[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 19220-19226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07987]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647; FRL-9923-88-Region 9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; 
Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
that establishes an alternative to best available retrofit technology 
(BART) for Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at Arizona Electric Power 
Cooperative's (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station (Apache). Under the 
BART Alternative, ST2 will be converted from a primarily coal-fired 
unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 
will remain as a coal-fired unit and would be retrofitted with 
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) control technology. The SIP 
revision also revises the emission limit for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) applicable to Apache Steam Unit 1 (ST1), when it is 
operated in combined-cycle mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA has 
determined that the BART Alternative for ST2 and ST3 would provide 
greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than 
BART, in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR). Accordingly, we are approving all 
elements of the SIP revision, with the exception of a provision 
pertaining to affirmative defenses for malfunctions. In conjunction 
with this final approval, we are withdrawing those portions of the 
Arizona Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that address BART for Apache.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647 for 
this action. Generally, documents in the docket are available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at EPA 
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. Please note 
that while many of the documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov/, some information may not be specifically listed in 
the index to the docket and may be publicly available only at the hard 
copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 
reports, or otherwise voluminous materials), and some may not be 
available at either locations (e.g., confidential business 
information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed 
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at telephone number 
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at webb.thomas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the 
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department 
of Environmental Quality.
     The initials AEPCO mean or refer to Arizona Electric Power 
Cooperative.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
     The initials CEMS mean or refer to a continuous emissions 
monitoring system.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I 
Federal area.
     The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation 
Plan.
     The initials GT1 mean or refer to Gas Turbine Unit 1.
     The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup 
on Air Quality Modeling.
     The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX 
burners.
     The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British 
thermal units
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen 
oxides.
     The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
     The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze 
Rule.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to Selective Non-Catalytic 
Reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 
dioxide.
     The initials ST1 mean or refer to Steam Unit 1.
     The initials ST2 mean or refer to Steam Unit 2.
     The initials ST3 mean or refer to Steam Unit 3.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On September 19, 2014, EPA proposed to approve a revision to the 
Arizona Regional Haze SIP concerning Apache Generating Station 
(``Apache SIP Revision'').\1\ As described in the proposal, the Apache 
SIP Revision consists of two components: a BART alternative for ST2 and 
ST3 (``Apache

[[Page 19221]]

BART Alternative'') and a revised NOX emission limit for ST1 
and GT1 when operated in combined-cycle mode. The Apache BART 
Alternative was submitted pursuant to provisions of the RHR that allow 
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.\2\ Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 would be converted from 
a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality 
natural gas, while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired unit and would be 
retrofitted with SNCR. Emission limits to implement the Apache BART 
Alternative and the revised limit for ST1 and GT1, as well as 
associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements, are incorporated into an addendum to Apache's 
Operating Permit, which was submitted as part of the Apache SIP 
Revision.\3\ We proposed to approve each of these components because we 
proposed to determine that they complied with the relevant requirements 
of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. In particular, we 
proposed to find that the Apache BART Alternative would provide greater 
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART.\4\ 
We also proposed to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional 
Haze FIP that apply to Apache and to find that withdrawal of the FIP 
would constitute our action on AEPCO's Petition for Reconsideration of 
the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 79 FR 56322. Please refer to that notice of proposed 
rulemaking for background information concerning the CAA, the RHR 
and the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP.
    \2\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
    \3\ Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant Revision No. 
59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412 (``Apache Permit 
Revision''), issued May 13, 2014.
    \4\ For purposes of our evaluation, we considered BART for ST2 
and ST3 to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART 
determinations for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) and sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), which were approved into the applicable SIP, and 
(2) EPA's BART determination for NOX in the Arizona RH 
FIP. See 79 FR 56326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received a comment letter from Earthjustice on 
behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club 
(collectively, the ``Conservation Organizations''). The comments and 
our responses are summarized below.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the Apache 
BART Alternative fails the first prong of the test set forth at 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(3) because it would result in greater total emissions than 
EPA's BART FIP. They also noted that there appeared to be confusion 
over whether the ``distribution of emissions'' under the Apache BART 
Alternative and EPA's BART FIP are different. In addition, they urged 
EPA to clarify that ``even if a BART alternative applies to the same 
facility as the underlying BART determination, the distribution of 
emissions is not the same if NOX, SO2, PM, and 
other visibility-impairing pollutants will be emitted in different 
amounts or different proportions.''
    Response: We agree that, compared with BART, the Apache BART 
Alternative is expected to result in greater total emissions than EPA's 
BART FIP. In particular, the Alternative would result in greater 
NOX emissions, but lower emissions of SO2 and 
PM10. In 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). As explained below, 
Arizona chose not to apply the ``greater emission reductions'' test, 
but instead to employ a clear weight-of-evidence approach under 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2) in order to demonstrate that the alternative achieves 
greater reasonable progress than BART.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the modeling 
underlying the Apache BART Alternative does not accurately reflect 
emissions under the Apache BART Alternative or BART. In particular, the 
commenters noted that the modeling results provided in EPA's proposal 
were based on AEPCO's petition for reconsideration from May 2013, but 
the emissions projections summarized in EPA's proposal differed from 
those in AEPCO's petition. Therefore, the Conservation Organizations 
asserted that the modeling EPA used to support its approval of the 
Apache BART Alternative does not accurately reflect visibility benefits 
of the alternative compared to BART.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the total annual 
emission projections summarized in Table 5 of our proposal differ from 
those reflected in AEPCO's May 2013 petition for reconsideration. 
However we do not agree that this difference affects the visibility 
modeling underlying the Apache BART Alternative because the modeling is 
based on projected maximum short-term (24-hour) emission rates, whereas 
the differences in annual emission projections are due to different 
assumptions concerning long-term heat rates and capacity factors. In 
particular, we note that the emission reduction projections included in 
AEPCO's May 2013 petition for reconsideration and shown in Table 1.6 of 
the SIP are based on maximum heat rates and conservative annual 
capacity factors and therefore represent conservative (high-end) 
emissions projections.\5\ By contrast, the emission reductions shown in 
Table 5 of our proposal and Table 6 of the SIP Technical Support 
Document are calculated based on 2008-2010 continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS) heat rates and annual average days of 
operation. Accordingly, they reflect lower annual emission projections, 
both for BART and the BART Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See AEPCO Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration at 4-5 
and Apache SIP Revision, Table 1.6 at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These differing assumptions concerning annual heat rates and 
capacity factors do not influence the visibility modeling, which is 
based on maximum 24-hour average emission rates.\6\ In calculating the 
emission rates for modeling, AEPCO followed the approach set forth in 
the BART Guidelines, which provide that post-control 24-hour emission 
rates should be calculated as a percentage of pre-control 24-hour 
emission rates.\7\ We find ADEQ's approach to calculating modeled 
emission rates is consistent with BART Guidelines and provides a sound 
technical basis to compare the expected visibility improvement from the 
BART Alternative to the expected improvement from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g. BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 
section IV.D.5. (``Use the 24-hour average actual emission rate from 
the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled (for 
the pre-control scenario). . .'').
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations commented that the modeling 
underlying the Apache BART Alternative reflects an emission rate for 
Unit 2 (0.225 lbs/MMBtu) that is lower than the permitted emission 
limit for the unit (0.23 lbs/MMBtu) and therefore overestimates the 
Apache BART Alternative's visibility benefits relative to BART.
    Response: AEPCO's petition for reconsideration included modeling 
for several different control scenarios.\8\ In the Apache SIP Revision, 
ADEQ focused on control scenario 9bv2 PNGt, which

[[Page 19222]]

included a NOX emission rate of 0.225 lb/MMBtu for ST3, 
reflecting use of SNCR. As noted by the commenter, this 0.225 lb/MMBtu 
emission rate is lower than the permitted NOX emission limit 
for ST3 \9\ of 0.23 lb/MMBtu. However, contrary to the commenter's 
assertion this difference does not result in an overestimation of the 
visibility benefits of the Apache BART Alternative. Rather, the 
difference reflects the fact that, under the BART Guidelines, emission 
rates for BART modeling are calculated in a different manner than BART 
emission limits.\10\ In particular, the BART Guidelines recommend that 
modeling be performed using an average 24-hour emission rate,\11\ 
excluding periods of startup and shutdown.\12\ By contrast, emission 
limits for EGUs are established based on 30-day rolling averages and 
must be met on a continuous basis, including during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to 
Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (AEPCO Supplemental 
Petition for Reconsideration) (May 29, 2013); Attachment, Memorandum 
from Ralph Morris and Lynsey Parker, Environ, to Michelle Freeark, 
AEPCO (May 10, 2013), Tables 1 and 2.
    \9\ The comment referred to ``Unit 2.'' However, this appears to 
be a typographical error, as 0.23 lb/MMBtu is the permitted emission 
limit for ST3, not ST2.
    \10\ Use of the BART Guidelines is required only for BART 
determinations at fossil-fuel fired generating stations with a 
capacity greater than 750 MW. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B). The 
Apache Generating Station has a total capacity less than 750 MW. 
However, because the BART Guidelines are a useful resource for 
performing BART determinations, both ADEQ and EPA have adhered to 
the requirements of the BART Guidelines in evaluating this better-
than-BART alternative.
    \11\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.5 (``Use the 
24-hour average actual emission rate from the highest emitting day 
of the meteorological period modeled (for the pre-control scenario).
    \12\ Id. section III.A.3 (recommending that ``emissions 
reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction'' not be 
used for modeling).
    \13\ See CAA section 302(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the SNCR system on ST3 will not be capable of 
operating during portions of startup and shutdown periods.\14\ 
Therefore, the emission rate for startup and shutdown periods will be 
higher than 0.225 lb/MMBtu, the value that corresponds entirely to SNCR 
operation. Over a period of 30 days, the emissions from these periods 
of time could cause the 30-day average emission rate to exceed 0.225 
lb/MMBtu. Accordingly, ADEQ set a 30-day emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu 
to account for the emissions from startup and shutdown periods. The 
upward revision from 0.225 lb/MMBtu to 0.23 lb/MMBtu represents a 
difference of approximately two percent. We consider this degree of 
upward revision reasonable to account for startup and shutdown periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The SNCR system requires the boiler exhaust gas to be above 
a certain minimum temperature in order to properly function. During 
portions of the startup period, the exhaust gas will be below this 
temperature while the boiler heats up, precluding operation of SNCR 
controls during these portions of the startup period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as explained by ADEQ in its response to comments from 
the Conservation Organizations, one of the other scenarios modeled by 
AEPCO and included in its May 2013 petition, a scenario known as 9b 
PNGt, used more conservative emission factors.\15\ In particular, 9b 
PNGt included a NOX emission factor of 0.230 lb/MMBtu for 
ST3, which is equivalent to the emission limit for this unit in the 
Apache SIP Revision. In its response to comments, ADEQ compared the 
results of this modeling run to the baseline results and the BART case. 
ADEQ found that the Apache BART Alternative (as represented by 9b PNGt) 
would result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas 
compared to the baseline and would result in improved visibility, on 
average, across all affected Class I areas compared with BART.\16\ 
Thus, the results of 9b PNGt confirm ADEQ's determination that the 
Apache BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress than 
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Apache SIP Revision, Responsiveness Summary at 13.
    \16\ Id. at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations noted that the modeling 
cited in EPA's proposal shows that visibility at two Class I areas--the 
Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas--will be worse under the BART 
Alternative compared to BART. The commenters asserted that EPA should 
update its modeling to correct the alleged flaws identified by the 
commenters and confirm whether the BART Alternative will in fact result 
in less visibility improvement at these two Class I areas. They argued 
that ``EPA's failure to consider measures to improve visibility at 
every Class I area impacted by Apache is contrary to the intent of the 
regional haze regulations.''
    Response: We agree that modeling indicates that visibility at two 
Class I areas--the Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas--will be 
slightly worse under the BART Alternative compared to BART. However, 
this does not preclude approval of the Apache BART Alternative because, 
as explained in our proposal, the BART Alternative will result in 
improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with 
baseline conditions \17\ and will result in improved visibility, on 
average, across all Class I Areas, compared with BART. As EPA explained 
in the preamble to the final BART Alternative Rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Here ``baseline'' refers to controls in place at Apache as 
of 2013. See 79 FR 56326, footnote 30.

    . . . within a regional haze context, not every measure taken is 
required to achieve a visibility improvement at every class I area. 
BART is one component of long term strategies to make reasonable 
progress, but it is not the only component. The requirement that the 
alternative achieves greater progress based on the average 
improvement at all Class I areas assures that, by definition, the 
alternative will achieve greater progress overall. Though there may 
be cases where BART could produce greater improvement at one or more 
class I areas, the no-degradation prong assures that the alternative 
will not result in worsened conditions anywhere than would otherwise 
exist. . . .\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 71 FR 60612, 60621-22.

Thus, in promulgating the BART Alternative requirements, EPA clearly 
contemplated that there could be instances where a BART alternative 
would result in less progress at a particular Class I area, yet ensure 
overall greater reasonable progress than BART. This is the case with 
the Apache BART Alternative.
    Comment: The Conservation Organizations argued that EPA's modeling 
is flawed because it only considered visibility impacts at Class I 
areas within 300 kilometers (km) of Apache. Citing a recent evaluation 
of CALPUFF by EPA,\19\ they commented that ``the model is more accurate 
at farther distances than previously assumed.'' Therefore, they 
asserted that EPA should have considered Apache's visibility impacts at 
a radius of 500 km.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long 
Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data'' (2012), 
is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We do not agree that we should have considered visibility 
impacts at Class I areas greater than 300 km from Apache. The report 
cited by the Conservation Organizations does not support the regulatory 
use of CALPUFF beyond 300 km, nor does it refute the 1998 Interagency 
Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 report, which states 
that ``use of CALPUFF for characterizing transport beyond 200 to 300 km 
should be done cautiously with an awareness of the likely problems 
involved.'' \20\ Consistent with this recommendation, our BART analysis 
in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP evaluated visibility impacts and 
improvements at the nine Class I areas within 300 km of Apache.\21\ It 
was reasonable for ADEQ and EPA to

[[Page 19223]]

consider these same Class I areas when assessing the Apache BART 
Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``IWAQM Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for 
Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts,'' available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf, at 18.
    \21\ See 77 FR 42834, 42857 (``The nine Class I areas within 300 
km of Apache were modeled'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Citing the preambles to EPA's proposed and final revisions 
to the RHR concerning BART alternatives, the Conservation Organizations 
asserted that the weight-of-evidence alternative to the two-part test 
is generally appropriate only when a state cannot conduct the two-part 
test, or when the state has significant confidence that a BART 
alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. They 
argued that Arizona's weight-of-evidence approach was inappropriate 
here because the state had sufficient data to conduct the two-part test 
and ``could not have had confidence that the alternative would result 
in superior visibility benefits.''
    Response: We do not agree with this comment. Nothing in the RHR or 
in the preamble language cited by the commenters indicates that the 
weight-of-evidence test is appropriate only when a state cannot conduct 
the two-part test, or when the state has significant confidence that a 
BART alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. In 
the preamble to the 2006 final revisions to the RHR, EPA explained that 
we were adopting a weight of evidence test ``as an alternative to the 
methodology set forth in section 51.308(e)(3).'' \22\ EPA described the 
factors that could be considered as part of such test and suggested 
specific circumstances where a weight of evidence comparison ``may be 
warranted.'' \23\ However, EPA did not indicate that these were the 
only circumstances in which this approach could be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 71 FR 60612, 60621-22.
    \23\ Id. at 60622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, ADEQ found that the two-prong test as described 
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) was not appropriate and therefore chose to apply 
the clear weight of evidence test. Nonetheless, as explained in our 
proposal, we applied a modified version of the two-prong test, using 
the 98th percentile impacts (averaged across three years), rather than 
the best twenty-percent days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided 
for in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).\24\ The Apache BART Alternative meets both 
prongs of this modified test, which strongly supports the conclusion 
that the Apache BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable 
progress than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 79 FR 56328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The Conservation Organizations asserted that the Apache 
BART Alternative could be improved to achieve additional emissions 
reductions. In particular, the commenters suggested that EPA could 
require AEPCO to install SNCR at ST2 and switch ST3 to gas, rather than 
switching ST2 to gas and installing SNCR at ST3. They also encouraged 
EPA to consider capacity limitations or other operational limits to 
improve the alternative.
    Response: We do not agree that we can amend the Apache BART 
Alternative to provide greater emission reductions. Under the CAA, if 
EPA determines that a SIP meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
implementing regulations, we are obligated to approve the SIP.\25\ For 
the reasons described in our proposal and elsewhere in this document, 
we have determined that the Apache SIP revision meets the applicable 
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations, and we are therefore 
required to approve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See CAA section 110(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    As explained in our proposal and this document, we have determined 
that the Apache SIP Revision would provide for greater reasonable 
progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART. We have also 
determined that the Apache SIP Revision meets all other requirements of 
the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations with one exception: the 
Apache Permit Revision incorporates by reference certain state 
regulations that establish an affirmative defense for malfunctions (R-
18-2-101, paragraph 65; R18-2-310, sections (A), (B), (D) and (E); and 
R18-2-310.01).\26\ In a letter dated February 19, 2015, ADEQ requested 
that EPA not act on these provisions of the Apache SIP Revision at this 
time.\27\ Accordingly, we are taking final action to approve the Apache 
SIP Revision except for the affirmative defense provisions contained in 
the Apache Permit Revision. We are also taking final action to revise 
the Arizona Regional Haze FIP to remove those portions that apply to 
Apache. The withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies to Apache, also 
constitutes our final action on AEPCO's petition for reconsideration of 
the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Apache Permit Revision section V.D.
    \27\ See Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA 
(February 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the ADEQ 
permit revision described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov/ and/or 
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 13563

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This rule applies to only one facility 
and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

 B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. Firms primarily engaged in the 
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for 
sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for 
the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 
AEPCO sold under 3 million megawatt hours in 2013 and is therefore a 
small entity.

[[Page 19224]]

    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The approval 
of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The FIP withdrawal would alleviate 
economic impacts on AEPCO and therefore would not have a significant 
adverse impact on any small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal 
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small 
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any 
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 
205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule does not 
impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.

 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA 
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by 
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA 
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
rule. The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule 
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended 
to mitigate health or safety risks. This action addresses regional haze 
and visibility protection.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866.

 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies. 
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to 
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable VCS.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. This action 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental 
protection for all affected populations without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population, at a lower cost than the FIP.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types 
of rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to 
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, 
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or 
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 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.

[[Page 19225]]

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 9, 2015. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).
    In addition, pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) and (V) of the CAA, 
the Administrator determines 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 Apache 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 Administrator 
determines that the SIP approval portion of this action is also subject 
to 307(d). While the Administrator did not explicitly make this 
determination earlier, all of the procedural requirements, e.g., 
docketing, hearing and comment periods, of section 307(d) have been 
complied with during the course of this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended 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 by adding paragraph (c)(165) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (165) The following plan was submitted May 13, 2014, by the 
Governor's designee:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Significant Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit 
No. 55412, excluding section V.D., issued May 13, 2014.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Arizona State Implementation Plan, Revision to the Arizona 
Regional Haze Plan for Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, 
Incorporated, Apache Generating Station, excluding the appendices.


0
3. Section 52.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) introductory 
text, (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(5)(i)(A) and (B) 
and removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(B) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.145  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (f) Source-specific federal implementation plan for regional haze 
at Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station--(1) 
Applicability. This paragraph (f) applies to each owner/operator of the 
following coal-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) in the state 
of Arizona: Cholla Power Plant, Units 2, 3, and 4 and Coronado 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The provisions of this paragraph (f) 
are severable, and if any provision of this paragraph (f), or the 
application of any provision of this paragraph (f) to any owner/
operator or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such 
provision to other owner/operators and other circumstances, and the 
remainder of this paragraph (f), shall not be affected thereby.
    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning 
given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing 
the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (f):
    ADEQ means the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    Boiler-operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and 
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time 
in the unit.
    Coal-fired unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment 
required by 40 CFR part 75 and this paragraph (f).
    Emissions limitation or emissions limit means any of the Federal 
Emission Limitations required by this paragraph (f) or any of the 
applicable PM10 and SO2 emissions limits for 
Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station submitted to EPA as 
part of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP in a letter dated February 28, 
2011, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan on 
December 5, 2012.
    Flue Gas Desulfurization System or FGD means a pollution control 
device that employs flue gas desulfurization technology, including an 
absorber utilizing lime, fly ash, or limestone slurry, for the 
reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.
    Group of coal-fired units mean Units 1 and 2 for Coronado 
Generating Station and Units 2, 3, and 4 for Cholla Power Plant.
    lb means pound(s).
    NOX means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2).
    Owner(s)/operator(s) means any person(s) who own(s) or who 
operate(s), control(s), or supervise(s) one or more of the units 
identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    MMBtu means million British thermal unit(s).
    Operating hour means any hour that fossil fuel is fired in the 
unit.
    PM10 means filterable total particulate matter less than 10 microns 
and the condensable material in the impingers as measured by Methods 
201A and 202 in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA 
Region IX or his/her authorized representative.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    SO2 removal efficiency means the quantity of SO2 removed 
as calculated by the procedure in paragraph (f)(5)(iii)(B) of this 
section.
    Unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section.
    Valid data means data recorded when the CEMS is not out-of-control 
as defined by 40 CFR part 75.
    (3) * * *
    (i) NOX emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired 
unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall not emit or cause to be 
emitted NOX in excess of the following limitations, in 
pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any group of 
coal-fired units. Each emission limit shall be based on a rolling 30-
boiler-

[[Page 19226]]

operating-day average, unless otherwise indicated in specific 
paragraphs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Federal
                Group of coal-fired units                    emission
                                                            limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3, and 4....................           0.055
Coronado Generating Station Units 1 and 2...............           0.065
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) The owners/operators of each unit subject to this paragraph 
(f) shall comply with the applicable PM10 and SO2 
emissions limits submitted to EPA as part of the Arizona Regional Haze 
SIP in a letter dated February 28, 2011, and approved into the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan on December 5, 2012, as well as the related 
compliance, recordkeeping and reporting of this paragraph (f) no later 
than the following dates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Compliance date
              Unit               ---------------------------------------
                                         PM10                 SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cholla Power Plant, Unit 2......  April 1, 2016.....  April 1, 2016.
Cholla Power Plant, Unit 3......  June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
Cholla Power Plant, Unit 4......  June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
Coronado Generating Station,      June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
 Unit 1.
Coronado Generating Station,      June 3, 2013......  June 3, 2013.
 Unit 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph 
(f)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of each coal-fired unit 
shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with 
the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure 
SO2, NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow 
rate from each unit. In addition, the owner/operator of Cholla Units 2, 
3, and 4 shall calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS, in full 
compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately 
measure SO2 emissions and diluent at the inlet of the sulfur 
dioxide control device. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to 
determine compliance with the emission limitations for NOX 
and SO2 in paragraph (f)(3) of this section for each unit. 
When the CEMS is out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75, that CEMs 
data shall be treated as missing data, and not used to calculate the 
emission average. Each required CEMS must obtain valid data for at 
least 90 percent of the unit operating hours, on an annual basis.
    (B) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality 
assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to 
these 40 CFR part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall 
be calculated for both the NOX and SO2 pounds per 
hour measurement and the heat input measurement. The CEMs monitoring 
data shall not be bias adjusted. The inlet SO2 and diluent 
monitors required by this rule shall also meet the Quality Assurance/
Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The testing and 
evaluation of the inlet monitors and the calculations of relative 
accuracy for lb/hr of NOX, SO2 and heat input 
shall be performed each time the 40 CFR part 75 CEMS undergo relative 
accuracy testing. In addition, relative accuracy test audits shall be 
performed in the units of lb/MMBtu for the inlet and outlet 
SO2 monitors at Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4.
    (ii) * * *
* * * * *
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-07987 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


