’ to refer to
geographic distribution when we
proposed to determine that the Final
Strategy would not result in a
substantially different distribution of
emissions from BART. However, the
commenters suggested that, by
proposing to approve ADEQ’s use of the
two-prong modeling test, rather than the
emissions-reduction test, to evaluate the
Interim Strategy, the EPA was
e.g., Ryan Randazzo, Utilities vote to close Navajo
coal plant at end of 2019, Arizona Republic
(February 13, 2017).
16 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
46906
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
improperly applying a different
interpretation of ‘‘distribution’’ to the
Interim Strategy.
Earthjustice further asserted that the
Coronado BART Alternative ‘‘fails’’ the
emissions-reduction test, which it
characterized as the ‘‘correct’’ test to
apply in this instance. Citing the
difference in total NOX, SO2, and PM10
emissions for each of the Interim
Strategy scenarios compared with
BART, Earthjustice stated that each of
the Interim Strategy options ‘‘will result
in greater overall air pollution than
BART for eight years after the December
2017 BART compliance deadline.’’ For
this reason, the commenter concluded
that the Coronado BART Alternative is
not ‘‘Better than BART’’ and that the
EPA should disapprove it.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) is that, if the geographic
distribution of emissions is the same
under the BART alternative and BART,
then the emissions distribution is not
substantially different.17 However, as
explained further below, we do not
agree with the commenters that the
distribution of emissions is a
determinative factor, such that if the
distribution of emissions under the
BART alternative is not substantially
different than under BART, then the
alternative must be evaluated using the
emissions-reduction test. We also do not
agree that the EPA has previously
interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
include such a requirement.
Accordingly, contrary to the
commenters’ assertions, we have not
departed from our long-standing
interpretation in evaluating the
Coronado SIP Revision.
As an initial matter, we note that
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a SIP
revision establishing a BART alternative
must include a determination under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on
the clear weight of evidence that the
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. Thus, a state (or
the EPA in promulgating a FIP) always
has the option to make a ‘‘clear weight
of evidence’’ demonstration rather than
choosing either of the two options under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).18
If a state does elect to make a
demonstration under 40 CFR
17 As noted by the conservation organizations, the
Ninth Circuit recently upheld this interpretation as
reasonable. Yazzie v. EPA, 851 F.3d 960, 973 (9th
Cir. 2017).
18 See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919,
935–37 (10th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that a state
may choose to make a demonstration under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) or under a weight-of-evidence
approach).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissionsreductions test) provides the option to
make a demonstration without the need
for dispersion modeling when two
conditions are satisfied: (1) ‘‘the
distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under
BART’’ and (2) ‘‘the alternative measure
results in greater emission
reductions.’’ 19 If the first condition is
not satisfied (and the state has opted to
make a demonstration under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) rather than a weight-ofevidence demonstration), then 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) provides that the state must
make a demonstration under the twoprong modeling test.20 By contrast, 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not indicate that
a state must apply the emissionsreduction test whenever the first
condition of the emissions-reduction
test is satisfied. Thus, a state may
choose to apply the two-prong modeling
test even if it determines that the first
condition of the emissions-reductions
test is satisfied.
None of the examples of prior EPA
actions cited by the commenters
indicate that the EPA has previously
interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
require use of the emissions-reduction
test whenever the first condition of that
test is satisfied. Rather, the examples
demonstrate that states and the EPA
have generally applied the emissionsreduction test where both conditions of
that test were clearly satisfied.21
However, in other instances, states and
the EPA have made a weight-ofevidence demonstration when the first
condition of the emissions-reduction
test was satisfied, but it was not clear
whether the second condition was
satisfied. For example, in 2015 we
approved a weight-of-evidence
demonstration submitted by ADEQ for a
BART alternative at the Apache
Generating Station (‘‘Apache BART
Alternative’’).22 In that case, all of the
emissions were from a single facility, so
the first condition of the emissionsreduction test was satisfied. However, as
with the Coronado BART Alternative,
the Apache BART Alternative was
expected to result in greater NOX
emissions but lower emissions of SO2
and PM10 compared with BART.23 We
found that, ‘‘[i]n this situation, where
BART and the BART Alternative result
in reduced emissions of one pollutant
19 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3).
(‘‘If the distribution of emissions is
significantly different, the State must conduct
dispersion modeling’’ (emphasis added)).
21 This general trend is unsurprising, given that
the emissions-reduction test demands less time and
effort as it does not require modeling.
22 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
23 Id. at 19221.
20 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
but increased emissions of another, it is
not appropriate to use the ‘greater
emissions reductions’ test under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).’’ 24 Similarly, when
evaluating a BART alternative for the
Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes,
Washington, we determined that, even
though all of the emissions were from a
single facility, modeling was needed ‘‘to
assess whether the visibility
improvement from the BART
Alternative’s SO2 emission reductions
would be greater than the visibility
improvement from the BART NOX
reductions.’’ 25 Likewise, when
evaluating a proposed BART alternative
for the Four Corners Power Plant, the
EPA considered the weight of evidence,
including visibility modeling, even
though all emissions were from a single
facility.26
In evaluating the Coronado BART
Alternative, we have followed our longstanding interpretation of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) that, if the geographic
distribution of emissions is the same
under the BART alternative and BART,
then the emissions distribution is not
substantially different. With regard to
the Final Strategy, we found that the
distribution of emissions would not be
substantially different than under BART
because all emissions under both
scenarios were from Coronado.
Furthermore, under the Final Strategy,
emissions of each pollutant would be
lower than or equal to BART, and the
collective emissions from the facility
would be lower than BART.27 This
allowed us to use the emissionsreduction test to confirm that the Final
Strategy would ensure greater
reasonable progress than BART.
In our proposal, we did not evaluate
the Interim Strategy under the
emissions-reduction test because ADEQ
did not make a demonstration under
this test. Therefore, we had no cause to
consider whether the two conditions of
that test were satisfied. Nonetheless, in
response to the commenters’ concerns,
24 80
FR 19221.
FR 79344, 79355 (December 30, 2013).
26 See 76 FR 10530, 10534 (February 25, 2011)
(‘‘EPA is proposing to find, based on the weight of
evidence, that [the proposed alternative] will result
in greater reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal’’ and 10537
(discussing modeling results, even though the
alternative could be deemed to result in greater
reasonable progress based on the emissionsreduction test).
27 As explained in our proposal, while the Final
Strategy by itself would not meet the requirements
for a BART alternative, we considered whether the
Final Strategy would provide for ongoing visibility
improvement, as compared with BART, by
evaluating whether the Final Strategy meets both
conditions of the emissions-reduction test under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3). 82 FR 19342.
25 78
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
we wish to clarify that the same
interpretation of ‘‘distribution of
emissions’’ would apply to the Interim
Strategy. Because all of the emissions
under the Interim Strategy and BART
are from Coronado, the distribution of
emissions would not be substantially
different under the two scenarios, so the
first condition of the test is satisfied.
Regarding the second condition of the
emissions-reduction test, ADEQ found
that the Interim Strategy would result in
greater NOX emissions, but lower
emissions of SO2 and PM10 compared
with BART.28 Contrary to Earthjustice’s
suggestion, ADEQ did not determine
that the Interim Strategy ‘‘fails’’ the
emissions-reduction test. Rather, ADEQ
found that the Interim Strategy would
not necessarily achieve greater
emissions reductions than BART.29
Furthermore, while the commenters
point to the difference in total NOX, SO2,
and PM10 emissions for each of the
Interim Strategy scenarios compared
with BART, we do not consider this
comparison to be useful. As we
explained in evaluating a proposed
BART alternative submitted by Utah:
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
We have not considered a total emissions
profile that combines emissions of multiple
pollutants to determine whether BART or the
alternative is ‘‘better,’’ except where every
visibility impairing pollutant is reduced by a
greater amount under the BART alternative.
A comparison of mass emissions from
multiple pollutants (such as NOX and SO2) is
not generally informative, particularly in
assessing whether the alternative approach
provides for greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility. Instead, when
emissions of one or more pollutants increases
under an alternative, EPA has given the most
weight to the visibility impacts based on air
quality modeling and used modeling to
determine whether or not a BART Alternative
measure that relies on interpollutant trading
results in greater reasonable progress.30
Accordingly, we do not agree with the
commenters that the Coronado BART
Alternative ‘‘fails’’ the emissionsreduction test. Rather, we find that the
emissions-reduction test is not the
appropriate test to evaluate the Interim
Strategy of the Coronado BART
Alternative, and it was appropriate and
reasonable for the State to apply the
two-prong modeling test to evaluate the
Interim Strategy.
Comment: Earthjustice argued that the
Coronado BART Alternative violates
CAA section 110(l)’s anti-backsliding
requirement because it weakens the
existing BART determination for
Coronado. Quoting CAA section 110(l)
28 82
FR 19338.
SIP Revision, Addendum page 4.
30 81 FR 2004, 2028 (January 14, 2016) (internal
citations and quotations omitted).
29 Coronado
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
and citing several court cases
interpreting that provision, the
commenter stated that section 110(l)
‘‘prohibits plan revisions that would
interfere with an existing BART
determination’’ and that the ‘‘EPA’s
common sense interpretation of section
110(l) is that it prevents plan revisions
that backslide or weaken an existing
Clean Air Act requirement by increasing
overall air pollution or causing worse
air quality.’’ The commenter asserted
that the Coronado BART Alternative
weakens the existing BART
determination for Coronado because it
would result in increased air pollution
and cause worse visibility impairment
at multiple Class I areas in the years
2018 through 2025 and therefore
violates section 110(l).
The commenter further argued that
the EPA improperly based our 110(l)
analysis on our determination that the
Coronado BART Alternative would
result in greater reasonable progress
than BART. The commenter re-asserted
its claim that the Coronado BART
Alternative is not ‘‘Better than BART’’
because it ‘‘fails’’ the emissionsreduction test. Earthjustice also argued
that, ‘‘[b]ecause the purposes of a BART
alternative and section 110(l) are
distinct and a BART alternative may
perform worse than BART in some
respects, it is unreasonable to use the
‘Better than BART’ test as the sole
criterion for whether an alternative
complies with section 110(l).’’
Earthjustice further noted that ADEQ
was not choosing between BART and a
BART alternative for Coronado in the
first instance, but was instead replacing
an existing BART determination that
had been fully litigated and in place for
four and a half years. They argued that,
under these circumstances, section
110(l) requires the EPA to
independently determine whether the
alternative weakens the existing BART
determination, and the EPA cannot rely
on the ‘‘Better than BART’’ test as the
sole criterion for whether an alternative
complies with section 110(l).
Finally, the commenter made several
points related to the EPA’s approval of
a SIP revision that established a new
BART determination for Cholla
Generating Station (‘‘Cholla BART
Reassessment’’). Noting certain
similarities between the Coronado
BART Alternative and the Cholla BART
Reassessment, the commenter argued
that the EPA had improperly ‘‘applied a
completely different rationale and
analysis when determining whether the
two BART revisions complied with
section 110(l) for regional haze
purposes.’’ The commenter also
criticized the EPA’s responses to
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46907
comments on section 110(l) issues
related to the Cholla BART
Reassessment and asserted that the EPA
‘‘should not attempt to justify the
Coronado BART alternative on similar
grounds.’’ In particular, the commenter
asserted that the EPA had (1) conflated
its section 110(l) analysis regarding
NAAQS attainment with its section
110(l) analysis regarding Cholla’s
existing regional haze requirements, (2)
unreasonably dismissed the relevant
section 110(l) case law, and (3)
incorrectly relied, in part, on post-2025
emissions reductions from Cholla to
justify why the plan complied with
section 110(l).
Response: We do not agree that the
Coronado SIP Revision violates CAA
section 110(l). As explained further
below, the commenter has
mischaracterized the requirements of
section 110(l) and the EPA’s
interpretation of those requirements.
Neither the statutory language nor the
case law cited by the commenter
support the commenter’s interpretation
that a SIP revision that allows for
additional air emissions or less stringent
requirements than the existing plan per
se constitutes a violation of CAA section
110(l).
Section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from
approving a SIP revision ‘‘if the revision
would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in [CAA section 171]), or any other
applicable requirement of [the CAA].’’ 31
This language does not prohibit the EPA
from approving any SIP revision that
weakens the existing plan’s
requirements or allows for an increase
in emissions of a particular pollutant,
nor has the EPA interpreted section
110(l) in this manner. The EPA’s
evaluation of whether a noninterference
determination can be made under
section 110(l) is a case-by-case
assessment based on the specific facts
and circumstances at issue. The
commenter has selectively quoted from
the EPA’s prior actions and court cases
concerning those actions in order to
support their position. In particular, the
commenter asserts that, ‘‘in Kentucky
Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d
986 (6th Cir. 2006), EPA interpreted
section 110(l) as allowing the agency to
approve a plan revision that weakened
some existing control measures while
strengthening others, but only ‘[a]s long
as actual emissions in the air are not
increased.’ ’’ However, the context for
the quote makes clear that the EPA was
not referring to a blanket prohibition on
increases in emissions. Rather, we were
31 42
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
U.S.C. 7410(l).
10OCR1
46908
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
describing our interpretation of section
110(l) as applied to a SIP revision that
substituted emissions reductions to
make up for increased emissions
resulting from moving an existing
control measure to a contingency
measure. We determined that we could
approve this change without requiring
an attainment demonstration,
explaining that:
Prior to the time when the control strategy
SIP revisions are due, to demonstrate no
[interference] with any applicable NAAQS or
requirement of the Clean Air Act under
section 110(l), EPA has interpreted this
section such that States can substitute
equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions
to compensate for the control measure being
moved from the regulatory portion to the
contingency provisions. As long as actual
emissions in the air are not increased, EPA
believes that equivalent (or greater) emissions
reductions will be acceptable to demonstrate
non-interference.32
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Thus, in the circumstances presented
in that case, we found that, rather than
submit a new attainment demonstration,
the state could instead substitute one
measure for another with equivalent or
greater emissions reductions/air quality
benefit in order to demonstrate
noninterference with attainment,
maintenance, and reasonable further
progress (RFP) requirements. However,
the EPA has never indicated that such
a substitution approach is required in
all cases. In some cases, states can
provide an air quality analysis, typically
based on modeling, showing that
removing a particular control measure
will not interfere with attainment,
maintenance, or RFP requirements.33
Additionally, a modeling-based
demonstration of non-interference with
these requirements may be possible
where increases in one pollutant are
offset by decreases in another pollutant
and the modeling analysis shows that
the decreases will provide at least
equivalent air quality benefits for each
affected NAAQS.34
The cases cited by the commenter also
fail to support the commenter’s
interpretation. In Kentucky Resources
Council, the court upheld the EPA’s
decision that a new attainment
demonstration was not required in order
to show that the SIP revision would not
interfere pursuant to section 110(l).35
Thus, the examination of whether the
SIP revision would ‘‘worsen air quality’’
32 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005) (emphasis
added).
33 See ‘‘Demonstrating Noninterference Under
Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act When Revising
a State Implementation Plan,’’ 6, 10–11 (June 8,
2005) (Draft Guidance).
34 Id. at 8.
35 467 F.3d 986, 996 (6th Cir. 2006).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
was based on whether the area, which
was designated as a nonattainment area
for the relevant NAAQS, would have
more difficulty in attaining and
maintaining the NAAQS with the SIP
revision—not, as the commenter argues
here, whether the SIP revision would
simply result in increased emissions.
Similarly, the Ala. Envtl. Council v.
EPA 36 and Indiana v. EPA 37 courts
upheld the EPA’s interpretation that
section 110(l) allows for a substitution
approach to demonstrate noninterference with the Act’s
requirements, but did not hold that an
increase in emissions per se constituted
a violation of section 110(l).
A fourth case cited by the commenter,
Hall v. EPA,38 concerned the EPA’s
analysis of non-interference with
attainment requirements in a
nonattainment area and did not address
the Act’s other requirements (including
visibility protection requirements) or
how those requirements apply in
attainment areas.39 Thus, the case is not
relevant to the commenters’ objections,
which specifically concern visibility
protection requirements.40
Two additional cases cited by the
commenter concerned regional haze SIP
actions, but do not support the
commenter’s contention that ‘‘after EPA
approves a BART determination (or
other regional haze requirement), the
agency cannot later modify the BART
determination in a manner that weakens
it.’’ 41 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA 42
involved a challenge to a regional haze
plan under section 110(l)’s requirements
concerning noninterference with
attainment and maintenance, which the
commenter acknowledges are not of
concern in relation to the Coronado SIP
Revision.43 In that case, the court found
that the petitioner had identified
nothing in the SIP revision at issue ‘‘that
weakens or removes any pollution
controls.’’ 44 Contrary to the
commenter’s assertion, the court did not
suggest that, if the petitioner had
identified such a provision, it would
necessarily have constituted a violation
F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013).
F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2015).
38 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).
39 Id. at 1160, n.11 (‘‘Our assessment of the EPA’s
reasoning does not apply to review of rules
governing areas that are in attainment.’’).
40 See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (‘‘[T]he
Conservation Organizations take no issue with
EPA’s finding that the alternative does not interfere
with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.’’).
41 Id. at 20.
42 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).
43 See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (‘‘[T]he
Conservation Organizations take no issue with
EPA’s finding that the alternative does not interfere
with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.’’).
44 WildEarth Guardians, 759 F.3d at 1074.
of section 110(l). In fact, the court
declined to decide if section 110(l) even
applied to the plan in question, stating
only in dicta that, ‘‘even if the SIP
merely maintained the status quo, that
would not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 45
Oklahoma v. EPA 46 affirmed the
EPA’s authority to review state BART
determinations, based on, among other
things, section 110(l). However, contrary
to the commenter’s suggestion, the
Oklahoma court did not indicate that
individual BART determinations
themselves are ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ for purposes of section
110(l). Rather, the court found that the
underlying statutory requirements
concerning visibility protection
constitute ‘‘applicable requirements.’’ 47
Accordingly, it is these generally
applicable statutory requirements for
which a demonstration of noninterference is required.
In this instance, the critical statutory
requirement is that the applicable
implementation plan ‘‘contain such
emission limits, schedules of
compliance and other measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national
goal’’ of preventing any future and
remedying any existing visibility
impairment in Class I areas due to
manmade air pollution.48 While
measures for achieving ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ generally include
requirements for source-specific BART
determinations,49 the EPA has long
interpreted CAA section 169A(b)(2) to
allow for the adoption of
‘‘implementation plan provisions other
than those provided by BART analyses
in situations where the agency
reasonably concludes that more
‘reasonable progress’ will thereby be
attained’’ because ‘‘ ‘reasonable
progress’ is the overarching requirement
that implementation plan revisions
under 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must
address.’’ 50 This interpretation has been
upheld by both the Ninth Circuit 51 and
the D.C. Circuit 52 and is reflected in the
36 711
45 Id.
37 796
46 723
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
F.3d 1201, 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013).
court specifically noted that the visibility
protection provisions of CAA section 169A and
169B are ‘‘applicable requirements’’ for purposes of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We agree with the
commenter that these requirements are also
‘‘applicable requirements’’ for purposes of section
110(l).
48 CAA section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2).
49 CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C.
7491(b)(2)(A).
50 Central Arizona Water Conservation District v.
EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993).
51 Id.
52 Center for Energy and Economic Development
v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility
47 The
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
‘‘Better than BART’’ provisions of the
Regional Haze Rule that apply to the
Coronado SIP Revision.53 Accordingly,
in evaluating the Coronado SIP Revision
under section 110(l) with respect to the
Act’s visibility protection requirements,
the relevant question is not whether it
would interfere with the BART
determination in our FIP, but whether it
would interfere with the overall
statutory requirement for reasonable
progress, as implemented through the
‘‘Better than BART’’ provisions of the
Regional Haze Rule. For the reasons
explained in our proposal and
elsewhere in this document, we have
determined that the Coronado SIP
Revision satisfies the ‘‘Better than
BART’’ requirements of the Regional
Haze Rule, meaning that it will result in
greater reasonable progress than the
existing BART requirements for
Coronado. Therefore, the Coronado SIP
Revision complies with the Act’s
reasonable progress requirements. As
such, we do not agree with the
commenter that we must apply some
separate criterion to determine whether
the Coronado SIP Revision would
interfere with those same requirements.
Furthermore, even if such a separate
evaluation were necessary, we believe
that the modeling performed to support
ADEQ’s demonstration of greater
reasonable progress for the Interim
Strategy is adequate to demonstrate noninterference with the Act’s visibility
protection provisions.54 As noted above,
we interpret section 110(l) to allow for
a modeling-based demonstration of noninterference with attainment,
maintenance, and RFP requirements
where increases in one pollutant are
offset by decreases in another pollutant
and the modeling analysis shows that
the decreases will provide at least
equivalent air quality benefits for each
affected NAAQS.55 Similarly, such a
modeling demonstration is appropriate
to demonstrate non-interference with
visibility protection requirements when
reductions of one or more pollutants (in
the case of the Interim Strategy, SO2 and
PM) are being substituted for reductions
of another pollutant (in the case of the
Interim Strategy, NOX). As described in
Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340–
41 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
53 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)–(6). See also Central
Arizona Water Conservation District, 990 F.2d at
1543; Center for Energy and Economic
Development, 398 F.3d at 660; Utility Air
Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340–41 (upholding
the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ provisions).
54 The commenter does not appear to object to our
determination that implementation of the Final
Strategy would clearly satisfy section 110(l) because
it would result in overall greater emissions
reductions compared to the BART Control Strategy.
55 Draft Guidance at 8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
our proposal and elsewhere in this
document, the modeling submitted with
the Coronado SIP Revision demonstrates
that the Interim Strategy will result in
improved visibility at all affected Class
I areas compared with 2014 Baseline
Emissions (prong 1) and will result in
improved visibility, on average, across
all Class I areas, compared with BART
on both the 20% best and worst days
(prong 2).56 As the commenter noted,
the modeling indicates that visibility
improvement at certain Class I areas
will be slightly less under the Interim
Strategy as compared with BART
between 2018 and 2025. However, we
do not believe that a temporary decrease
in the rate of improvement at these areas
constitutes ‘‘interference’’ with the Act’s
visibility protection requirements, given
that it is accompanied by a greater
improvement at other Class I areas. As
the D.C. Circuit has explained, ‘‘nothing
in [CAA] § 169A(b)’s ‘reasonable
progress’ language requires at least as
much improvement at each and every
individual area as BART itself would
achieve (much less improvement at each
area at every instant) . . . .’’ 57
Furthermore, once the Final Strategy is
implemented by 2026, we anticipated
that there will be greater improvement
across all Class I areas compared to
BART.58 Therefore, we conclude that
the Coronado SIP Revision will not
interfere with the CAA’s visibility
protection requirements.
The commenters’ statements
regarding the Cholla BART
Reassessment are out of the scope of
today’s action. That action was a
separate analysis based on the facts and
circumstances of that SIP revision,
which we finalized on March 17, 2017.
We also do not agree with the
commenter that we improperly applied
a different rationale and analysis when
determining whether the Coronado
BART Alternative and the Cholla BART
Reassessment complied with section
110(l). In both cases, we considered
whether the relevant SIP revision would
interfere with the applicable statutory
requirements.59 However, despite some
similarities between the two SIP
revisions, they are not subject to all the
same statutory requirements, so the
respective section 110(l) analyses
necessarily differ in some respects. In
56 See
82 FR 19338–19341.
Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340–
57 Utility
41.
58 We do not agree with the commenter that it is
inappropriate to consider post-2025 emissions
reductions under section 110(l), given that such
reductions will help to ensure continued
compliance with the Act’s reasonable progress
requirements.
59 81 FR 46862; 82 FR 15150.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46909
particular, because the Cholla BART
Reassessment was a BART
determination, we considered whether
it met the CAA’s BART requirements, as
well as whether it was consistent with
the CAA’s long-term national goal of
restoring natural visibility conditions at
Class I areas.60 Because the CAA’s
BART requirements do not apply to a
BART alternative,61 we did not consider
them in reviewing the Coronado SIP
Revision under section 110(l). Rather, as
explained above, we have considered
whether the Coronado SIP Revision is
consistent with the CAA requirement
for reasonable progress toward the longterm national goal.
Finally, while we do not agree that
our responses to comments concerning
the Cholla BART Reassessment were
mistaken, those responses are not at
issue in this action. To the extent that
the commenter’s concerns are relevant
to the Coronado SIP Revision, we have
addressed them above.
Comment: Earthjustice and EDF both
raised concerns with the CAMx
modeling relied upon by ADEQ and the
EPA to determine that the Interim
Strategy would result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. They
noted that, although ADEQ had
performed additional analyses to
determine if the modeled visibility
changes could be attributed to emissions
changes rather than model ‘‘noise,’’ the
results were ‘‘still applicable to only one
year’s meteorological transport pattern.’’
They asserted that the EPA should
require a demonstration that the
emissions curtailments would result in
better visibility conditions across varied
air transport conditions.
EDF acknowledged that the EPA’s
modeling guidance allows the use of a
single year of meteorological data for
modeling of regional scale pollutants
using CAMx. However, the commenters
noted that the CAMx modeling for the
Coronado BART Alternative focused on
a single source’s impacts on very
specific geographic locations that
‘‘would have large variations due to
yearly meteorological changes in wind
transport patterns.’’ Earthjustice stated
that most BART determinations and all
BART alternatives that it was aware of
relied on CALPUFF modeling. EDF and
Earthjustice also noted that, where the
EPA had previously used CAMx
modeling for BART determinations, it
was in conjunction with CALPUFF
modeling, which typically uses at least
a three-year meteorological database.
60 Id.
61 See, e.g., Yazzie, 851 F.3d at 969 (affirming that
statutory deadline for BART does not apply to a
BART alternative).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
46910
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
They asserted that, in light of the small
changes in visibility between the
modeled emissions scenarios, ‘‘the
difference in impacts that delineate one
alternative curtailment period from
another are within the margin of error
for the model output.’’ They also stated
that, if the difference were consistent
from year to year, ‘‘it would provide
more confidence in the resulting
implementation of multiple curtailment
periods.’’ Earthjustice added that ‘‘the
demonstration provided by ADEQ only
gives information about the relative
performance of BART versus the
alternative if the 2008 meteorological
conditions are duplicated in every
future year.’’
Response: We acknowledge the
commenters’ concern about the
robustness of a modeling analysis based
on a single year of meteorology, given
the year-to-year variability of
meteorological conditions and their
possible effect on visibility impacts.
However, the Regional Haze Rule does
not require modeling of a longer period
to make a demonstration under the twoprong test, and EPA guidance also does
not recommend a longer period. Rather,
to address a range of meteorological
conditions, the EPA’s photochemical
modeling guidance recommends
modeling a full year. Our current
guidance states that ‘‘the preferred
approach for regional haze-related
model applications is to simulate an
entire, representative year.’’ 62 More
recent draft guidance states:
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Regional Haze—Choose time periods
which reflect the variety of meteorological
conditions which represent visibility
impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst
days in the Class I areas being modeled (high
and low concentrations necessary). This is
best accomplished by modeling a full year.63
Thus, modeling a full year with a
photochemical model to represent
visibility impairment on the 20% best
and worst days is consistent with EPA
guidance.
We also note that states and the EPA
rarely, if ever, model more than a single
year with a photochemical model even
for NAAQS attainment demonstrations
covering large urban areas with
thousands of sources possibly subject to
emission controls. A key reason for the
practice and recommendation of
modeling just a single year is the time
and expense involved in running the
computationally-intensive computer
62 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
EPA–454/B–07–002 (April 2007) p. 149.
63 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze, 17 (December 2014) (draft).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
model and in preparing meteorological
and emissions inputs. The emission
inventory requires economic variables
and population estimates for the whole
area covered in the model domain, as
well as the emissions calculations for
the many sources of pollution in the
domain. Meteorological and other
model input parameters typically must
be adjusted in an iterative process to
ensure the model performs adequately.
The model’s performance must then be
evaluated. All of these tasks must be
done separately for each year. Thus,
while modeling longer periods may
improve the robustness of the modeling
results, it also requires significant
additional time and resources.
Therefore, it is prudent to assess
whether the benefits of the modeling
justify the additional effort for each
individual application. Given that the
modeling for the Coronado SIP Revision
affects only a single source for a limited
period of time (i.e., the period of the
Interim Strategy), we do not think it is
reasonable to require more than a single
year of photochemical modeling.
We note that the situation was
different for the CALPUFF modeling
that states and the EPA conducted for
BART determinations, for which the
EPA recommended that at least three
years of meteorological data be used.64
Under the BART Guidelines, CALPUFF
could be used for assessing the visibility
impacts of a single source without the
process of input adjustment and
performance evaluation described above
for photochemical models.65
Furthermore, the emission inventory for
BART modeling was a single source,
rather than the thousands of sources
needed in a photochemical model such
as CAMx. The meteorological inputs to
CALPUFF are also simpler than for a
photochemical model, and they were
developed by multistate Regional
Planning Organizations, such as the
Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP), for use in BART
determinations for numerous different
facilities. In summary, while the
64 See 70 FR 39107–39108 (‘‘For assessing the
fifth factor, the degree of improvement in visibility
from various BART control options, the States may
run CALPUFF or another appropriate dispersion
model to predict visibility impacts . . . The
maximum 24-hour emission rates would be
modeled for a period of three or five years of
meteorological data.’’).
65 See, e.g., BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, section IV.D.5. (‘‘Use CALPUFF or
other appropriate dispersion model to determine
the visibility improvement expected at a Class I area
from the potential BART control technology applied
to the source’’); 70 FR 39123 (‘‘For the specific
purposes of the regional haze rule’s BART
provisions . . . we have concluded that CALPUFF
is sufficiently reliable to inform the decisionmaking process.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
CALPUFF modeling used for BART
determinations employed multiple years
of meteorology, the cost and effort
involved was lower than for CAMx, and
it was spread over multiple states and
sources. By contrast, the Interim
Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision
affects only a single source for a limited
period of time. Accordingly, we find
that modeling multiple years with
CAMx for the two-prong test applied to
the Interim Strategy would constitute a
disproportionately high level of effort
relative to the modest benefit of such an
approach.
Regarding the specific year chosen for
modeling the Interim Strategy, as
discussed in connection with SRP’s
comments and the analysis submitted
by Ramboll Environ,66 we find that the
2008 meteorology year was adequately
representative for the two-prong test. In
addition, as explained further below,
that analysis presented evidence that
2008 was a conservative year, in that the
Interim Strategy would be expected to
show a greater benefit compared to the
baseline and BART in other years.
Comment: Earthjustice and EDF
expressed concern about the use of a
projected 2020 inventory rather than
clean conditions or the inventory of a
‘‘known year’’ for the CAMx modeling.
Earthjustice asserted that, ‘‘[t]o the
extent EPA considers 2020 to be more
representative of future or cleaner air
quality conditions, CAMx should
instead have been run with only single
source emissions plus
nonanthropogenic emissions to simulate
reaction chemistry under natural
conditions.’’ They argued that the EPA
must include CALPUFF modeling to
help support the conclusion that the
Coronado BART Alternative is in fact
better than BART ‘‘when looking at
source impacts compared with natural
conditions.’’
Response: We do not agree that ADEQ
should have used natural conditions or
the inventory of a ‘‘known’’ (i.e., past)
year to evaluate the Interim Strategy.
The Regional Haze Rule does not
identify which background conditions
states must use for evaluating greater
reasonable progress under the twoprong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
However, in the preamble to the final
rule promulgating the two-prong test,
we explained that:
The underlying purpose of both prongs of
the test is to assess whether visibility
conditions at Class I areas would be better
66 ‘‘Additional Documentation on the Coronado
Generating Station Better-than-BART Modeling
Analysis to Address EPA’s October 2016 Request’’,
Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph
Morris, Ramboll Environ to Bill McClellan, Salt
River Project (April 6, 2017).
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
with the alternative program in place than
they would without it. . . . In both cases,
the logical reference point is visibility
conditions as they are expected to be at the
time of program implementation but in the
absence of the program.’’ 67
In other words, the projected
conditions at the time the BART
alternative will be implemented,
including emissions from all other
sources, but assuming that no emission
reductions from BART or the BART
alternative have yet occurred, are an
appropriate background for modeling
under the two-prong test. Here, the
Interim Strategy will be implemented
between 2018 and 2025, so ADEQ’s
decision to use the 2020 emissions
inventory as the background conditions
for comparing the Interim Strategy to
BART was reasonable.
We also do not believe that it is
necessary to conduct CALPUFF
modeling to support the conclusion that
the Coronado BART Alternative would
result in greater reasonable progress
than BART. While ADEQ could have
elected to conduct CALPUFF modeling
to make a demonstration of greater
reasonable progress, it instead chose to
use CAMx modeling to make this
demonstration. As explained in our
proposal:
CAMx has a scientifically current
treatment of chemistry to simulate the
transformation of emissions into visibilityimpairing particles of species such as
ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate,
and is often employed in large-scale
modeling when many sources of pollution
and/or long transport distances are involved.
Photochemical grid models like CAMx
include all emissions sources and have
realistic representations of formation,
transport, and removal processes of the
particulate matter that causes visibility
degradation.68
Because it incorporates the many
emissions sources that create the
background conditions at the time the
BART alternative will be implemented,
CAMx is well suited for modeling under
the two-prong test.69 Furthermore, as a
result of recent developments in
modeling techniques,70 the EPA and
states have begun to use photochemical
models such as CAMx to assess the
67 70
FR 39104, 39138 (July 6, 2005).
FR 19338–19339.
69 As explained in response to comments above,
it was appropriate and reasonable for the State to
apply the two-prong modeling test to the Coronado
BART Alternative.
70 See, e.g., 82 FR 5182, 5196 (‘‘Source sensitivity
and apportionment techniques implemented in
photochemical grid models have evolved
sufficiently and provide the opportunity for
estimating potential visibility and deposition
impacts from one or a small group of emission
sources using a full science photochemical grid
model.’’).
visibility impacts from individual
sources such as Coronado.71 Thus,
ADEQ appropriately relied on CAMx
modeling to assess the Coronado BART
Alternative under the two-prong
modeling test.
Comment: Earthjustice and EDF
objected to the fact that the CAMx
modeling used to assess the Coronado
BART Alternative was limited to a range
of 300 kilometers (km), given that the
EPA has previously used CAMx to
assess impacts beyond the 300 km
range. EDF stated that the EPA should
explain why the 300 km limit was
appropriate. Earthjustice argued that the
EPA should include modeling results
for Class I areas outside of 300 km.
Response: We agree with the
commenters that there is no a priori
reason to limit the modeling under the
two-prong test to Class I areas within
300 km.72 We nevertheless find that the
set of Class I areas evaluated in the
CAMx modeling is adequately
representative in this instance. The 300
km radius used in the modeling covers
a large region, a range of geographic
settings, and a full range of compass
directions from Coronado. In addition,
the visibility impacts of Coronado’s
emissions generally decline with
distance.73 Because of that, when
comparing projected visibility
conditions under the BART Alternative
scenario to projected visibility
conditions under the baseline scenario,
the differences between the two
scenarios generally decline with
distance. The same is true when
comparing the BART Alternative to
BART. As a result, while including
more distant areas would have a small
effect on the numerical values used in
the two-prong test, doing so would be
unlikely to change the outcome of the
test.
Comment: SRP commented that it
strongly supports the EPA’s:
• Proposed approval of ADEQ’s
demonstration under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) that the Coronado BART
Alternative Interim Strategy will
achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART at Coronado;
• proposed approval of the CAMx
modeling used by ADEQ;
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
68 82
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
71 See, e.g., 81 FR 296, 327–28 (January 5, 2016)
(describing the use of CAMx for evaluating
visibility impacts of sources in a Texas Regional
Haze FIP).
72 Neither the Regional Haze Rule nor EPA
guidance define ‘‘affected’’ Class I areas for
purposes of the two-prong test.
73 This is illustrated in the graphic ‘‘Coronado
CAMx Baseline Impacts—Baseline delta DV Impact
vs. km distance,’’ in the file titled ‘‘Coronado_
baseline_CAMx_ddv_vs_distance.pdf,’’ available in
the docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46911
• determination that the Coronado
BART Alternative Final Strategy will
result in greater emission reductions
than BART for Coronado; and
• determination that the Final
Strategy and its associated emission
reductions are not necessary to
demonstrate that the Coronado BART
Alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART during
the period of the first long-term strategy.
Response: We acknowledge the
comments.
Comment: SRP urged the EPA to note
the assessment that ADEQ conducted
that shows the importance of SO2 (and
resulting sulfate) reductions in
improving visibility in Class I areas
potentially affected by Coronado. In
particular, SRP asserted that:
ADEQ demonstrated that SO2 emission
reductions, such as those that would occur
under the [Coronado] BART Alternative, are
very significant in light of the facts that ‘‘the
SO2-attributed visibility extinction is
generally more than three times the NOXattributed visibility extinction’’ and that, in
particular, ‘‘the ratios of SO2-attributed
visibility extinction to NOX-attributed
visibility extinction averaged over all Class I
areas are 3.7, 4.2 and 4.2 for the 20% best
days, the 20% worst days, and all days,
respectively.’’
Response: As noted in footnote 31 of
our proposal,74 ADEQ’s ‘‘Supplemental
Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring Data’’
is not directly relevant to the State’s
demonstration of greater reasonable
progress under the two-prong test in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3), so we did not consider
it in evaluating the State’s
demonstration. The results of the CAMx
modeling establish that, through a
combination of controls, emission
reductions, atmospheric chemistry, and
meteorology, the Coronado BART
Alternative will result in greater
reasonable progress than BART, as
required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Comment: SRP stated that, while the
Coronado BART Alternative was
proposed to be approved under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), it is also approvable under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) under the
weight-of-evidence test. SRP further
noted that ‘‘[t]he clear weight of
evidence test allows states to take into
consideration a wide range of factors,
visibility metrics, or other relevant
considerations in making a better-thanBART determination.’’
Response: The EPA acknowledges the
comment.
Comment: SRP noted that the EPA
described the Interim Strategy as ‘‘in
effect from December 5, 2017 to
74 See 82 FR 19338, dated April, 27, 2017;
footnote 31.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46912
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
December 31, 2025,’’ and indicated that
the Final Strategy ‘‘would take effect on
January 1, 2026.’’ The commenter stated
that, ‘‘the December 31, 2025, date
represents a deadline for SRP to install
and operate an SCR on Unit 1 or close
Unit 1, rather than the conclusion of the
effective period for the Interim Strategy’’
and requested that the EPA clarify that
the installation and operation of the
SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1 will
occur no later than December 31, 2025,
and that the Interim Strategy will be in
effect until the installation of SCR on
Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the installation and
operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or
closure of Unit 1 must occur no later
than December 31, 2025, and that the
Interim Strategy will be in effect until
the installation of SCR on Unit 1 or
closure of Unit 1. We have made this
clarification in this final notice.
Comment: SRP noted that the EPA
described the SO2 emission cap as
‘‘plant-wide’’ and ‘‘facility-wide.’’ The
commenter recommended that the EPA
‘‘clarify that the 1,970 tpy SO2 emission
cap applies to the aggregate annual
emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2 only
and does not apply to any emissions
from any other sources at the site.’’ The
commenter also noted that, ‘‘[i]n the
event that Unit 1 shuts down, the SO2emission tonnage limit applicable after
the shutdown of that unit is 1,080 tons
per calendar year.’’
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the 1,970 tpy SO2
emission cap applies to the aggregate
emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2, and
that, if Unit 1 shuts down, an SO2
emission cap of 1,080 tpy would apply
to Unit 2. We have made this
clarification in this final notice.
Comment: SRP asserted that the EPA
incorrectly stated that ‘‘the Coronado
SIP Revision will require equivalent or
lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2
for all future years, compared to the
emission levels currently allowed under
the applicable implementation plan
(including both the Arizona Regional
Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze
FIP).’’ The commenter noted that the
Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX
reductions than the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP.
Response: We agree with SRP that the
Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX
reductions than the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP between December 5, 2017,
and December 31, 2025. However, the
statement from our proposal quoted by
the commenter refers to ‘‘the emission
levels currently allowed under the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
applicable implementation plan.’’ 75
Because the compliance date for the
NOX emission limits in the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP is December 5, 2017,
the applicable implementation plan
does not currently limit NOX emissions
from Coronado. Thus, as correctly noted
in our proposal, the Coronado SIP
Revision will require lower emissions of
NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years,
compared to the emission levels
currently allowed under the applicable
implementation plan.
Comment: SRP included as an
attachment to its comments a technical
memorandum from Ramboll Environ
that evaluated whether the CAMx
modeling results for the two-prong test
were influenced by numerical noise,
based on a spatial and numerical
analysis of CAMx model outputs for
visibility and its sulfate and nitrate
components.76 The components reflect
the differences in SO2 and NOX,
respectively, between BART and the
Interim Strategy. The differences
showed a spatial pattern consistent with
realistic gradual variation in the
atmosphere, rather than random
variation as would be expected from
numerical noise. Therefore, the
memorandum concluded that the
modeled numerical differences
represent real visibility improvements
and are not just numerical artifacts.
Response: This same analysis was
included in the Coronado SIP Revision
and evaluated for our proposal. We
reaffirm our finding that the analysis
supports the conclusion that the twoprong test results indicate actual
visibility improvement under the
Interim Strategy compared to BART and
no degradation relative to the baseline.77
Comment: SRP included as an
attachment to its comments a second
memorandum from Ramboll Environ
analyzing (1) whether the meteorology
from the year that was used for
modeling (2008) was adequately
representative of other years and (2)
whether, extending the length of the
curtailment periods under the Interim
Strategy would give additional visibility
benefits.
The first of three Ramboll Environ
analyses of the representativeness of
2008 was a comparison of 2008
temperatures and precipitation to
typical conditions based on more than
100 years of meteorological data. The
memorandum noted that temperature
affects the oxidizing potential of the
atmosphere, which in turn affects the
75 82
FR 19344 (emphasis added).
from Lynsey Parker and Ralph
Morris, Ramboll Environ (September 22, 2016).
77 82 FR 19341.
conversion of SO2 and NOX emissions
into visibility-impairing sulfates and
nitrates. Ramboll Environ found that
2008 was somewhat warmer than the
average, but that generally the
temperature was well within the normal
range of variation. The memorandum
also noted that precipitation can remove
visibility-impairing pollutants from the
atmosphere and found that 2008
precipitation was classified as ‘‘Near
Normal.’’ Accordingly, Ramboll Environ
concluded that 2008 was reasonably
representative for purposes of the
visibility modeling.
In a second analysis, Ramboll Environ
examined visibility-impairing
ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate concentrations during 2000–2012
as measured at four Class I areas in
different compass directions from
Coronado. These are shown as time
series bar or line graphs for the various
pollutants and areas. Ramboll Environ
found that the annual averages for 2008
were near the middle of the averages for
the individual years from 2000–2012.
Monthly averages for 2008 were also
consistent with the overall range seen
from 2000–2012. Compared to other
years, monthly sulfate averages for 2008
tended to be on the high side during
March, April, and September, and on
the low side in mid-summer and in
December through February, but
nevertheless consistent with the overall
range seen for 2000–2012. Ramboll
Environ concluded that, because the
curtailment periods for Interim Strategy
options IS3 and IS4 78 are from
November 21 through January 21,
overlapping the period for which 2008
tended to have lower sulfate, the
modeled visibility improvement for
these options would also tend to be
lower than would be expected for other
years. That is, the actual visibility
benefits of these options would
generally be expected to be larger than
the modeling results indicate. The same
conclusion applies to nitrate, for which
2008 monthly averages tend to be on the
low side, compared to the averages for
2000–2012 years during the months that
include the curtailment periods
(November, December, and January).
In its third analysis, Ramboll Environ
examined the monthly distribution of
the 20% worst visibility days to see how
many fell within the November 21–
January 20 curtailment period for 2008
in comparison to 2000–2012. This
analysis showed that 2008 had a lower
than average number of 20% worst
visibility days within this period.
Ramboll Environ concluded that,
76 Memorandum
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78 The memorandum refers to IS3 and IS4 as BtB3
and BtB4, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
because more of the 20% worst
visibility days would fall within the
curtailment period in a typical year, the
actual visibility benefits of the Interim
Strategy would generally be larger than
the modeling results indicate.
Ramboll Environ’s analysis of the
approximately 60-day curtailment
period used in Interim Strategy options
IS3 and IS4 relied on post-processing of
modeling results to assess extending the
period by 20, 40, 60, and 80 days.
Ramboll Environ presented bar graphs
showing the amount by which
extending the curtailment period
impacted the strengths of the directional
results of the two-prong test. For prong
1, the visibility benefit of the Interim
Strategy increased very little as the
curtailment period was extended. For
prong 2, Ramboll Environ stated that
even doubling the curtailment period
would yield only a 0.002 deciview
improvement over the proposed period,
which Ramboll Environ viewed as
small. Therefore, SRP concluded that
extending the curtailment period would
have only a small visibility benefit.
Response: We acknowledge the
additional analysis provided by SRP,
which supports the conclusion that
2008 is a representative year for
modeling and that modeling results for
this single year are adequate for
evaluating the Interim Strategy under
the two-prong test. Although the
Ramboll Environ analysis primarily
addressed IS3 and IS4, the curtailment
period for IS2 (October 21–January 31)
also includes the months of November
through January, so the same conclusion
also applies to IS2.
We acknowledge the analysis of
extending the curtailment period, but
we note that this analysis is not
necessary to demonstrate that the
Interim Strategy would result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. It is
sufficient that the modeling
demonstrates that each of the Interim
Strategy options passes the two-prong
test.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons explained in our
proposal and in our responses to
comments in this document, we have
determined that the Coronado SIP
Revision will provide for greater
reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART. We
have also determined that the Coronado
SIP Revision meets all other
requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s
implementing regulations. Therefore,
we are approving the Coronado SIP
Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because
this approval fills the gap in the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
prior partial disapproval with respect to
Coronado, we are withdrawing those
portions of the Arizona Regional Haze
FIP that address BART for Coronado.
Additionally, we are taking final action
to remove those portions of the Arizona
SIP that have either been superseded by
previously-approved revisions to the
Arizona SIP or are being superseded by
this final approval of the Coronado SIP
revision.
V. Environmental Justice
Considerations
As explained above, the Coronado SIP
Revision will result in reduced
emissions of both SO2 and PM10
compared to the existing Arizona
Regional Haze SIP and FIP
requirements. While the Coronado SIP
Revision will result in fewer NOX
reductions than the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP would have required between
2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX
emissions remain at or below current
levels until 2025, after which it will
require NOX emissions reductions
equivalent to or greater than would have
been required under the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP. Furthermore,
Coronado is located in an area that is
designated attainment, unclassifiable/
attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not
yet been designated for each of the
current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
believes that this action will not have
potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or
indigenous populations.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the state
permit provisions described in the
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of the EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46913
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update to the SIP compilation.79
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule
applies to only a single facility and is
therefore not a rule of general
applicability.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action approving revisions to a State
Implementation Plan and removing the
applicable Federal Implementation Plan
for Regional Haze applies to only a
single facility and is therefore is a Rule
of Particular Applicability that is
exempted under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. This rule applies to only a single
facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping
and reporting provisions do not
constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’
as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and
5 CFR 1320.3(c).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. 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. The owner of facility affected by
this rule, SRP, exceeds this threshold.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
79 62
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
10OCR1
46914
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
F. 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 on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on any Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to
believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ‘‘covered
regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards. The EPA is not
revising any technical standards or
imposing any new technical standards
in this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is
contained in section V above.
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
the EPA has determined that this action
is subject to the provisions of section
307(d). Section 307(d) establishes
procedural requirements specific to
certain rulemaking actions under the
CAA. Pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the
provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze
FIP that apply to Coronado is subject to
the requirements of CAA section 307(d),
as it constitutes a revision to a FIP
under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore,
CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that
the provisions of section 307(d) apply to
‘‘such other actions as the Administrator
may determine.’’ The EPA determines
that the provisions of 307(d) apply to
the EPA’s action on the Coronado SIP
Revision.
M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA
because it is a rule of particular
applicability. The EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding this
action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability that
only applies to a single named facility.
N. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 28, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator, EPA.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended:
a. In paragraph (d), under the table
heading ‘‘EPA-Approved SourceSpecific Requirements’’ by adding an
entry for ‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’
after the entry for ‘‘Cholla Power Plant;’’
■ b. In paragraph (e), under the table
heading ‘‘Table 1—EPA-Approved NonRegulatory and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures’’ by adding an entry for
‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’ after the
entry for ‘‘Cholla SIP Revision.’’
■
■
§ 52.120
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
Order/permit No.
Effective date
EPA approval date
Explanation
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
*
*
*
Coronado Generating Station Permit #64169 (as amended
by Significant Revision
#63088) Cover Page and
Attachment ‘‘E’’: BART Alternatives.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
*
November 9, 2017 ......
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
October 10, 2017, [INPermit issued by Arizona DeSERT Federal Regpartment of Environmental
ister CITATION].
Quality. Submitted on December 15, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
46915
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Name of source
Order/permit No.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
Effective date
*
TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area or title/subject
Name of SIP provision
State submittal date
EPA approval date
Explanation
The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans)
*
*
Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan
for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station, excluding Appendix B.
*
*
Source-Specific ...........
*
*
*
*
December 15, 2016 ....
*
*
October 10, 2017, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].
*
*
BART Alternative for
Coronado Generating Station
adopted December
14, 2016.
*
*
1 Table
1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and
Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.145 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph
(e)(1).
■ b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)–
(vi).
■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(f).
■
■
[FR Doc. 2017–21604 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0617; FRL–9969–04–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Utah on
January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. The
submittals request SIP revisions to the
State’s General Burning rule; a repeal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Oct 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
This rule is effective on
November 9, 2017.
DATES:
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0617. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
ADDRESSES:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SUMMARY:
and reenactment of the General Burning
rule with changes to applicability,
timing and duration of burning
windows, and an amendment to exempt
Native American ceremonial burning
during restricted burning days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
80202–1129, (303) 312–6385,
dresser.chris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In our notice of proposed rulemaking
published on July 13, 2017 (82 FR
32282), the EPA proposed to approve
Utah’s January 28, 2013 SIP submission,
which repeals and reenacts the General
Burning provisions in R307–202 with
several amendments (discussed in the
proposed rulemaking). Additionally, the
EPA proposed approval of Utah’s July 8,
2015 revisions, which exempts
ceremonial burning conducted by a
‘‘Native American spiritual advisor’’
during restricted burn days. In this
rulemaking, we are taking final action
on both SIP submittals. The reasons for
our approval are provided in detail in
the proposed rule.
II. Response to Comments
We received no comments on the
proposed rule.
III. Final Action
For the reasons expressed in the
proposed rule, the EPA is approving
revisions to Sections in R307–202 of the
State’s General Burning provisions from
the January 28, 2013 and July 8, 2015
submittals.
E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM
10OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46903-46915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21604]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092, FRL-9968-97-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
source-specific revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP)
that provides an alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) for the Coronado Generating Station (``Coronado''), owned and
operated by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District (SRP). The EPA has determined that the BART alternative for
Coronado would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART, based on the criteria established in
the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with this approval, we are
withdrawing those portions of the federal implementation plan (FIP)
that address BART for Coronado. We are also codifying the removal of
those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by
this approval of the SIP revision for Coronado or by previously-
approved revisions to the Arizona SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective November 9, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092
for this action. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999-7880 or
viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
The word Coronado refers to the Coronado Generating
Station.
The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
The initials BOD mean or refer to boiler operating day.
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. When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action,
we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.
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 lb/MMBtu mean or refer to pounds per million
British thermal units.
The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
[[Page 46904]]
The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter, which
is inclusive of PM10 (particulate matter less than or equal
to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than
or equal to 2.5 micrometers).
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 SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District.
The initials tpy mean or refer to tons per year.
II. Proposed Action
On April 27, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve a revision to the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP for Coronado (``Coronado SIP Revision'') \2\
that provides an alternative to BART for Coronado (``Coronado BART
Alternative'').\3\ The Coronado SIP Revision and BART Alternative
consist of an interim operating strategy (``Interim Strategy'') that
will take effect on December 5, 2017, and a final operating strategy
(``Final Strategy'') that will take effect no later than December 31,
2025. The Coronado BART Alternative was submitted pursuant to
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule that allows states to adopt
alternative measures in lieu of source-specific BART controls if they
can demonstrate that the alternative measures provide greater
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted in our proposal, the Coronado SIP Revision includes
both the original version of the revision (dated July 19, 2016) that
was proposed by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) for public comment, and an addendum (``Addendum'' dated
November 10, 2016), in addition to various supporting materials. The
Addendum documents changes to the Coronado BART Alternative since
ADEQ's July 19, 2016 proposal. Unless otherwise specified,
references in this document to the Coronado SIP Revision include
both of these documents, as well as the other materials included in
ADEQ's submittal.
\3\ 82 FR 19333. Please refer to the notice of proposed
rulemaking for background information concerning the CAA, the
Regional Haze Rule, and the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, and a
detailed analysis of the Coronado BART Alternative.
\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options,
each of which requires a period of seasonal curtailment (i.e.,
temporary closure) for Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and implement
one of the three options based on the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions performance of Unit 1 and the sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions performance of Units 1 and 2 in that year. In addition, under
each option, the facility must comply with an annual SO2
emissions cap of 1,970 tons per year (tpy) from Unit 1 and Unit 2
effective beginning in 2018. The Final Strategy in the Coronado SIP
Revision requires the installation of selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) on Unit 1 (``SCR Option'') or the permanent cessation of
operation of Unit 1 (``Shutdown Option'') no later than December 31,
2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ and the EPA of its selection of
either the SCR Option or the Shutdown Option by December 31, 2022. The
Final Strategy includes two additional features: An SO2
emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30-boiler operating
day (BOD) rolling average, which applies to Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1
if it continues operating), and an annual SO2 emissions cap
of either 1,970 tpy from Unit 1 and Unit 2, if both units continue
operating, or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down. ADEQ incorporated the
revised emission limits, as well as associated compliance deadlines and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as a permit
revision to Coronado's existing Operating Permit, which was submitted
as part of the Coronado SIP Revision (``Coronado Permit Revision'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 64169 as
amended by Significant Revision to operating permit No. 63088
(December 14, 2016). The provisions implementing the Coronado BART
Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the permit.
Attachment E will become effective under State law on the date of
the EPA's final action to approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP
and rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E, section I.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve the Coronado SIP Revision because in our
assessment it complied with the relevant requirements of the CAA and
the Regional Haze Rule. In particular, we proposed to find that the
Coronado BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions than would be achieved through
the installation and operation of BART at Coronado.\6\ Because this
approval would fill the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by
the EPA's prior partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we also
proposed to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP
that apply to Coronado. Finally, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR part
52 to codify the removal of those portions of the Arizona Regional Haze
SIP that have either been superseded by previously-approved revisions
to the Arizona SIP or would be superseded by final approval of the
Coronado SIP Revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of our evaluation, we consider BART for
Coronado to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART
determinations for PM10 and SO2, which were
approved into the applicable SIP, and (2) the EPA's BART
determination for NOX in the 2016 BART Reconsideration
(collectively the ``Coronado BART Control Strategy''). See 82 FR
19337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comment letters from Earthjustice (on
behalf of the Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation
Association),\7\ Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),\8\ SRP,\9\ and two
anonymous commenters. Summaries of significant comments and our
responses are provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Letter from Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice, to Krishna
Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (``Earthjustice comment letter'').
\8\ Letter from Bruce Polkowsky and Graham McCahan, EDF, to
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (``EDF comment letter'').
\9\ Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA
(June 12, 2017) (``SRP comment letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments From Non-Governmental Organizations
Comment: Earthjustice argued that the EPA should not approve the
Coronado BART Alternative because ADEQ and SRP's rationale for
replacing the original BART determination with the BART Alternative is
now invalid. Citing several administrative law cases, the commenter
stated that the EPA must provide a valid rationale for issuing any
regulation, including an approval or disapproval of a SIP, given that
standard Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements apply to such
actions. The commenter noted that both ADEQ and SRP had indicated that
the purpose of the Coronado BART Alternative was to delay Unit 1's BART
obligations until SRP knew whether it would choose to retire Coronado
to comply with the Clean Power Plan (CPP). In particular, the commenter
cited statements in the Coronado SIP Revision that referred to
regulatory uncertainty related to the CPP. The commenter noted that the
``EPA and the new administration have taken multiple actions to
indefinitely suspend and review the [CPP]'' and asserted that these
actions undercut ADEQ's rationale for replacing the original BART
determination with the Coronado BART Alternative.
Earthjustice acknowledged that the EPA did not discuss the CPP in
our proposal. However, citing Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th
Cir. 2016),
[[Page 46905]]
in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA's disapproval of ADEQ's
original NOX BART determination for Coronado, the commenter
asserted that, ``if ADEQ's plan is based on an invalid rationale it is
unreasonable, and EPA's approval of the plan would also necessarily be
unreasonable and arbitrary.'' The commenter argued that the ``EPA
cannot cure this fatal flaw with the BART alternative by attempting to
come up with other rationales for the alternative in response to these
comments.''
Earthjustice further asserted that ADEQ should ``propose a new BART
revision that is based on a valid rationale.'' The commenter also noted
that SRP could comply with the existing BART determination by shutting
down Unit 1 and asserted that ``this result would be consistent with
other recent decisions across Arizona to shut down coal plants or
switch them to gas.''
Response: We agree with the commenter that APA requirements
generally apply to the EPA's approval or disapproval of a SIP revision
and that we must provide a reasoned justification for such actions.\10\
We also agree with the commenter that both ADEQ and SRP previously
indicated that the Coronado BART Alternative was developed to align
SRP's compliance obligations under the CPP and the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We note that the EPA is issuing this final rule under
section 307(d) of the CAA, which provides that that: ``[t]he
provisions of section 553 through 557 . . . of [the APA] shall not,
except as expressly provided in this section, apply to actions to
which [CAA section 307(d)] applies.'' 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1).
Nonetheless, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(9)(A), the same
arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review applies to an action
under 307(d) as to an action subject to the APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing a SIP submittal, however, the EPA's role is to
evaluate whether the submittal meets the applicable requirements of the
CAA and the EPA's regulations. If these requirements are met, the EPA
must approve the submittal.\11\ As noted by the commenter, ``the EPA
does not usurp a state's authority but ensures that such authority is
reasonably exercised.'' \12\ However, the state's underlying motivation
in submitting the SIP revision, which the commenter refers to as the
state's ``rationale'' is not one of the elements that the EPA is
required to evaluate under the CAA. Therefore, in acting on the
Coronado SIP Revision, we have not considered the state's motivation in
developing the SIP revision. Rather, as described in our proposal and
elsewhere in this document, we have evaluated the Coronado SIP Revision
in relation to the relevant requirements of the CAA and the EPA's
regulations, and we have determined that it meets all of these
requirements. In particular, the Coronado SIP Revision includes
detailed and technically sound analyses supporting the State's
determination that the Coronado BART Alternative would provide greater
reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. In
contrast to the flawed analyses underlying ADEQ's original
NOX BART determination for Coronado, which we disapproved,
the analyses supporting the Coronado BART Alternative were both
``reasoned [and] moored to the [Act]'s provisions,'' \13\ for the
reasons explained in our proposal and elsewhere in this document.
Therefore, the commenter's reliance on the decision of the Ninth
Circuit in Arizona v. EPA, which upheld that prior disapproval, is
misplaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) (``[T]he)
Administrator shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets
all of the applicable requirements of [the CAA].'' (emphasis
added)).
\12\ 82 FR 15139, 15142 (March 27, 2017).
\13\ Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting
North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the State's analyses supporting its determination of
greater reasonable progress do not rely on the requirements of the CPP
or any uncertainty related to those requirements. While the State
included a discussion of the CPP in its proposed SIP revision to
explain the proposed compliance schedule for the Coronado BART
Alternative,\14\ the Addendum, which reflects the final requirements of
the Coronado SIP Revision, includes a different compliance schedule and
no mention of the CPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while the commenter is correct that SRP could choose to
comply with the existing BART determination for Coronado Unit 1 by
simply shutting down that unit, this fact has no bearing on the
approvability of the Coronado SIP Revision. Likewise, the fact that the
owners of units of other coal plants in Arizona have chosen to shut
down units or switch them to natural gas is not pertinent to the
current action.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We also note that, contrary to the commenters' suggestion,
none of the cited examples involve a shutdown or switch to gas to
comply with the original BART determination for the facility. The
switch to natural gas at Apache Generating Station Unit 2 is part of
a BART alternative that replaced the original BART determinations
for that facility. See 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2017). The closure of
Cholla Generating Station Unit 2 and cessation of coal burning at
Units 3 and 4 are part of a BART reassessment that replaced the
original BART determinations for that facility. See 82 FR 15139
(March 27, 2017). Finally, as noted by the commenter, the possible
closure of Navajo Generating Station is due to economic factors.
See, e.g., Ryan Randazzo, Utilities vote to close Navajo coal plant
at end of 2019, Arizona Republic (February 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EDF and Earthjustice both objected to the EPA's and ADEQ's
reliance on the two-prong modeling test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
demonstrate that the Interim Strategy would achieve greater reasonable
progress than the Coronado BART Alternative. The commenters noted that
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) outlines two different tests for evaluating whether
a BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. In
particular, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides that:
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, 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:
(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and
(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined
by comparing the average differences between BART and the
alternative over all affected Class I areas.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
The commenters noted that the EPA has consistently interpreted the
term ``distribution'' under the first test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the
``emissions-reduction test'') to refer to geographic distribution.
Citing to prior EPA rulemaking actions, EDF stated that the ``EPA has
traditionally applied the modeling test only in cases where `the
distribution of emissions is significantly different' between BART and
the BART alternative.'' Earthjustice further asserted that, ``[w]hen
deciding which `Better than BART' test applies, the determinative
factor is whether the distribution of emissions between the alternative
and BART is substantially different.'' The commenters also noted that,
in our proposal to approve the Coronado BART Alternative, we again
interpreted ``distribution'' to refer to geographic distribution when
we proposed to determine that the Final Strategy would not result in a
substantially different distribution of emissions from BART. However,
the commenters suggested that, by proposing to approve ADEQ's use of
the two-prong modeling test, rather than the emissions-reduction test,
to evaluate the Interim Strategy, the EPA was
[[Page 46906]]
improperly applying a different interpretation of ``distribution'' to
the Interim Strategy.
Earthjustice further asserted that the Coronado BART Alternative
``fails'' the emissions-reduction test, which it characterized as the
``correct'' test to apply in this instance. Citing the difference in
total NOX, SO2, and PM10 emissions for
each of the Interim Strategy scenarios compared with BART, Earthjustice
stated that each of the Interim Strategy options ``will result in
greater overall air pollution than BART for eight years after the
December 2017 BART compliance deadline.'' For this reason, the
commenter concluded that the Coronado BART Alternative is not ``Better
than BART'' and that the EPA should disapprove it.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the EPA's long-standing
interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) is that, if the geographic
distribution of emissions is the same under the BART alternative and
BART, then the emissions distribution is not substantially
different.\17\ However, as explained further below, we do not agree
with the commenters that the distribution of emissions is a
determinative factor, such that if the distribution of emissions under
the BART alternative is not substantially different than under BART,
then the alternative must be evaluated using the emissions-reduction
test. We also do not agree that the EPA has previously interpreted 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3) to include such a requirement. Accordingly, contrary
to the commenters' assertions, we have not departed from our long-
standing interpretation in evaluating the Coronado SIP Revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As noted by the conservation organizations, the Ninth
Circuit recently upheld this interpretation as reasonable. Yazzie v.
EPA, 851 F.3d 960, 973 (9th Cir. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, we note that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
a SIP revision establishing a BART alternative must include a
determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear
weight of evidence that the alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. Thus, a state (or the EPA in promulgating a FIP)
always has the option to make a ``clear weight of evidence''
demonstration rather than choosing either of the two options under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 935-37 (10th
Cir. 2014) (recognizing that a state may choose to make a
demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or under a weight-of-
evidence approach).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a state does elect to make a demonstration under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissions-reductions test) provides
the option to make a demonstration without the need for dispersion
modeling when two conditions are satisfied: (1) ``the distribution of
emissions is not substantially different than under BART'' and (2)
``the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions.''
\19\ If the first condition is not satisfied (and the state has opted
to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) rather than a weight-
of-evidence demonstration), then 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides that the
state must make a demonstration under the two-prong modeling test.\20\
By contrast, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not indicate that a state must
apply the emissions-reduction test whenever the first condition of the
emissions-reduction test is satisfied. Thus, a state may choose to
apply the two-prong modeling test even if it determines that the first
condition of the emissions-reductions test is satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
\20\ Id. (``If the distribution of emissions is significantly
different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling'' (emphasis
added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the examples of prior EPA actions cited by the commenters
indicate that the EPA has previously interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
require use of the emissions-reduction test whenever the first
condition of that test is satisfied. Rather, the examples demonstrate
that states and the EPA have generally applied the emissions-reduction
test where both conditions of that test were clearly satisfied.\21\
However, in other instances, states and the EPA have made a weight-of-
evidence demonstration when the first condition of the emissions-
reduction test was satisfied, but it was not clear whether the second
condition was satisfied. For example, in 2015 we approved a weight-of-
evidence demonstration submitted by ADEQ for a BART alternative at the
Apache Generating Station (``Apache BART Alternative'').\22\ In that
case, all of the emissions were from a single facility, so the first
condition of the emissions-reduction test was satisfied. However, as
with the Coronado BART Alternative, the Apache BART Alternative was
expected to result in greater NOX emissions but lower
emissions of SO2 and PM10 compared with BART.\23\
We found that, ``[i]n this situation, where BART and the BART
Alternative result in reduced emissions of one pollutant but increased
emissions of another, it is not appropriate to use the `greater
emissions reductions' test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).'' \24\ Similarly,
when evaluating a BART alternative for the Tesoro Refinery in
Anacortes, Washington, we determined that, even though all of the
emissions were from a single facility, modeling was needed ``to assess
whether the visibility improvement from the BART Alternative's
SO2 emission reductions would be greater than the visibility
improvement from the BART NOX reductions.'' \25\ Likewise,
when evaluating a proposed BART alternative for the Four Corners Power
Plant, the EPA considered the weight of evidence, including visibility
modeling, even though all emissions were from a single facility.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This general trend is unsurprising, given that the
emissions-reduction test demands less time and effort as it does not
require modeling.
\22\ 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
\23\ Id. at 19221.
\24\ 80 FR 19221.
\25\ 78 FR 79344, 79355 (December 30, 2013).
\26\ See 76 FR 10530, 10534 (February 25, 2011) (``EPA is
proposing to find, based on the weight of evidence, that [the
proposed alternative] will result in greater reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal under section 169A(b)(2) than
EPA's October 19, 2010 BART proposal'' and 10537 (discussing
modeling results, even though the alternative could be deemed to
result in greater reasonable progress based on the emissions-
reduction test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the Coronado BART Alternative, we have followed our
long-standing interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) that, if the
geographic distribution of emissions is the same under the BART
alternative and BART, then the emissions distribution is not
substantially different. With regard to the Final Strategy, we found
that the distribution of emissions would not be substantially different
than under BART because all emissions under both scenarios were from
Coronado. Furthermore, under the Final Strategy, emissions of each
pollutant would be lower than or equal to BART, and the collective
emissions from the facility would be lower than BART.\27\ This allowed
us to use the emissions-reduction test to confirm that the Final
Strategy would ensure greater reasonable progress than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ As explained in our proposal, while the Final Strategy by
itself would not meet the requirements for a BART alternative, we
considered whether the Final Strategy would provide for ongoing
visibility improvement, as compared with BART, by evaluating whether
the Final Strategy meets both conditions of the emissions-reduction
test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 82 FR 19342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our proposal, we did not evaluate the Interim Strategy under the
emissions-reduction test because ADEQ did not make a demonstration
under this test. Therefore, we had no cause to consider whether the two
conditions of that test were satisfied. Nonetheless, in response to the
commenters' concerns,
[[Page 46907]]
we wish to clarify that the same interpretation of ``distribution of
emissions'' would apply to the Interim Strategy. Because all of the
emissions under the Interim Strategy and BART are from Coronado, the
distribution of emissions would not be substantially different under
the two scenarios, so the first condition of the test is satisfied.
Regarding the second condition of the emissions-reduction test, ADEQ
found that the Interim Strategy would result in greater NOX
emissions, but lower emissions of SO2 and PM10
compared with BART.\28\ Contrary to Earthjustice's suggestion, ADEQ did
not determine that the Interim Strategy ``fails'' the emissions-
reduction test. Rather, ADEQ found that the Interim Strategy would not
necessarily achieve greater emissions reductions than BART.\29\
Furthermore, while the commenters point to the difference in total
NOX, SO2, and PM10 emissions for each
of the Interim Strategy scenarios compared with BART, we do not
consider this comparison to be useful. As we explained in evaluating a
proposed BART alternative submitted by Utah:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 82 FR 19338.
\29\ Coronado SIP Revision, Addendum page 4.
We have not considered a total emissions profile that combines
emissions of multiple pollutants to determine whether BART or the
alternative is ``better,'' except where every visibility impairing
pollutant is reduced by a greater amount under the BART alternative.
A comparison of mass emissions from multiple pollutants (such as
NOX and SO2) is not generally informative,
particularly in assessing whether the alternative approach provides
for greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility.
Instead, when emissions of one or more pollutants increases under an
alternative, EPA has given the most weight to the visibility impacts
based on air quality modeling and used modeling to determine whether
or not a BART Alternative measure that relies on interpollutant
trading results in greater reasonable progress.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 81 FR 2004, 2028 (January 14, 2016) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Accordingly, we do not agree with the commenters that the Coronado
BART Alternative ``fails'' the emissions-reduction test. Rather, we
find that the emissions-reduction test is not the appropriate test to
evaluate the Interim Strategy of the Coronado BART Alternative, and it
was appropriate and reasonable for the State to apply the two-prong
modeling test to evaluate the Interim Strategy.
Comment: Earthjustice argued that the Coronado BART Alternative
violates CAA section 110(l)'s anti-backsliding requirement because it
weakens the existing BART determination for Coronado. Quoting CAA
section 110(l) and citing several court cases interpreting that
provision, the commenter stated that section 110(l) ``prohibits plan
revisions that would interfere with an existing BART determination''
and that the ``EPA's common sense interpretation of section 110(l) is
that it prevents plan revisions that backslide or weaken an existing
Clean Air Act requirement by increasing overall air pollution or
causing worse air quality.'' The commenter asserted that the Coronado
BART Alternative weakens the existing BART determination for Coronado
because it would result in increased air pollution and cause worse
visibility impairment at multiple Class I areas in the years 2018
through 2025 and therefore violates section 110(l).
The commenter further argued that the EPA improperly based our
110(l) analysis on our determination that the Coronado BART Alternative
would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. The commenter
re-asserted its claim that the Coronado BART Alternative is not
``Better than BART'' because it ``fails'' the emissions-reduction test.
Earthjustice also argued that, ``[b]ecause the purposes of a BART
alternative and section 110(l) are distinct and a BART alternative may
perform worse than BART in some respects, it is unreasonable to use the
`Better than BART' test as the sole criterion for whether an
alternative complies with section 110(l).''
Earthjustice further noted that ADEQ was not choosing between BART
and a BART alternative for Coronado in the first instance, but was
instead replacing an existing BART determination that had been fully
litigated and in place for four and a half years. They argued that,
under these circumstances, section 110(l) requires the EPA to
independently determine whether the alternative weakens the existing
BART determination, and the EPA cannot rely on the ``Better than BART''
test as the sole criterion for whether an alternative complies with
section 110(l).
Finally, the commenter made several points related to the EPA's
approval of a SIP revision that established a new BART determination
for Cholla Generating Station (``Cholla BART Reassessment''). Noting
certain similarities between the Coronado BART Alternative and the
Cholla BART Reassessment, the commenter argued that the EPA had
improperly ``applied a completely different rationale and analysis when
determining whether the two BART revisions complied with section 110(l)
for regional haze purposes.'' The commenter also criticized the EPA's
responses to comments on section 110(l) issues related to the Cholla
BART Reassessment and asserted that the EPA ``should not attempt to
justify the Coronado BART alternative on similar grounds.'' In
particular, the commenter asserted that the EPA had (1) conflated its
section 110(l) analysis regarding NAAQS attainment with its section
110(l) analysis regarding Cholla's existing regional haze requirements,
(2) unreasonably dismissed the relevant section 110(l) case law, and
(3) incorrectly relied, in part, on post-2025 emissions reductions from
Cholla to justify why the plan complied with section 110(l).
Response: We do not agree that the Coronado SIP Revision violates
CAA section 110(l). As explained further below, the commenter has
mischaracterized the requirements of section 110(l) and the EPA's
interpretation of those requirements. Neither the statutory language
nor the case law cited by the commenter support the commenter's
interpretation that a SIP revision that allows for additional air
emissions or less stringent requirements than the existing plan per se
constitutes a violation of CAA section 110(l).
Section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving a SIP revision ``if
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in [CAA section
171]), or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA].'' \31\ This
language does not prohibit the EPA from approving any SIP revision that
weakens the existing plan's requirements or allows for an increase in
emissions of a particular pollutant, nor has the EPA interpreted
section 110(l) in this manner. The EPA's evaluation of whether a
noninterference determination can be made under section 110(l) is a
case-by-case assessment based on the specific facts and circumstances
at issue. The commenter has selectively quoted from the EPA's prior
actions and court cases concerning those actions in order to support
their position. In particular, the commenter asserts that, ``in
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006),
EPA interpreted section 110(l) as allowing the agency to approve a plan
revision that weakened some existing control measures while
strengthening others, but only `[a]s long as actual emissions in the
air are not increased.' '' However, the context for the quote makes
clear that the EPA was not referring to a blanket prohibition on
increases in emissions. Rather, we were
[[Page 46908]]
describing our interpretation of section 110(l) as applied to a SIP
revision that substituted emissions reductions to make up for increased
emissions resulting from moving an existing control measure to a
contingency measure. We determined that we could approve this change
without requiring an attainment demonstration, explaining that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
Prior to the time when the control strategy SIP revisions are
due, to demonstrate no [interference] with any applicable NAAQS or
requirement of the Clean Air Act under section 110(l), EPA has
interpreted this section such that States can substitute equivalent
(or greater) emissions reductions to compensate for the control
measure being moved from the regulatory portion to the contingency
provisions. As long as actual emissions in the air are not
increased, EPA believes that equivalent (or greater) emissions
reductions will be acceptable to demonstrate non-interference.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005) (emphasis added).
Thus, in the circumstances presented in that case, we found that,
rather than submit a new attainment demonstration, the state could
instead substitute one measure for another with equivalent or greater
emissions reductions/air quality benefit in order to demonstrate
noninterference with attainment, maintenance, and reasonable further
progress (RFP) requirements. However, the EPA has never indicated that
such a substitution approach is required in all cases. In some cases,
states can provide an air quality analysis, typically based on
modeling, showing that removing a particular control measure will not
interfere with attainment, maintenance, or RFP requirements.\33\
Additionally, a modeling-based demonstration of non-interference with
these requirements may be possible where increases in one pollutant are
offset by decreases in another pollutant and the modeling analysis
shows that the decreases will provide at least equivalent air quality
benefits for each affected NAAQS.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See ``Demonstrating Noninterference Under Section 110(l) of
the Clean Air Act When Revising a State Implementation Plan,'' 6,
10-11 (June 8, 2005) (Draft Guidance).
\34\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cases cited by the commenter also fail to support the
commenter's interpretation. In Kentucky Resources Council, the court
upheld the EPA's decision that a new attainment demonstration was not
required in order to show that the SIP revision would not interfere
pursuant to section 110(l).\35\ Thus, the examination of whether the
SIP revision would ``worsen air quality'' was based on whether the
area, which was designated as a nonattainment area for the relevant
NAAQS, would have more difficulty in attaining and maintaining the
NAAQS with the SIP revision--not, as the commenter argues here, whether
the SIP revision would simply result in increased emissions. Similarly,
the Ala. Envtl. Council v. EPA \36\ and Indiana v. EPA \37\ courts
upheld the EPA's interpretation that section 110(l) allows for a
substitution approach to demonstrate non-interference with the Act's
requirements, but did not hold that an increase in emissions per se
constituted a violation of section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 467 F.3d 986, 996 (6th Cir. 2006).
\36\ 711 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013).
\37\ 796 F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth case cited by the commenter, Hall v. EPA,\38\ concerned
the EPA's analysis of non-interference with attainment requirements in
a nonattainment area and did not address the Act's other requirements
(including visibility protection requirements) or how those
requirements apply in attainment areas.\39\ Thus, the case is not
relevant to the commenters' objections, which specifically concern
visibility protection requirements.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).
\39\ Id. at 1160, n.11 (``Our assessment of the EPA's reasoning
does not apply to review of rules governing areas that are in
attainment.'').
\40\ See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (``[T]he Conservation
Organizations take no issue with EPA's finding that the alternative
does not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two additional cases cited by the commenter concerned regional haze
SIP actions, but do not support the commenter's contention that ``after
EPA approves a BART determination (or other regional haze requirement),
the agency cannot later modify the BART determination in a manner that
weakens it.'' \41\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA \42\ involved a challenge
to a regional haze plan under section 110(l)'s requirements concerning
noninterference with attainment and maintenance, which the commenter
acknowledges are not of concern in relation to the Coronado SIP
Revision.\43\ In that case, the court found that the petitioner had
identified nothing in the SIP revision at issue ``that weakens or
removes any pollution controls.'' \44\ Contrary to the commenter's
assertion, the court did not suggest that, if the petitioner had
identified such a provision, it would necessarily have constituted a
violation of section 110(l). In fact, the court declined to decide if
section 110(l) even applied to the plan in question, stating only in
dicta that, ``even if the SIP merely maintained the status quo, that
would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.''
\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id. at 20.
\42\ 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014).
\43\ See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (``[T]he Conservation
Organizations take no issue with EPA's finding that the alternative
does not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.'').
\44\ WildEarth Guardians, 759 F.3d at 1074.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma v. EPA \46\ affirmed the EPA's authority to review state
BART determinations, based on, among other things, section 110(l).
However, contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the Oklahoma court did
not indicate that individual BART determinations themselves are
``applicable requirements'' for purposes of section 110(l). Rather, the
court found that the underlying statutory requirements concerning
visibility protection constitute ``applicable requirements.'' \47\
Accordingly, it is these generally applicable statutory requirements
for which a demonstration of non-interference is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 723 F.3d 1201, 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013).
\47\ The court specifically noted that the visibility protection
provisions of CAA section 169A and 169B are ``applicable
requirements'' for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We agree
with the commenter that these requirements are also ``applicable
requirements'' for purposes of section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, the critical statutory requirement is that the
applicable implementation plan ``contain such emission limits,
schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal'' of preventing
any future and remedying any existing visibility impairment in Class I
areas due to manmade air pollution.\48\ While measures for achieving
``reasonable progress'' generally include requirements for source-
specific BART determinations,\49\ the EPA has long interpreted CAA
section 169A(b)(2) to allow for the adoption of ``implementation plan
provisions other than those provided by BART analyses in situations
where the agency reasonably concludes that more `reasonable progress'
will thereby be attained'' because `` `reasonable progress' is the
overarching requirement that implementation plan revisions under 42
U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must address.'' \50\ This interpretation has been
upheld by both the Ninth Circuit \51\ and the D.C. Circuit \52\ and is
reflected in the
[[Page 46909]]
``Better than BART'' provisions of the Regional Haze Rule that apply to
the Coronado SIP Revision.\53\ Accordingly, in evaluating the Coronado
SIP Revision under section 110(l) with respect to the Act's visibility
protection requirements, the relevant question is not whether it would
interfere with the BART determination in our FIP, but whether it would
interfere with the overall statutory requirement for reasonable
progress, as implemented through the ``Better than BART'' provisions of
the Regional Haze Rule. For the reasons explained in our proposal and
elsewhere in this document, we have determined that the Coronado SIP
Revision satisfies the ``Better than BART'' requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule, meaning that it will result in greater reasonable
progress than the existing BART requirements for Coronado. Therefore,
the Coronado SIP Revision complies with the Act's reasonable progress
requirements. As such, we do not agree with the commenter that we must
apply some separate criterion to determine whether the Coronado SIP
Revision would interfere with those same requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ CAA section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2).
\49\ CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A).
\50\ Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990
F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993).
\51\ Id.
\52\ Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d
653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471
F.3d 1333, 1340-41 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
\53\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)-(6). See also Central Arizona Water
Conservation District, 990 F.2d at 1543; Center for Energy and
Economic Development, 398 F.3d at 660; Utility Air Regulatory Group,
471 F.3d at 1340-41 (upholding the ``better-than-BART'' provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, even if such a separate evaluation were necessary, we
believe that the modeling performed to support ADEQ's demonstration of
greater reasonable progress for the Interim Strategy is adequate to
demonstrate non-interference with the Act's visibility protection
provisions.\54\ As noted above, we interpret section 110(l) to allow
for a modeling-based demonstration of non-interference with attainment,
maintenance, and RFP requirements where increases in one pollutant are
offset by decreases in another pollutant and the modeling analysis
shows that the decreases will provide at least equivalent air quality
benefits for each affected NAAQS.\55\ Similarly, such a modeling
demonstration is appropriate to demonstrate non-interference with
visibility protection requirements when reductions of one or more
pollutants (in the case of the Interim Strategy, SO2 and PM)
are being substituted for reductions of another pollutant (in the case
of the Interim Strategy, NOX). As described in our proposal
and elsewhere in this document, the modeling submitted with the
Coronado SIP Revision demonstrates that the Interim Strategy will
result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared
with 2014 Baseline Emissions (prong 1) and will result in improved
visibility, on average, across all Class I areas, compared with BART on
both the 20% best and worst days (prong 2).\56\ As the commenter noted,
the modeling indicates that visibility improvement at certain Class I
areas will be slightly less under the Interim Strategy as compared with
BART between 2018 and 2025. However, we do not believe that a temporary
decrease in the rate of improvement at these areas constitutes
``interference'' with the Act's visibility protection requirements,
given that it is accompanied by a greater improvement at other Class I
areas. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, ``nothing in [CAA] Sec.
169A(b)'s `reasonable progress' language requires at least as much
improvement at each and every individual area as BART itself would
achieve (much less improvement at each area at every instant) . . . .''
\57\ Furthermore, once the Final Strategy is implemented by 2026, we
anticipated that there will be greater improvement across all Class I
areas compared to BART.\58\ Therefore, we conclude that the Coronado
SIP Revision will not interfere with the CAA's visibility protection
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The commenter does not appear to object to our
determination that implementation of the Final Strategy would
clearly satisfy section 110(l) because it would result in overall
greater emissions reductions compared to the BART Control Strategy.
\55\ Draft Guidance at 8.
\56\ See 82 FR 19338-19341.
\57\ Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340-41.
\58\ We do not agree with the commenter that it is inappropriate
to consider post-2025 emissions reductions under section 110(l),
given that such reductions will help to ensure continued compliance
with the Act's reasonable progress requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters' statements regarding the Cholla BART Reassessment
are out of the scope of today's action. That action was a separate
analysis based on the facts and circumstances of that SIP revision,
which we finalized on March 17, 2017. We also do not agree with the
commenter that we improperly applied a different rationale and analysis
when determining whether the Coronado BART Alternative and the Cholla
BART Reassessment complied with section 110(l). In both cases, we
considered whether the relevant SIP revision would interfere with the
applicable statutory requirements.\59\ However, despite some
similarities between the two SIP revisions, they are not subject to all
the same statutory requirements, so the respective section 110(l)
analyses necessarily differ in some respects. In particular, because
the Cholla BART Reassessment was a BART determination, we considered
whether it met the CAA's BART requirements, as well as whether it was
consistent with the CAA's long-term national goal of restoring natural
visibility conditions at Class I areas.\60\ Because the CAA's BART
requirements do not apply to a BART alternative,\61\ we did not
consider them in reviewing the Coronado SIP Revision under section
110(l). Rather, as explained above, we have considered whether the
Coronado SIP Revision is consistent with the CAA requirement for
reasonable progress toward the long-term national goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 81 FR 46862; 82 FR 15150.
\60\ Id.
\61\ See, e.g., Yazzie, 851 F.3d at 969 (affirming that
statutory deadline for BART does not apply to a BART alternative).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while we do not agree that our responses to comments
concerning the Cholla BART Reassessment were mistaken, those responses
are not at issue in this action. To the extent that the commenter's
concerns are relevant to the Coronado SIP Revision, we have addressed
them above.
Comment: Earthjustice and EDF both raised concerns with the CAMx
modeling relied upon by ADEQ and the EPA to determine that the Interim
Strategy would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. They
noted that, although ADEQ had performed additional analyses to
determine if the modeled visibility changes could be attributed to
emissions changes rather than model ``noise,'' the results were ``still
applicable to only one year's meteorological transport pattern.'' They
asserted that the EPA should require a demonstration that the emissions
curtailments would result in better visibility conditions across varied
air transport conditions.
EDF acknowledged that the EPA's modeling guidance allows the use of
a single year of meteorological data for modeling of regional scale
pollutants using CAMx. However, the commenters noted that the CAMx
modeling for the Coronado BART Alternative focused on a single source's
impacts on very specific geographic locations that ``would have large
variations due to yearly meteorological changes in wind transport
patterns.'' Earthjustice stated that most BART determinations and all
BART alternatives that it was aware of relied on CALPUFF modeling. EDF
and Earthjustice also noted that, where the EPA had previously used
CAMx modeling for BART determinations, it was in conjunction with
CALPUFF modeling, which typically uses at least a three-year
meteorological database.
[[Page 46910]]
They asserted that, in light of the small changes in visibility between
the modeled emissions scenarios, ``the difference in impacts that
delineate one alternative curtailment period from another are within
the margin of error for the model output.'' They also stated that, if
the difference were consistent from year to year, ``it would provide
more confidence in the resulting implementation of multiple curtailment
periods.'' Earthjustice added that ``the demonstration provided by ADEQ
only gives information about the relative performance of BART versus
the alternative if the 2008 meteorological conditions are duplicated in
every future year.''
Response: We acknowledge the commenters' concern about the
robustness of a modeling analysis based on a single year of
meteorology, given the year-to-year variability of meteorological
conditions and their possible effect on visibility impacts. However,
the Regional Haze Rule does not require modeling of a longer period to
make a demonstration under the two-prong test, and EPA guidance also
does not recommend a longer period. Rather, to address a range of
meteorological conditions, the EPA's photochemical modeling guidance
recommends modeling a full year. Our current guidance states that ``the
preferred approach for regional haze-related model applications is to
simulate an entire, representative year.'' \62\ More recent draft
guidance states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B-07-002 (April 2007)
p. 149.
Regional Haze--Choose time periods which reflect the variety of
meteorological conditions which represent visibility impairment on
the 20% best and 20% worst days in the Class I areas being modeled
(high and low concentrations necessary). This is best accomplished
by modeling a full year.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 17
(December 2014) (draft).
Thus, modeling a full year with a photochemical model to represent
visibility impairment on the 20% best and worst days is consistent with
EPA guidance.
We also note that states and the EPA rarely, if ever, model more
than a single year with a photochemical model even for NAAQS attainment
demonstrations covering large urban areas with thousands of sources
possibly subject to emission controls. A key reason for the practice
and recommendation of modeling just a single year is the time and
expense involved in running the computationally-intensive computer
model and in preparing meteorological and emissions inputs. The
emission inventory requires economic variables and population estimates
for the whole area covered in the model domain, as well as the
emissions calculations for the many sources of pollution in the domain.
Meteorological and other model input parameters typically must be
adjusted in an iterative process to ensure the model performs
adequately. The model's performance must then be evaluated. All of
these tasks must be done separately for each year. Thus, while modeling
longer periods may improve the robustness of the modeling results, it
also requires significant additional time and resources. Therefore, it
is prudent to assess whether the benefits of the modeling justify the
additional effort for each individual application. Given that the
modeling for the Coronado SIP Revision affects only a single source for
a limited period of time (i.e., the period of the Interim Strategy), we
do not think it is reasonable to require more than a single year of
photochemical modeling.
We note that the situation was different for the CALPUFF modeling
that states and the EPA conducted for BART determinations, for which
the EPA recommended that at least three years of meteorological data be
used.\64\ Under the BART Guidelines, CALPUFF could be used for
assessing the visibility impacts of a single source without the process
of input adjustment and performance evaluation described above for
photochemical models.\65\ Furthermore, the emission inventory for BART
modeling was a single source, rather than the thousands of sources
needed in a photochemical model such as CAMx. The meteorological inputs
to CALPUFF are also simpler than for a photochemical model, and they
were developed by multistate Regional Planning Organizations, such as
the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), for use in BART
determinations for numerous different facilities. In summary, while the
CALPUFF modeling used for BART determinations employed multiple years
of meteorology, the cost and effort involved was lower than for CAMx,
and it was spread over multiple states and sources. By contrast, the
Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision affects only a single
source for a limited period of time. Accordingly, we find that modeling
multiple years with CAMx for the two-prong test applied to the Interim
Strategy would constitute a disproportionately high level of effort
relative to the modest benefit of such an approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 70 FR 39107-39108 (``For assessing the fifth factor,
the degree of improvement in visibility from various BART control
options, the States may run CALPUFF or another appropriate
dispersion model to predict visibility impacts . . . The maximum 24-
hour emission rates would be modeled for a period of three or five
years of meteorological data.'').
\65\ See, e.g., BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
section IV.D.5. (``Use CALPUFF or other appropriate dispersion model
to determine the visibility improvement expected at a Class I area
from the potential BART control technology applied to the source'');
70 FR 39123 (``For the specific purposes of the regional haze rule's
BART provisions . . . we have concluded that CALPUFF is sufficiently
reliable to inform the decision-making process.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the specific year chosen for modeling the Interim
Strategy, as discussed in connection with SRP's comments and the
analysis submitted by Ramboll Environ,\66\ we find that the 2008
meteorology year was adequately representative for the two-prong test.
In addition, as explained further below, that analysis presented
evidence that 2008 was a conservative year, in that the Interim
Strategy would be expected to show a greater benefit compared to the
baseline and BART in other years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ ``Additional Documentation on the Coronado Generating
Station Better-than-BART Modeling Analysis to Address EPA's October
2016 Request'', Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris,
Ramboll Environ to Bill McClellan, Salt River Project (April 6,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Earthjustice and EDF expressed concern about the use of a
projected 2020 inventory rather than clean conditions or the inventory
of a ``known year'' for the CAMx modeling. Earthjustice asserted that,
``[t]o the extent EPA considers 2020 to be more representative of
future or cleaner air quality conditions, CAMx should instead have been
run with only single source emissions plus nonanthropogenic emissions
to simulate reaction chemistry under natural conditions.'' They argued
that the EPA must include CALPUFF modeling to help support the
conclusion that the Coronado BART Alternative is in fact better than
BART ``when looking at source impacts compared with natural
conditions.''
Response: We do not agree that ADEQ should have used natural
conditions or the inventory of a ``known'' (i.e., past) year to
evaluate the Interim Strategy. The Regional Haze Rule does not identify
which background conditions states must use for evaluating greater
reasonable progress under the two-prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
However, in the preamble to the final rule promulgating the two-prong
test, we explained that:
The underlying purpose of both prongs of the test is to assess
whether visibility conditions at Class I areas would be better
[[Page 46911]]
with the alternative program in place than they would without it. .
. . In both cases, the logical reference point is visibility
conditions as they are expected to be at the time of program
implementation but in the absence of the program.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 70 FR 39104, 39138 (July 6, 2005).
In other words, the projected conditions at the time the BART
alternative will be implemented, including emissions from all other
sources, but assuming that no emission reductions from BART or the BART
alternative have yet occurred, are an appropriate background for
modeling under the two-prong test. Here, the Interim Strategy will be
implemented between 2018 and 2025, so ADEQ's decision to use the 2020
emissions inventory as the background conditions for comparing the
Interim Strategy to BART was reasonable.
We also do not believe that it is necessary to conduct CALPUFF
modeling to support the conclusion that the Coronado BART Alternative
would result in greater reasonable progress than BART. While ADEQ could
have elected to conduct CALPUFF modeling to make a demonstration of
greater reasonable progress, it instead chose to use CAMx modeling to
make this demonstration. As explained in our proposal:
CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to
simulate the transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing
particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate,
and is often employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of
pollution and/or long transport distances are involved.
Photochemical grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources
and have realistic representations of formation, transport, and
removal processes of the particulate matter that causes visibility
degradation.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 82 FR 19338-19339.
Because it incorporates the many emissions sources that create the
background conditions at the time the BART alternative will be
implemented, CAMx is well suited for modeling under the two-prong
test.\69\ Furthermore, as a result of recent developments in modeling
techniques,\70\ the EPA and states have begun to use photochemical
models such as CAMx to assess the visibility impacts from individual
sources such as Coronado.\71\ Thus, ADEQ appropriately relied on CAMx
modeling to assess the Coronado BART Alternative under the two-prong
modeling test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ As explained in response to comments above, it was
appropriate and reasonable for the State to apply the two-prong
modeling test to the Coronado BART Alternative.
\70\ See, e.g., 82 FR 5182, 5196 (``Source sensitivity and
apportionment techniques implemented in photochemical grid models
have evolved sufficiently and provide the opportunity for estimating
potential visibility and deposition impacts from one or a small
group of emission sources using a full science photochemical grid
model.'').
\71\ See, e.g., 81 FR 296, 327-28 (January 5, 2016) (describing
the use of CAMx for evaluating visibility impacts of sources in a
Texas Regional Haze FIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Earthjustice and EDF objected to the fact that the CAMx
modeling used to assess the Coronado BART Alternative was limited to a
range of 300 kilometers (km), given that the EPA has previously used
CAMx to assess impacts beyond the 300 km range. EDF stated that the EPA
should explain why the 300 km limit was appropriate. Earthjustice
argued that the EPA should include modeling results for Class I areas
outside of 300 km.
Response: We agree with the commenters that there is no a priori
reason to limit the modeling under the two-prong test to Class I areas
within 300 km.\72\ We nevertheless find that the set of Class I areas
evaluated in the CAMx modeling is adequately representative in this
instance. The 300 km radius used in the modeling covers a large region,
a range of geographic settings, and a full range of compass directions
from Coronado. In addition, the visibility impacts of Coronado's
emissions generally decline with distance.\73\ Because of that, when
comparing projected visibility conditions under the BART Alternative
scenario to projected visibility conditions under the baseline
scenario, the differences between the two scenarios generally decline
with distance. The same is true when comparing the BART Alternative to
BART. As a result, while including more distant areas would have a
small effect on the numerical values used in the two-prong test, doing
so would be unlikely to change the outcome of the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Neither the Regional Haze Rule nor EPA guidance define
``affected'' Class I areas for purposes of the two-prong test.
\73\ This is illustrated in the graphic ``Coronado CAMx Baseline
Impacts--Baseline delta DV Impact vs. km distance,'' in the file
titled ``Coronado_baseline_CAMx_ddv_vs_distance.pdf,'' available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: SRP commented that it strongly supports the EPA's:
Proposed approval of ADEQ's demonstration under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) that the Coronado BART Alternative Interim Strategy will
achieve greater reasonable progress than BART at Coronado;
proposed approval of the CAMx modeling used by ADEQ;
determination that the Coronado BART Alternative Final
Strategy will result in greater emission reductions than BART for
Coronado; and
determination that the Final Strategy and its associated
emission reductions are not necessary to demonstrate that the Coronado
BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART
during the period of the first long-term strategy.
Response: We acknowledge the comments.
Comment: SRP urged the EPA to note the assessment that ADEQ
conducted that shows the importance of SO2 (and resulting
sulfate) reductions in improving visibility in Class I areas
potentially affected by Coronado. In particular, SRP asserted that:
ADEQ demonstrated that SO2 emission reductions, such
as those that would occur under the [Coronado] BART Alternative, are
very significant in light of the facts that ``the SO2-
attributed visibility extinction is generally more than three times
the NOX-attributed visibility extinction'' and that, in
particular, ``the ratios of SO2-attributed visibility
extinction to NOX-attributed visibility extinction
averaged over all Class I areas are 3.7, 4.2 and 4.2 for the 20%
best days, the 20% worst days, and all days, respectively.''
Response: As noted in footnote 31 of our proposal,\74\ ADEQ's
``Supplemental Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring Data'' is not directly
relevant to the State's demonstration of greater reasonable progress
under the two-prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), so we did not consider
it in evaluating the State's demonstration. The results of the CAMx
modeling establish that, through a combination of controls, emission
reductions, atmospheric chemistry, and meteorology, the Coronado BART
Alternative will result in greater reasonable progress than BART, as
required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See 82 FR 19338, dated April, 27, 2017; footnote 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: SRP stated that, while the Coronado BART Alternative was
proposed to be approved under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), it is also
approvable under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) under the weight-of-evidence
test. SRP further noted that ``[t]he clear weight of evidence test
allows states to take into consideration a wide range of factors,
visibility metrics, or other relevant considerations in making a
better-than-BART determination.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment.
Comment: SRP noted that the EPA described the Interim Strategy as
``in effect from December 5, 2017 to
[[Page 46912]]
December 31, 2025,'' and indicated that the Final Strategy ``would take
effect on January 1, 2026.'' The commenter stated that, ``the December
31, 2025, date represents a deadline for SRP to install and operate an
SCR on Unit 1 or close Unit 1, rather than the conclusion of the
effective period for the Interim Strategy'' and requested that the EPA
clarify that the installation and operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or
closure of Unit 1 will occur no later than December 31, 2025, and that
the Interim Strategy will be in effect until the installation of SCR on
Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the installation and
operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1 must occur no later
than December 31, 2025, and that the Interim Strategy will be in effect
until the installation of SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1. We have
made this clarification in this final notice.
Comment: SRP noted that the EPA described the SO2
emission cap as ``plant-wide'' and ``facility-wide.'' The commenter
recommended that the EPA ``clarify that the 1,970 tpy SO2
emission cap applies to the aggregate annual emissions from Unit 1 and
Unit 2 only and does not apply to any emissions from any other sources
at the site.'' The commenter also noted that, ``[i]n the event that
Unit 1 shuts down, the SO2-emission tonnage limit applicable
after the shutdown of that unit is 1,080 tons per calendar year.''
Response: We agree with the commenter that the 1,970 tpy
SO2 emission cap applies to the aggregate emissions from
Unit 1 and Unit 2, and that, if Unit 1 shuts down, an SO2
emission cap of 1,080 tpy would apply to Unit 2. We have made this
clarification in this final notice.
Comment: SRP asserted that the EPA incorrectly stated that ``the
Coronado SIP Revision will require equivalent or lower emissions of
NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years, compared to
the emission levels currently allowed under the applicable
implementation plan (including both the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and
the Arizona Regional Haze FIP).'' The commenter noted that the Interim
Strategy requires fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP.
Response: We agree with SRP that the Interim Strategy requires
fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP
between December 5, 2017, and December 31, 2025. However, the statement
from our proposal quoted by the commenter refers to ``the emission
levels currently allowed under the applicable implementation plan.''
\75\ Because the compliance date for the NOX emission limits
in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP is December 5, 2017, the applicable
implementation plan does not currently limit NOX emissions
from Coronado. Thus, as correctly noted in our proposal, the Coronado
SIP Revision will require lower emissions of NOX, PM and
SO2 for all future years, compared to the emission levels
currently allowed under the applicable implementation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 82 FR 19344 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: SRP included as an attachment to its comments a technical
memorandum from Ramboll Environ that evaluated whether the CAMx
modeling results for the two-prong test were influenced by numerical
noise, based on a spatial and numerical analysis of CAMx model outputs
for visibility and its sulfate and nitrate components.\76\ The
components reflect the differences in SO2 and
NOX, respectively, between BART and the Interim Strategy.
The differences showed a spatial pattern consistent with realistic
gradual variation in the atmosphere, rather than random variation as
would be expected from numerical noise. Therefore, the memorandum
concluded that the modeled numerical differences represent real
visibility improvements and are not just numerical artifacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris, Ramboll
Environ (September 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: This same analysis was included in the Coronado SIP
Revision and evaluated for our proposal. We reaffirm our finding that
the analysis supports the conclusion that the two-prong test results
indicate actual visibility improvement under the Interim Strategy
compared to BART and no degradation relative to the baseline.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 82 FR 19341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: SRP included as an attachment to its comments a second
memorandum from Ramboll Environ analyzing (1) whether the meteorology
from the year that was used for modeling (2008) was adequately
representative of other years and (2) whether, extending the length of
the curtailment periods under the Interim Strategy would give
additional visibility benefits.
The first of three Ramboll Environ analyses of the
representativeness of 2008 was a comparison of 2008 temperatures and
precipitation to typical conditions based on more than 100 years of
meteorological data. The memorandum noted that temperature affects the
oxidizing potential of the atmosphere, which in turn affects the
conversion of SO2 and NOX emissions into
visibility-impairing sulfates and nitrates. Ramboll Environ found that
2008 was somewhat warmer than the average, but that generally the
temperature was well within the normal range of variation. The
memorandum also noted that precipitation can remove visibility-
impairing pollutants from the atmosphere and found that 2008
precipitation was classified as ``Near Normal.'' Accordingly, Ramboll
Environ concluded that 2008 was reasonably representative for purposes
of the visibility modeling.
In a second analysis, Ramboll Environ examined visibility-impairing
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate concentrations during 2000-2012
as measured at four Class I areas in different compass directions from
Coronado. These are shown as time series bar or line graphs for the
various pollutants and areas. Ramboll Environ found that the annual
averages for 2008 were near the middle of the averages for the
individual years from 2000-2012. Monthly averages for 2008 were also
consistent with the overall range seen from 2000-2012. Compared to
other years, monthly sulfate averages for 2008 tended to be on the high
side during March, April, and September, and on the low side in mid-
summer and in December through February, but nevertheless consistent
with the overall range seen for 2000-2012. Ramboll Environ concluded
that, because the curtailment periods for Interim Strategy options IS3
and IS4 \78\ are from November 21 through January 21, overlapping the
period for which 2008 tended to have lower sulfate, the modeled
visibility improvement for these options would also tend to be lower
than would be expected for other years. That is, the actual visibility
benefits of these options would generally be expected to be larger than
the modeling results indicate. The same conclusion applies to nitrate,
for which 2008 monthly averages tend to be on the low side, compared to
the averages for 2000-2012 years during the months that include the
curtailment periods (November, December, and January).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ The memorandum refers to IS3 and IS4 as BtB3 and BtB4,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its third analysis, Ramboll Environ examined the monthly
distribution of the 20% worst visibility days to see how many fell
within the November 21-January 20 curtailment period for 2008 in
comparison to 2000-2012. This analysis showed that 2008 had a lower
than average number of 20% worst visibility days within this period.
Ramboll Environ concluded that,
[[Page 46913]]
because more of the 20% worst visibility days would fall within the
curtailment period in a typical year, the actual visibility benefits of
the Interim Strategy would generally be larger than the modeling
results indicate.
Ramboll Environ's analysis of the approximately 60-day curtailment
period used in Interim Strategy options IS3 and IS4 relied on post-
processing of modeling results to assess extending the period by 20,
40, 60, and 80 days. Ramboll Environ presented bar graphs showing the
amount by which extending the curtailment period impacted the strengths
of the directional results of the two-prong test. For prong 1, the
visibility benefit of the Interim Strategy increased very little as the
curtailment period was extended. For prong 2, Ramboll Environ stated
that even doubling the curtailment period would yield only a 0.002
deciview improvement over the proposed period, which Ramboll Environ
viewed as small. Therefore, SRP concluded that extending the
curtailment period would have only a small visibility benefit.
Response: We acknowledge the additional analysis provided by SRP,
which supports the conclusion that 2008 is a representative year for
modeling and that modeling results for this single year are adequate
for evaluating the Interim Strategy under the two-prong test. Although
the Ramboll Environ analysis primarily addressed IS3 and IS4, the
curtailment period for IS2 (October 21-January 31) also includes the
months of November through January, so the same conclusion also applies
to IS2.
We acknowledge the analysis of extending the curtailment period,
but we note that this analysis is not necessary to demonstrate that the
Interim Strategy would result in greater reasonable progress than BART.
It is sufficient that the modeling demonstrates that each of the
Interim Strategy options passes the two-prong test.
IV. Final Action
For the reasons explained in our proposal and in our responses to
comments in this document, we have determined that the Coronado SIP
Revision will provide for greater reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART. We have also determined that the
Coronado SIP Revision meets all other requirements of the CAA and the
EPA's implementing regulations. Therefore, we are approving the
Coronado SIP Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because this approval fills
the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior
partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we are withdrawing those
portions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that address BART for
Coronado. Additionally, we are taking final action to remove those
portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by
previously-approved revisions to the Arizona SIP or are being
superseded by this final approval of the Coronado SIP revision.
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
As explained above, the Coronado SIP Revision will result in
reduced emissions of both SO2 and PM10 compared
to the existing Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP requirements. While
the Coronado SIP Revision will result in fewer NOX
reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP would have required
between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX emissions
remain at or below current levels until 2025, after which it will
require NOX emissions reductions equivalent to or greater
than would have been required under the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.
Furthermore, Coronado is located in an area that is designated
attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not
yet been designated for each of the current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
believes that this action will not have potential disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income, or indigenous populations.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the state
permit provisions described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region
IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan,
are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval,
and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal
Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. This rule applies to only a single facility and is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action approving revisions to a State Implementation Plan
and removing the applicable Federal Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze applies to only a single facility and is therefore is a Rule of
Particular Applicability that is exempted under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule applies to only a single facility. Therefore, its
recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a ``collection
of information'' as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. 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. The owner of facility affected by this rule,
SRP, exceeds this threshold.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
[[Page 46914]]
F. 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 on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is
not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical
standards in this action.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section V above.
L. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA has determined that
this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section
307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain
rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to Coronado is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d),
as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of
section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.'' The EPA determines that the provisions of 307(d) apply to
the EPA's action on the Coronado SIP Revision.
M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability. The EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability that only applies to a single named facility.
N. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 28, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator, EPA.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (d), under the table heading ``EPA-Approved Source-
Specific Requirements'' by adding an entry for ``Coronado Generating
Station'' after the entry for ``Cholla Power Plant;''
0
b. In paragraph (e), under the table heading ``Table 1--EPA-Approved
Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'' by adding an entry for
``Coronado Generating Station'' after the entry for ``Cholla SIP
Revision.''
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Coronado Generating Station..... Permit #64169 (as November 9, 2017................ October 10, 2017, [INSERT Permit issued by Arizona
amended by Significant Federal Register CITATION]. Department of
Revision #63088) Cover Environmental Quality.
Page and Attachment Submitted on December
``E'': BART 15, 2016.
Alternatives.
[[Page 46915]]
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable geographic or
Name of SIP provision nonattainment area or title/ State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona State Implementation Source-Specific................. December 15, 2016.............. October 10, 2017, [INSERT BART Alternative
Plan Revision to the Arizona Federal Register CITATION]. for Coronado
Regional Haze Plan for the Salt Generating
River Project Coronado Station adopted
Generating Station, excluding December 14,
Appendix B. 2016.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part
D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson
Areas.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.145 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1).
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)-(vi).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (f).
[FR Doc. 2017-21604 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P