19220 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

nonattainment area submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of 

Environment Quality on June 12, 2007: 

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA

Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or 

SIP approval 

Attainment Demonstration ............ 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

Contingency Measures Plan ......... 2010 .............................. 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07957 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 sourcespecific 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 noncatalytic 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19221 

2 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

3Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant 

Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit 

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

13, 2014. 

4For 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. 

5See AEPCO Supplemental Petition for 

Reconsideration at 4–5 and Apache SIP Revision, 

Table 1.6 at 11. 

6See, 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. 

8Letter 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. 

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 sourcespecific 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 pipelinequality 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. 

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 (highend) 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. 

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 postcontrol 24-hour emission rates should 

be calculated as a percentage of precontrol 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. 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19222 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9The 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. 

10Use 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. 

11See 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). 

13See CAA section 302(k). 

14The 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. 

15Apache SIP Revision, Responsiveness 

Summary at 13. 

16 Id. at 13–14. 

17Here ‘‘baseline’’ refers to controls in place at 

Apache as of 2013. See 79 FR 56326, footnote 30. 

18 71 FR 60612, 60621–22. 

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. 

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. 

21See 77 FR 42834, 42857 (‘‘The nine Class I 

areas within 300 km of Apache were modeled’’). 

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

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. 

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. 

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: 

. . . 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

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. 

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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19223 

22 71 FR 60612, 60621–22. 

23 Id. at 60622. 

24 79 FR 56328. 

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

26See Apache Permit Revision section V.D. 

27See Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, EPA (February 19, 2015). 

consider these same Class I areas when 

assessing the Apache BART Alternative. 

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-ofevidence 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 weightof-evidence test is appropriate only 

when a state cannot conduct the twopart 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(165) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 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: 

§ 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 coalfired 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-boilerVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:04 Apr 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

operating-day average, unless otherwise 

indicated in specific paragraphs. 

Group of coal-fired units 

Federal 

emission 

limitation 

Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 

3, and 4 ............................. 0.055 

Group of coal-fired units 

Federal 

emission 

limitation 

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: 

Unit 

Compliance date 

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, Unit 1 ...................................................... June 3, 2013 .................................. June 3, 2013. 

Coronado Generating Station, Unit 2 ...................................................... June 3, 2013 .................................. June 3, 2013. 

* * * * * 

(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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0756; FRL–9923–64] 

Secondary (C13-C17) Alkane Sulfonates; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of two secondary 

alkane (C13-C17) sulfonates (CAS Reg. 

Nos. 85711–69–9 and 97489–15–1) 

when used as inert ingredients 

(surfactant) in pesticide formulations 

applied to growing crops at a maximum 

concentration not to exceed 40% by 

weight. Exponent, on behalf of Clariant 

Corporation, submitted a petition to 

EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting 

establishment of an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of secondary alkane (C13- 

C17) sulfonates. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

10, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 9, 2015, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0756, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES