56322 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves the consolidation and 

rationalization of existing Apra Harbor 

navigation regulations. This rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A 

preliminary environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 165.1401 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.1401 Apra Harbor, Guam—safety 

zones. 

(a) Location. (1) The following is 

designated Safety Zone A: The waters of 

Apra Outer Harbor encompassed within 

an arc of 1,000 yards radius centered at 

the center of Naval Wharf Kilo, located 

at 13 degrees 26′’44.5′′ N and 144 

degrees 37′50.7′′ E. (Based on World 

Geodetic System 1984 Datum). 

(2) The following is designated Safety 

Zone B: The waters of Apra Outer 

Harbor encompassed within an arc of 

1,400 yards radius centered at the center 

of Naval Wharf Kilo, located at 13 

degrees 26′44.5′′ N and 144 degrees 

37′50.7′′ E. (Based on World Geodetic 

System 1984 Datum). 

(b) Special regulations. (1) Safety 

Zone A, described in paragraph (a) of 

this section, will only be enforced when 

Naval Wharf Kilo, or a vessel berthed at 

Naval Wharf Kilo, is displaying a red 

(BRAVO) flag by day or a red light by 

night, accompanied by a ‘‘SAFETY 

ZONE A’’ sign. 

(2) Safety Zone B described in 

paragraph (a) of this section will only be 

enforced when Naval Wharf Kilo, or a 

vessel berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is 

displaying a red (BRAVO) flag by day or 

a red light by night, accompanied by a 

‘‘SAFETY ZONE B’’ sign. 

(3) Under general regulations in 

§ 165.23, entry into the zones described 

in paragraph (a) of this section is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Guam. 

§ 165.1402 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 165.1402. 

■ 4. In § 165.1405, remove paragraph 

(a)(4), and revise the section heading 

and paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 165.1405 Regulated Navigation Areas 

and Security Zones; Designated Escorted 

Vessels–Philippine Sea and Apra Harbor, 

Guam, and Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI). 

(a) * * * 

(2) All waters from surface to bottom 

of Apra Outer Harbor, Guam, shoreward 

of the COLREGS Demarcation line as 

described in 33 CFR part 80. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 4, 2014. 

C. B. Thomas, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fourteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22428 Filed 9–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647, FRL–9916–85- 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans; 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

source-specific revision to the Arizona 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

establishes an alternative to best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative’s 

(AEPCO) Apache Generating Station 

(Apache). The SIP revision also revises 

the emission limit for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) applicable to Steam Unit 1 (ST1), 

when it is operated in combined-cycle 

mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA 

proposes to find that the BART 

alternative for ST2 and ST3 would 

provide greater reasonable progress 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 56323 

1Although 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.’’ 

toward natural visibility conditions than 

BART, in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR). 

We also propose to approve the revision 

to the NOX emission limit for ST1 and 

GT1. In conjunction with this proposed 

approval, we propose to withdraw those 

portions of the federal implementation 

plan (FIP) that address BART for 

Apache. We previously partially granted 

AEPCO’s petition for reconsideration of 

that FIP and are now proposing to find 

that withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies 

to Apache, constitutes our action on 

AEPCO’s Petition for Reconsideration of 

the FIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 3, 

2014. Requests for public hearing must 

be received on or before October 6, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for further 

instructions on where and how to learn 

more about this proposal, request a 

public hearing, or submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at webb.thomas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. The Apache SIP Revision 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

• The initials AEPCO mean or refer to 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. 

• The words Arizona and State mean 

the State of Arizona. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

• The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area.1

• The initials CBI mean or refer to 

Confidential Business Information. 

• The initials EGU mean or refer to 

Electric Generating Unit. 

• The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

• The initials GT1 mean or refer to 

Gas Turbine Unit 1. 

• The initials LNB mean or refer to 

low-NOX burners. 

• The initials MMBtu mean or refer to 

million British thermal units 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials OFA mean or refer to 

over fire air. 

• The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers. 

• The initials RHR mean or refer to 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

Selective Catalytic Reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

• The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

• The initials ST1 mean or refer to 

Steam Unit 1. 

• The initials ST2 mean or refer to 

Steam Unit 2. 

• The initials ST3 mean or refer to 

Steam Unit 3. 

B. Docket 

The proposed action relies on 

documents, information, and data that 

are listed in the index on http://

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available 

(e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Planning Office of the Air Division, 

AIR–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA 

requests that you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 9–5:00 PDT, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

C. Instructions for Submitting 

Comments to EPA 

Written comments must be submitted 

on or before November 3, 2014. Submit 

your comments, identified by Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647, by one 

of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov.. 

• Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Thomas Webb). 

• Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105. Hand 

and courier deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.–4:30 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA’s policy is to include all 

comments received in the public docket 

without change. We may make 

comments available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or that is 

otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, we will include 

your email address as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should not 

include special characters or any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

D. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

http://www.regulations.gov or by email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim as CBI. For 

CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM 

that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56324 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 77 FR 42834, 42837–42839 (July 20, 2012), 

(Arizona Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 1’’ Rule) 77 FR 

75704, 75709–75712 (December 21, 2012), (Arizona 

Regional Haze ‘‘Phase 2’’ Rule). 

3 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1). 

4See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492. 

5Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this 

action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

area.’’ 

6See generally 40 CFR 51.308. 

7 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

8 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

9 77 FR 72512. 

10Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and 

Hiser, to Lisa Jackson, EPA (February 2, 2013). 

11Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and 

Hiser, to Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, 

EPA (May 29, 2013). 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. We will not disclose 

information so marked except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (e.g., subject heading, 

Federal Register date and page number). 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the identified comment 

period deadline. 

F. Public Hearings 

If anyone contacts EPA by October 6, 

2014 requesting to speak at a public 

hearing, EPA will schedule a public 

hearing and announce the hearing in the 

Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb 

at (415) 947–4139 or at webb.thomas@

epa.gov to request a hearing or to 

determine if a hearing will be held. 

II. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

This section provides a brief overview 

of the requirements of the CAA and 

RHR, as they apply to this particular 

action. Please refer to our previous 

rulemakings on the Arizona Regional 

Haze SIP for additional background 

regarding the visibility protection 

provisions of the CAA and the RHR.2

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ 3 It also 

directs states to evaluate the use of 

retrofit controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 (known as ‘‘BART-eligible’’ 

sources) procure, install, and operate 

BART. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, 

Congress amended the visibility 

provisions in the CAA to focus attention 

on the problem of regional haze, which 

is visibility impairment produced by a 

multitude of sources and activities 

located across a broad geographic area.4

In 1999, we promulgated the RHR, 

which requires states to develop and 

implement SIPs to ensure reasonable 

progress toward improving visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I 

areas) 5 by reducing emissions that 

cause or contribute to regional haze.6

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for 

BART-eligible sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area.7

In lieu of requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt alternative measures, 

as long as the alternative provides 

greater reasonable progress towards 

natural visibility conditions than BART 

(i.e., the alternative must be ‘‘better than 

BART’’).8

B. Summary of State Submittals and 

EPA Actions 

1. 2011 Arizona RH SIP 

On February 28, 2011, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP 

under Section 308 of the RHR (‘‘Arizona 

RH SIP’’) to EPA. This submittal 

included BART determinations for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 

less than 10 micrometers (PM10), and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) at Apache Units 

ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is a wallfired boiler with a net unit output of 85 

MW that burns pipeline-quality natural 

gas as its primary fuel. Units ST2 and 

ST3 are both dry-bottom, Riley Stoker 

turbo-fired boilers, operating on subbituminous coal, each with a gross unit 

output of 204 MW. 

2. 2012 EPA Action on Arizona RH SIP 

and FIP 

On December 5, 2012, we issued a 

final rule approving in part and 

disapproving in part ADEQ’s BART 

determinations for three sources, 

including Apache.9 In particular, we 

approved ADEQ’s BART determinations 

for NOX, PM10, and SO2 at Apache ST1 

and PM10 and SO2 at ST2 and ST3, but 

disapproved ADEQ’s BART 

determinations for NOX at ST2 and ST3. 

We also found that the SIP lacked 

enforceable emission limits for all units 

and pollutants. In the same action, we 

promulgated a FIP for the disapproved 

portions of the SIP, including NOX

BART determinations for ST2 and ST3. 

We determined that BART for NOX at 

ST2 and ST3 was an emission limit of 

0.070 pounds per million British 

thermal units (lb/MMBtu) determined as 

an average across the two units, based 

on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day 

average, which is achievable with the 

use of low-NOX burners (LNB), overfire 

air (OFA) and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR). We also established 

compliance dates and requirements for 

equipment maintenance, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for all 

units and all pollutants. 

3. 2013 AEPCO Petition for 

Reconsideration of RH FIP for Apache 

Generating Station 

On February 4, 2013, AEPCO 

submitted a petition to EPA seeking 

reconsideration of the final rule 

(‘‘AEPCO Petition’’).10 On May 29, 2013, 

AEPCO submitted a supplemental 

petition providing an alternative to the 

BART determinations in that rule 

(‘‘Apache BART Alternative’’).11 The 

Apache BART Alternative consisted of a 

conversion to pipeline natural gas (PNG) 

combustion at ST2 and a NOX emission 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 56325 

12Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Eric 

Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser (June 6, 2013). 

13Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, EPA (May 3, 2013), Enclosure 3, 

Arizona RH SIP Revision. 

14 Id. Appendix D, pages 5–6 (footnotes to tables 

1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) and page 49. The reason for this 

distinction is that gas turbines are not among the 

26 industrial source categories included in the 

definition of ‘‘existing stationary facility’’ in the 

Regional Haze Rule, whereas combined cycle 

turbines are included in this list. See 40 CFR 

51.301; 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section II.A.1. 15See Supplemental Proposal, 78 FR 46142, 

46175 (codified at 40 CFR 

52.120(c)(158)(ii)(A)(1)(iii)). 

16Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, EPA (May 13, 2014), Enclosure 3, 

Revision to the Arizona RH Plan for AEPCO Apache 

Generating Station. 

17Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant 

Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit 

No. 55412 (‘‘Apache Permit Revision’’)(issued May 

13, 2014). 

18Apache SIP Revision, sections 2.2 and 2.3. 

19Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Eric 

Massey, ADEQ (July 18, 2014). 

20See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and 

Hiser, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013). 

21 Id. section 3.1, footnote 9. 

22 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i). 

limit based upon selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) at ST3. On June 6, 

2013, we sent a letter to representatives 

of AEPCO granting partial 

reconsideration of the final rule under 

CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).12

Specifically, we stated that we were 

granting reconsideration of the emission 

limits for NOX, PM10, and SO2 at ST2 

and ST3, the compliance methodology 

for NOX at ST2 and ST3, and the 

provisions of the rule applicable to ST1 

and GT1. 

4. 2013 Arizona RH SIP Revision and 

Clarification 

On May 3, 2013, ADEQ submitted a 

revision to the Arizona RH SIP.13

Among other things, the SIP revision 

clarified that the BART emission limits 

for ST1 apply when ST1 operates alone 

or if ST1 is operated in combined-cycle 

mode with the adjacent GT1, but not to 

(a) GT1 in stand-alone simple-cycle 

operation or (b) ST1/GT1 when ST1 

burners are shut off and ST1 is not 

producing electricity.14 EPA approved 

this clarification in our July 30, 2013 

Phase 2 final rule on the Arizona RH 

SIP.15

5. 2014 Arizona RH SIP Revision for 

Apache Generating Station 

On May 13, 2014, ADEQ submitted a 

revision to the Arizona RH SIP that 

incorporated the Apache BART 

Alternative (‘‘Apache SIP Revision’’).16

The Apache SIP Revision also revised 

the NOX emission limit for ST1 during 

combined-cycle operation. The Apache 

SIP Revision is the subject of this 

proposal. 

III. The Apache SIP Revision 

A. Summary of the Apache SIP Revision 

The Apache SIP Revision consists of 

two components: a BART Alternative 

for ST2 and ST3, and a revised NOX

emission limit for ST1 and GT1 when 

operated in combined-cycle mode. 

1. Apache BART Alternative 

Under the Apache BART Alternative, 

ST2 would be converted from a 

primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that 

combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, 

while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired 

unit and would be retrofitted with 

SNCR. The emission limits associated 

with the Alternative are summarized in 

Table 1. The compliance date for all 

limits is December 5, 2017, except that 

a more stringent limit for PM10 at ST2 

(0.008 lb/MMBtu) that will be effective 

on December 5, 2018. 

TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE BART ALTERNATIVE

Unit 

Emission limit 

(lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days) 

NOX PM10 SO2

ST2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.085 0.01, then 0.008 (effective 

December 5, 2018).

0.00064 

ST3 ......................................................................................................................... 0.23 0.03 .................................... 0.15 

ADEQ incorporated the revised 

emission limits, as well as associated 

compliance deadlines and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements, as an addendum to 

Apache’s Operating Permit, which was 

submitted as part of the Apache SIP 

Revision.17 The SIP revision also 

includes ADEQ’s determination that the 

Apache BART Alternative is ‘‘better 

than BART,’’ based on total estimated 

emissions reductions, reductions in 

visibility impairing pollutants, 

IMPROVE monitoring data, and 

improvements in modeled visibility 

impacts from Apache.18 More 

information regarding ADEQ’s analysis 

is set forth below, along with EPA’s 

evaluation of the analysis. On July 18, 

2014, EPA determined that the Apache 

SIP Revision was complete under CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(B).19

2. Revised Emission Limit for ST1 and 

GT1 

The Apache SIP Revision revises the 

NOX emission limit for the combinedcycle operation of ST1 with GT1 from 

0.056 lb/MMBtu to 0.10 lb/MMBtu, 

based on a determination that the 0.056 

lb/MMBtu limit is not achievable during 

combined cycle operations and that 

inclusion of emissions from GT1 would 

result in an emission rate of 0.10 lb/

MMbtu.20 In order to ensure that this 

revision does not result in an overall 

increase in NOX emissions, the SIP 

Revision also sets a 1205 lb/day limit, 

based on a 30-calendar-day average, for 

ST1 operating in standalone mode or in 

combined-cycle mode with GT1. ADEQ 

derived this emission limit based on the 

existing emission limit of 0.056 lb/

MMBtu (the original NOX emission limit 

required for ST1 and GT1 in combinedcycle mode), and a conservative 

estimate of the heat rate (10,985 Btu/

kWhr) over the primary operating range 

of ST1 and GT1 in combined-cycle 

operation.21

B. EPA’s Evaluation of Apache BART 

Alternative 

The RHR requires that a SIP revision 

establishing a BART alternative include 

three elements as listed below. We have 

evaluated the Apache BART Alternative 

with respect to each of these elements. 

• A demonstration that the emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure will achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would have resulted from 

the installation and operation of BART 

at all sources subject to BART in the 

State and covered by the alternative 

program.22

• A requirement that all necessary 

emissions reductions take place during 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56326 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

24 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). 

25See 77 FR 75704, 75719–75720; 78 FR 46142, 

46151–46152. 

26 Id. 

27 79 FR 52420. 

28See generally 77 FR 72512, 78 FR 46142. 

29ADEQ refers to the BART control scenario as 

‘‘2013 SCR.’’ See TSD page 4 (‘‘This scenario 

assumes SCR, LNB, and OFA implementation as 

well as ESP and wet scrubber upgrades.’’). 

30ADEQ considered two different baseline 

scenarios—2007 (assuming use of Electrostatic 

Precipitation (ESP) and wet scrubber upgrades) and 

2013 (assuming use of OFA, ESP, and wet scrubber 

upgrades). See SIP TSD at 3. We have chosen to 

employ the 2013 Baseline, consistent with our 

original BART analysis, which used a baseline with 

OFA. See 78 FR 42856, Table 16. 

the period of the first long-term strategy 

for regional haze.23

• A demonstration that the emissions 

reductions resulting from the alternative 

measure will be surplus to those 

reductions resulting from measures 

adopted to meet requirements of the 

CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.24

1. Demonstration of the Alternative 

Measure Will Achieve Greater 

Reasonable Progress 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), 

ADEQ must demonstrate that the 

alternative measure will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would have 

resulted from the installation and 

operation of BART at all sources subject 

to BART in the State and covered by the 

alternative program. This demonstration 

must be based on five criteria, which are 

addressed below. 

a. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources 

Within the State 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), 

the SIP must include a list of all BARTeligible sources within the State. ADEQ 

included a list of BART-eligible sources 

in the Arizona RH SIP.25 As part of the 

Phase 2 Arizona regional haze 

rulemaking, EPA approved the majority 

of ADEQ’s BART-eligibility 

determinations, but disapproved 

ADEQ’s finding that Tucson Electric 

Power (TEP) Sundt Unit 4 was not 

BART-eligible.26 In the Phase 3 Arizona 

regional haze rulemaking, EPA 

determined that TEP Sundt Unit 4 was 

BART-eligible and subject-to-BART and 

made final BART determinations for 

this unit.27 Thus, all BART-eligible 

sources in the State have been 

addressed either in a SIP or FIP. We 

propose to find that the existing Arizona 

RH SIP and FIP fulfill the requirement 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) for a list of 

all BART-eligible sources within the 

State. 

b. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources 

and All Bart Source Categories Covered 

by the Alternative Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), 

each BART-eligible source in the State 

must be subject to the requirements of 

the alternative program or have a 

federally enforceable emission 

limitation determined by the State and 

approved by EPA as meeting BART. In 

this instance, the alternative program 

covers only Apache ST2 and ST3. All 

other BART-eligible sources and units 

in the State have already been addressed 

in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP.28

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

Apache SIP Revision meets the 

requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). 

c. Analysis of BART and Associated 

Emission Reductions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), 

the SIP must include an analysis of 

BART and associated emission 

reductions at ST2 and ST3. As noted 

above, ADEQ’s BART analyses and 

determinations for ST2 and ST3 were 

included in the Arizona RH SIP. EPA 

approved ADEQ’s BART determinations 

for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved 

ADEQ’s BART determination for NOX at 

ST2 and ST3 and conducted our own 

BART analysis and determination for 

NOX BART for ST2 and ST3 in a FIP. 

In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ 

compared the BART Alternative both to 

ADEQ’s original BART determinations 

and to EPA’s BART determinations in 

the FIP. For purposes of our evaluation, 

we consider BART for ST2 and ST3 to 

consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ’s 

BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, 

which were approved into the 

applicable SIP, and (2) EPA’s BART 

determination for NOX in the Arizona 

RH FIP. These BART determinations are 

summarized in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—BART EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE

Unit 

Emission limit 

(lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days) 

NOX PM10 SO2

ST2 ......................................................................................................................... 0.070 (across two units) ..... 0.03 0.15 

ST3 ......................................................................................................................... ............................................. 0.03 0.15 

In the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) included with the Apache SIP 

Revision, ADEQ calculated estimated 

annual emission reductions achievable 

with BART by comparing projected 

emissions from ST2 and ST3 with 

BART29 to baseline emissions.30 The 

results of these calculations are shown 

in Table 3. Because BART for PM10 and 

SO2 was determined to be consistent 

with existing controls, no emission 

reductions are expected to result from 

BART. However, significant NOX

emission reductions (4,502 tpy) are 

expected to result from implementation 

of BART. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH BART AT APACHE

ST2 and ST3 Total emissions 

(tpy) 

NOX PM10 SO2

Baseline (‘‘2013 Baseline’’) a ....................................................................................................... 5,441 403 2,013 

BART (‘‘2013 SCR’’) b .................................................................................................................. 939 403 2,013

Emission Reduction (‘‘2013 SCR’’ minus ‘‘2013 Baseline’’) c ..................................................... 4,502 0 0 

aApache SIP Revision TSD Table 6. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 56327 

31ADEQ refers to the BART Alternative as ‘‘2013 

9bv2 PNGt.’’ See TSD page 4 (‘‘The 2013 9bv2 PNGt 

scenario reflects the implementation of the AEPCO 

alternative controls . . .’’). 

32Apache SIP Revision page 5. 

33 Id. TSD page 13. 

34 Id. See also TSD pages 15–22. 

b Id. 

c Id. Table 7. 

We propose to find that ADEQ has met 

the requirement for an analysis of BART 

and associated emission reductions 

achievable at Apache ST2 and ST3 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). 

d. Analysis of Projected Emissions 

Reductions Achievable Through the 

BART Alternative 

In the Apache SIP Revision TSD, 

ADEQ calculated emissions reductions 

achievable through the BART 

Alternative by comparing estimated 

annual emissions from ST2 and ST3 

under the BART Alternative 31 with 

baseline emissions. The results of these 

calculations are shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH APACHE BART ALTERNATIVE

ST2 and ST3 Total emissions 

(tpy) 

NOX PM10 SO2

Baseline (‘‘2013 Baseline’’) a ....................................................................................................... 5,441 403 2,013 

BART Alternative (‘‘2013 9bv2 PNGt’’) b ..................................................................................... 2,122 262 1,056 

Emission Reduction (‘‘2013 9bv2 PNGt’’ minus ‘‘2013 Baseline’’) c ..................................... 3,318 141 957 

aApache SIP Revision TSD Table 6. 

b Id. 

c Id. Table 7. 

We propose to find that ADEQ has met 

the requirement for an analysis of the 

projected emissions reductions 

achievable through the alternative 

measure under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(D). 

e. A Determination That the Alternative 

Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress 

Than Would Be Achieved Through the 

Installation and Operation of BART 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), 

the State must provide a determination 

that the alternative achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based 

on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides two 

different tests for determining whether 

the alternative achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART. If the 

distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under 

BART, and the alternative measure 

results in greater emission reductions, 

then the alternative measure may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable 

progress. If the distribution of emissions 

is significantly different, however, then 

the State must conduct dispersion 

modeling to determine differences in 

visibility between BART and the trading 

program for each impacted Class I area, 

for the worst and best 20 percent of 

days. The modeling would demonstrate 

‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ if both of 

the following two criteria are met: (1) 

Visibility does not decline in any Class 

I area, and; (2) there is an overall 

improvement in visibility, determined 

by comparing the average differences 

between BART and the alternative over 

all affected Class I areas. 

In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ 

determined that neither of the two tests 

under 51.308(e)(3) was appropriate for 

evaluating the Apache BART 

Alternative. Therefore, ADEQ 

conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis 

based on reductions in visibilityimpairing pollutants, IMPROVE 

monitoring data, and improvements in 

modeled visibility impacts from 

Apache. 

The reductions in visibility-impairing 

pollutants from the Apache BART 

Alternative, as estimated by ADEQ, are 

summarized in Table 4 above. As noted 

above, compared with BART, ADEQ 

projects that the Apache BART 

Alternative will result in 1183 tpy more 

NOX emissions, 957 tpy fewer SO2

emissions, and 141 tpy fewer PM10

emissions than BART. 

ADEQ next considered historical 

emission inventory and ambient 

monitoring data. In particular, ADEQ 

noted that, in 2008, state-wide 

emissions of SO2 (84,784 tons) were less 

than a third of state-wide NOX

emissions (290,344 tons). ADEQ also 

reviewed ambient monitoring data from 

Class I areas impacted by emissions 

from Apache and found that visibility 

impairment due to SO2 was more than 

three times greater than impairment 

from NOX.32 Based on the monitoring 

and emission inventory data, ADEQ 

concluded that, ‘‘for the State of 

Arizona, it is likely more beneficial to 

reduce SO2 emissions as compared to 

NOX emissions when applying pollution 

controls to point sources to improve 

class I area visibility. Therefore, ADEQ 

believes AEPCO’s proposed alternative 

control methodology would realize 

higher real-world visibility benefits than 

the other control methods tested.’’ 33

Finally, ADEQ considered the results 

of air quality modeling (using the 

CALPUFF model) performed by AEPCO 

to assess the visibility impacts of 

Apache under various control 

scenarios.34 These results, summarized 

in Table 5, show that, compared with 

BART, the Apache BART Alternative 

would result in greater visibility 

improvement at all but two areas (Gila 

Wilderness Area and Mount Baldy 

Wilderness Area), and would result in 

greater improvement on average across 

all areas. In addition, implementation of 

the Apache BART Alternative would 

result in improvement at all affected 

Class I areas, in comparison to the base 

case. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56328 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

35 70 FR 39170. CALPUFF is the single source air 

quality model that is recommended in the BART 

Guidelines. Since CALPUFF was used for this 

analysis, the modeling results were post-processed 

in a manner consistent with the BART Guidelines. 

36See 70 FR 39137. 37 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii). 

38 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

39See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and 

Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory 

SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze 

Programs, November 8, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf. 

TABLE 5—MODELED VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF APACHE

Class I area 

Baseline 

(2013 baseline) 

BART 

(2013 SCR) 

BART alternative 

(2013 9bv2 PNGt) 

Visibility impacts 

(dv) 

Visibility impacts 

(dv) 

Visibility impacts 

(dv) 

Avg 98th 22nd high Avg 98th 22nd high Avg 98th 22nd high 

Chiricahua National Monument ............... 3.328 3.409 1.978 1.996 1.882 1.909 

Chiricahua Wilderness Area .................... 3.418 3.464 1.886 1.979 1.851 1.852 

Galiuro Wilderness Area .......................... 2.178 2.219 1.208 1.205 1.111 1.135 

Gila Wilderness Area ............................... 0.642 0.629 0.262 0.279 0.287 0.295 

Mazatzal Wilderness Area ....................... 0.266 0.277 0.156 0.147 0.126 0.124 

Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area ...................... 0.269 0.282 0.109 0.114 0.112 0.116 

Saguaro National Park ............................. 2.502 2.493 1.421 1.463 1.346 1.317 

Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area ................ 0.289 0.287 0.153 0.158 0.130 0.128 

Superstition Wilderness Area .................. 0.596 0.612 0.313 0.315 0.275 0.283 

Average .................................................... 1.499 1.519 0.832 0.851 0.791 0.795 

NOTES: ‘‘Avg 98th’’ refers to the average of the annual 98th percentile visibility impacts in deciviews (dv) from 2001–2003. ‘‘22nd high’’ refers 

to the 22nd highest visibility impact in deciviews for combined 2001–2003 data. In all modeling scenarios, background ammonia concentrations 

are 1 ppb for Method 8 estimations using best 20-percent days visibility. 

In evaluating ADEQ’s weight-ofevidence demonstration, we have 

considered all elements of ADEQ’s 

analysis, but we have given the most 

weight to the visibility impacts based on 

air quality modeling. In order to 

evaluate whether the Apache BART 

Alternative is indeed better than BART, 

we have applied a modified version of 

the two-prong modeling test set forth in 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), using the air 

quality modeling results. In particular, 

rather than considering the best twentypercent days and worst twenty-percent 

days, as provided for under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3), we have considered the 

98th percentile impacts (averaged across 

three years), consistent with the 

approach recommended by the BART 

Guidelines for comparing control 

alternatives at a single source.35 Under 

the first prong of the test (the ‘‘nodegradation prong’’), we compared the 

Apache BART Alternative to baseline 

conditions to ensure that the alternative 

will not result in worsened conditions 

anywhere than would otherwise exist.36

The Apache BART Alternative clearly 

meets this prong, as the visibility 

modeling results indicated that the 

Alternative will result in improved 

visibility at all affected Class I areas 

compared with baseline conditions, as 

shown in Table 5. Under the second 

prong, we compared the average 

differences between BART and the 

Apache BART Alternative over all 

affected Class I areas to ensure that there 

is an overall improvement in 

visibility.37 The Apache BART 

Alternative also meets this prong, as the 

modeling results indicated that the 

Alternative would result in improved 

visibility, on average, across all Class I 

Areas, compared with BART. 

Based on the weight-of-evidence 

presented, we propose to approve 

ADEQ’s determination that the Apache 

BART Alternative would achieve greater 

reasonable progress than BART under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). In particular, 

the BART Alternative will result in 957 

tpy fewer SO2 emissions compared to 

BART. In spite of more NOX emissions 

(1183 tpy) compared to BART, modeling 

submitted by ADEQ shows that the 

BART Alternative will result in 

improved visibility at all affected Class 

I areas compared with baseline 

conditions and will result in improved 

visibility, on average, across all Class I 

Areas, compared with BART. This 

conclusion is further supported by the 

IMPROVE visibility monitoring data, 

which indicates that all of the affected 

Class I areas have more than three times 

the visibility impairment due to SO2

compared to NOX. 

2. Requirement That Emission 

Reductions Take Place During Period of 

First Long-Term Strategy 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), 

the State must ensure that all necessary 

emission reductions take place during 

the period of the first long-term strategy 

for regional haze, i.e. by December 31, 

2018. The RHR further provides that, to 

meet this requirement, the State must 

provide a detailed description of the 

alternative measure, including 

schedules for implementation, the 

emission reductions required by the 

program, all necessary administrative 

and technical procedures for 

implementing the program, rules for 

accounting and monitoring emissions, 

and procedures for enforcement.38

As noted above, the Apache SIP 

Revision incorporates the Apache 

Permit Revision, which includes 

conditions implementing the Apache 

BART Alternative. In addition to the 

emission limitations for NOX, PM10, and 

SO2 listed in Table 1 above, the Apache 

Permit Revision includes compliance 

dates, operation and maintenance 

requirements, and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. We propose to find that 

these provisions meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

3. Demonstration That Emissions 

Reductions From Alternative Measure 

Will Be Surplus 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), 

the SIP must demonstrate that the 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

alternative measure will be surplus to 

those reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP. The baseline date for regional haze 

SIPs is 2002.39 All of the emission 

reductions required by the Apache 

BART Alternative are surplus to 

reductions resulting from measures 

applicable to Apache as of 2002. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the 

Apache BART Alternative complies 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 56329 

40See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and 

Hiser, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013). 

41See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 

51.212(c). 

42CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

43Apache SIP Revision, pages 9–10, Table 1.5. 

44 Id. page 12. 45 Id. page 11, footnote 9. 

In sum, we propose to find that the 

Apache BART Alternative meets all of 

the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). 

C. EPA’s Evaluation of the ST1 Emission 

Limit Revision 

In addition to the Apache BART 

Alternative, which applies to ST2 and 

ST3, the Apache SIP Revision includes 

a revision in the NOX limit for ST1 

when operating in combined-cycle 

mode with GT1. The SIP Revision 

would raise this limit from 0.056 lb/

MMbtu to 0.10 lb/MMbtu based on a 

determination that the 0.056 lb/MMbtu 

limit is unachievable when ST1 is 

operated in combined cycle with GT1.40

The revised limit of 0.10 is lb/MMbtu 

achievable when ST1 is operated in 

combined cycle with GT1 and is 

consistent with the use of natural gas, 

which ADEQ previously determined to 

constitute BART for this unit. Therefore, 

we propose to find that this revision to 

the emission limit for ST1, when 

operated in combined cycle mode with 

GT1, is consistent with the provisions of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) requiring SIPs to 

contain emission limits representing 

BART. 

D. EPA’s Evaluation of Other Applicable 

Requirements 

1. Enforceable Emission Limits 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emissions 

limitations necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements of the 

Act. In addition, SIPs must contain 

regulatory requirements related to 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting for applicable emissions 

limitations.41 The Apache Permit 

Revision includes such enforceable 

emission limits, as well as associated 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements, for all units and 

pollutants. Therefore, we propose to 

find that the Apache SIP Revision meets 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations for 

enforceable emission limitations. 

2. Non-Interference With Applicable 

Requirements 

The CAA requires that any revision to 

an implementation plan shall not be 

approved by the Administrator if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act.42 EPA has 

promulgated health-based standards, 

known as the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), for seven 

pollutants, including SO2, PM10, NO2 (a 

component of NOX), and pollutants 

such as ozone and PM2.5 that are formed 

in the atmosphere from reactions 

between NOX and other pollutants. 

Using a process that considers air 

quality data and other factors, EPA 

designates areas as ‘‘nonattainment’’ if 

those areas cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS. Reasonable 

further progress, as defined in section 

171 of the CAA, is related to attainment 

and means annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable NAAQS. 

Apache is located in north central 

Cochise County, Arizona, which is 

designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment 

for all of the NAAQS.43 Therefore, we 

propose to find that a revision to the 

BART emission limits for NOX will not 

interfere with attainment or reasonable 

further progress for any air quality 

standard. 

The other requirements of the CAA 

that are applicable to Apache are: 

• Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR part 

60, subpart D; 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 

CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU; 

• Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM), 40 CFR part 64; and 

• BART and other visibility 

protection requirements under CAA 

section 169A and 40 CFR Part 52, 

subpart P. 

Today’s proposed revisions would not 

affect the applicable requirements of the 

NESHAP, NSPS or CAM. Furthermore, 

as noted by ADEQ, a switch from coal 

to gas at ST2 will result in significant 

reductions in hazardous air 

pollutants.44 Therefore, we propose to 

find that these revisions would not 

interfere with these requirements. 

The proposed revisions would alter 

the applicable emission limits for NOX, 

SO2 and PM10 at Apache under CAA 

section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

However, as explained above, the 

visibility improvement expected to 

result from the Apache BART 

Alternative for ST2 and ST3 is expected 

to result in greater visibility 

improvement on average across all 

affected Class I areas compared with 

BART. In addition, while there will be 

an increase in the NOX limit for ST1 

when operating in combined-cycle 

mode with GT1, from 0.056 lb/MMbtu 

to 0.10 lb/MMbtu, the addition of a lb/ 

day limit will ensure that there will not 

be an increase in overall emissions from 

this unit.45 Therefore, we propose to 

find that the Apache SIP Revision 

would not interfere with any applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

For the reasons described above, EPA 

proposes to approve the Apache SIP 

Revision and withdraw the provisions 

of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that 

apply to Apache. We also propose to 

find that withdrawal of the FIP would 

constitute our action on AEPCO’s 

Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This 

proposed rule applies to only one 

facility and is therefore not a rule of 

general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

46Arizona’s G&T Cooperatives Annual Report 

(2013), page 17. 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. Firms primarily 

engaged in the generation, transmission, 

and/or distribution of electric energy for 

sale are small if, including affiliates, the 

total electric output for the preceding 

fiscal year did not exceed 4 million 

megawatt hours. AEPCO sold under 3 

million megawatt hours in 2013 and is 

therefore a small entity.46

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The proposed 

approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. See Mid-Tex Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 

(D.C. Cir. 1985). The proposed FIP 

withdrawal would alleviate economic 

impacts on AEPCO and therefore would 

not have a significant adverse impact on 

any small entity. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Federal agencies must also develop a 

plan to provide notice to small 

governments that might be significantly 

or uniquely affected by any regulatory 

requirements. The plan must enable 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates and must 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

proposed rule does not impose 

regulatory requirements on any 

government entity. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or in the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. This 

proposed action addresses regional haze 

and visibility protection. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is exempt under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(10)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by the VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population, at a 

lower cost than the FIP. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 56331 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility. 

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

Dated: September 5, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22403 Filed 9–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9916–91– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS18 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing that the 

period for providing public comments 

on the August 6, 2014, proposed 

‘‘Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program’’ is being 

extended by 14 days. 

DATES: Comments. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

August 6, 2014, (79 FR 46126) is being 

extended by 14 days to October 20, 

2014, in order to provide the public 

additional time to submit comments and 

supporting information. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written 

comments on the proposed rule may be 

submitted to the EPA electronically, by 

mail, by facsimile or through hand 

delivery/courier. Please refer to the 

proposal (79 FR 46126) for the addresses 

and detailed instructions. 

Docket. Publicly available documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection either electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/

DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. The EPA has 

established the official public docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. 

Worldwide Web. The EPA Web site 

containing information for this 

rulemaking is: http://www.epa.gov/

ozone/snap/regulations.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6205T, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9445; fax number 

(202) 343–2338, email address: 

vondemhagen.rebecca@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under EPA’s SNAP 

program are available on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

regulations.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comment Period 

The EPA is extending the public 

comment period for an additional 14 

days. The public comment period will 

end on October 20, 2014, rather than 

October 6, 2014. This will provide the 

public additional time to review and 

comment on all of the information 

available, including the proposed rule 

and other materials in the docket. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Stratospheric ozone layer. 

Dated: September 12, 2014. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22382 Filed 9–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 217 

RIN 0750–AI37 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Multiyear 

Contracts—Statutory References and 

Cancellation Ceiling Threshold 

(DFARS Case 2014–D019) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement to update the 

cancellation ceiling threshold for 

multiyear contracts and to correct 

statutory references. 

DATES: Comment date: Comments on the 

proposed rule should be submitted in 

writing to the address shown below on 

or before November 18, 2014, to be 

considered in the formation of a final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2014–D019, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2014–D019’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D019.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2014– 

D019’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2014–D019 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer 

Hawes, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Hawes, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 

3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Telephone 571–372–6115. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS 

regarding multiyear contracts to correct 

statutory references and to update the 

cancellation ceiling threshold at DFARS 

217.170(e)(1)(iv) and (e)(5) for 

consistency with the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

Currently, DFARS 217.170(e)(1)(iv) 

requires DoD to provide notification to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS