PLEASE NOTE: The Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following proposed rule on September 5, 2014. EPA is 

submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this internet version of the 

rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR 

publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and 

on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647, FRL-XXX] 

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 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). 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 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 2 of 30

AEPCO’s Petition for Reconsideration of the FIP. 

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before [Insert date 45 days from the date 

of publication in the Federal Register]. Requests for public hearing must be received on or 

before [Insert date 15 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 3 of 30

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. 

 

1 Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 

important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

“mandatory Class I Federal areas.” 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 4 of 30

· 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 [Insert date 45 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647, by one of the following methods: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 5 of 30

· 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. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 6 of 30

 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 CDROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 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 [Insert date 15 days from publication in the Federal 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 7 of 30

Register] 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.”3It 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 

 

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). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 8 of 30

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)5by 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.7In 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 wall-fired boiler with a net unit output of 85 MW that 

burns pipeline-quality natural gas as its primary fuel. Units ST2 and ST3 are both dry-bottom, 

Riley Stoker turbo-fired boilers, operating on sub-bituminous coal, each with a gross unit output 

 

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

5 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness 

areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 

7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal 

area.” 

6 See generally 40 CFR 51.308. 

7 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

8 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 9 of 30

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.9In 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 limit based upon selective non-catalytic 

 

9 77 FR 72512. 

10 Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Lisa Jackson, EPA (February 2, 2013). 

11 Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (May 29, 

2013). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 10 of 30

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. 

 

12 Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser (June 6, 2013). 

13 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (May 3, 2013), Enclosure 3, Arizona RH SIP Revision. 

14 Id. Appendix D, pages 5-6 (footnotes to tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) and page 49. The reason for this distinction is that 

gas turbines are not among the 26 industrial source categories included in the definition of “existing stationary facility” 

in the Regional Haze Rule, whereas combined cycle turbines are included in this list. See 40 CFR 51.301; 40 CFR 

part 51 appendix Y, section II.A.1. 

15 See Supplemental Proposal, 78 FR 46142, 46175 (codified at 40 CFR 52.120(c)(158)(ii)(A)(1)(iii)). 

16 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (May 13, 2014), Enclosure 3, Revision to the Arizona 

RH Plan for AEPCO Apache Generating Station. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 11 of 30

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 coalfired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 would remain as a coalfired unit and would be retrofitted with SNCR. The emission limits associated with the 

Alternative are summarized in Table 1. The compliance date for all limits is December 5, 2017, 

except that a more stringent limit for PM10 at ST2 (0.008 lb/MMBtu) that will be effective on 

December 5, 2018. 

TABLE 1 – EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE BART ALTERNATIVE

Emission Limit 

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

Unit NOX PM10 SO2

ST2 0.085 0.01, then 0.008 

(effective December 5, 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 

 

17 Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant Revision No. 59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412 

(“Apache Permit Revision”)(issued May 13, 2014). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 12 of 30

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 combined-cycle 

operation of ST1 with GT1 from 0.056 lb/MMBtu to 0.10 lb/MMBtu, based on a determination 

that the 0.056 lb/MMBtu limit is not achievable during combined cycle operations and that 

inclusion of emissions from GT1 would result in an emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMbtu.20 In order 

to ensure that this revision does not result in an overall increase in NOX emissions, the SIP 

Revision also sets a 1205 lb/day limit, based on a 30-calendar-day average, for ST1 operating in 

standalone mode or in combined-cycle mode with GT1. ADEQ derived this emission limit based 

on the existing emission limit of 0.056 lb/MMBtu (the original NOX emission limit required for 

ST1 and GT1 in combined-cycle mode), and a conservative estimate of the heat rate (10,985 

Btu/kWhr) over the primary operating range of ST1 and GT1 in combined-cycle operation.21 

 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 

 

18 Apache SIP Revision, sections 2.2 and 2.3. 

19 Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (July 18, 2014). 

20 See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013). 

21 Id. section 3.1, footnote 9. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 13 of 30

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 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 

 

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

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

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

25 See 77 FR 75704, 75719-75720; 78 FR 46142, 46151-46152. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 14 of 30

ADEQ’s finding that Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Sundt Unit 4 was not BARTeligible.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 

 

26 Id. 

27 79 FR 52420. 

28 See generally 77 FR 72512, 78 FR 46142. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 15 of 30

NOX at ST2 and ST3 and conducted our own BART analysis and determination for NOX BART 

for ST2 and ST3 in a FIP. 

In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ compared the BART Alternative both to ADEQ’s 

original BART determinations and to EPA’s BART determinations in the FIP. For purposes of 

our evaluation, we consider BART for ST2 and ST3 to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ’s 

BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, which were approved into the applicable SIP, and (2) 

EPA’s BART determination for NOx in the Arizona RH FIP. These BART determinations are 

summarized in Table 2. 

TABLE 2 - BART EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE

Emission Limit 

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

Unit NOX PM10 SO2

ST2 0.070 (across two units) 0.03 0.15

ST3 0.03 0.15

In the Technical Support Document (TSD) included with the Apache SIP Revision, 

ADEQ calculated estimated annual emission reductions achievable with BART by comparing 

projected emissions from ST2 and ST3 with 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. 

 

29 ADEQ refers to the BART control scenario as “2013 SCR.” See TSD page 4 (“This scenario assumes SCR, LNB, 

and OFA implementation as well as ESP and wet scrubber upgrades.”). 

30 ADEQ considered two different baseline scenarios – 2007 (assuming use of Electrostatic Precipitation (ESP) and 

wet scrubber upgrades) and 2013 (assuming use of OFA, ESP, and wet scrubber upgrades). See SIP TSD at 3. We 

have chosen to employ the 2013 Baseline, consistent with our original BART analysis, which used a baseline with 

OFA. See 78 FR 42856, Table 16. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 16 of 30

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”)a5,441 403 2,013

BART (“2013 SCR”)b939 403 2,013

Emission Reduction (“2013 

SCR” minus “2013 Baseline”) c

4,502 0 0

a Apache SIP Revision TSD Table 6. 

b Id. 

c

Id. Table 7. 

We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of 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 Alternative31 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”)a5,441 403 2,013

 

31 ADEQ refers to the BART Alternative as “2013 9bv2 PNGt.” See TSD page 4 (“The 2013 9bv2 PNGt scenario 

reflects the implementation of the AEPCO alternative controls . . .”). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 17 of 30

BART Alternative (“2013 

9bv2 PNGt”)b

2,122 262 1,056 

Emission Reduction (“2013 

9bv2 PNGt” minus “2013 

Baseline”) c

3,318 141 957

a Apache SIP Revision TSD Table 6. 

b Id. 

c

Id. Table 7. 

We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of the projected 

emissions reductions achievable through the alternative measure under 40 CFR 

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

 e. A determination that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and operation of BART. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the State must provide a determination that the 

alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or 

otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides two 

different tests for determining whether the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than 

BART. If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the 

alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly 

different, however, then the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in 

visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst 

and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if 

both of the following two criteria are met: (1) visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and; 

(2) there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average 

differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.

In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ determined that neither of the two tests under 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 18 of 30

51.308(e)(3) was appropriate for evaluating the Apache BART Alternative. Therefore, ADEQ 

conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis based on reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants, 

IMPROVE monitoring data, and improvements in modeled visibility impacts from Apache. 

The reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants from the Apache BART Alternative, as 

estimated by ADEQ, are summarized in Table 4 above. As noted above, compared with BART, 

ADEQ projects that the Apache BART Alternative will result in 1183 tpy more NOX emissions, 

957 tpy fewer SO2 emissions, and 141 tpy fewer PM10 emissions than BART. 

ADEQ next considered historical emission inventory and ambient monitoring data. In 

particular, ADEQ noted that, in 2008, state-wide emissions of SO2 (84,784 tons) were less than a 

third of state-wide NOX emissions (290,344 tons). ADEQ also reviewed ambient monitoring data 

from Class I areas impacted by emissions from Apache and found that visibility impairment due 

to SO2 was more than three times greater than impairment from NOX.

32 Based on the monitoring 

and emission inventory data, ADEQ concluded that, “for the State of Arizona, it is likely more 

beneficial to reduce SO2 emissions as compared to NOX emissions when applying pollution 

controls to point sources to improve class I area visibility. Therefore, ADEQ believes AEPCO’s 

proposed alternative control methodology would realize higher real-world visibility benefits than 

the other control methods tested.”33

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 

 

32 Apache SIP Revision page 5. 

33 Id. TSD page 13. 

34 Id. See also TSD pages 15-22. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 19 of 30

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. 

TABLE 5 - MODELED VISIBILITY IMPACTS OF APACHE

Baseline 

(2013 Baseline) 

BART 

(2013 SCR) 

BART Alternative 

(2013 9bv2 PNGt) 

Visibility Impacts (dv) Visibility Impacts (dv) Visibility Impacts (dv) 

Class I Area Avg 

98th 

22nd high Avg 

98th 

22nd high Avg 

98th 

22nd high 

Chiricahua National 

Monument 

3.328 3.409 1.978 1.996 1.882 1.909

Chiricahua 

Wilderness Area 

3.418 3.464 1.886 1.979 1.851 1.852

Galiuro Wilderness 

Area 

2.178 2.219 1.208 1.205 1.111 1.135

Gila Wilderness Area 0.642 0.629 0.262 0.279 0.287 0.295

Mazatzal Wilderness 

Area 

0.266 0.277 0.156 0.147 0.126 0.124

Mt. Baldy Wilderness 

Area 

0.269 0.282 0.109 0.114 0.112 0.116

Saguaro National 

Park 

2.502 2.493 1.421 1.463 1.346 1.317

Sierra Ancha 

Wilderness Area 

0.289 0.287 0.153 0.158 0.130 0.128

Superstition 

Wilderness Area 

0.596 0.612 0.313 0.315 0.275 0.283

Average 1.499 1.519 0.832 0.851 0.791 0.795

Notes: “Avg 98th” refers to the average of the annual 98th percentile visibility impacts in deciviews (dv) from 2001-

2003. “22nd high” refers to the 22nd highest visibility impact in deciviews for combined 2001-2003 data. In all 

modeling scenarios, background ammonia concentrations are 1 ppb for Method 8 estimations using best 20-percent 

days visibility. 

In evaluating ADEQ’s weight-of-evidence demonstration, we have considered all 

elements of ADEQ’s analysis, but we have given the most weight to the visibility impacts based 

on air quality modeling. In order to evaluate whether the Apache BART Alternative is indeed 

better than BART, we have applied a modified version of the two-prong modeling test set forth 

in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), using the air quality modeling results. In particular, rather than 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 20 of 30

considering the best twenty-percent days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided for under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), we have considered the 98th percentile impacts (averaged across three 

years), consistent with the approach recommended by the BART Guidelines for comparing 

control alternatives at a single source.35 Under the first prong of the test (the “no-degradation 

prong”), we compared the Apache BART Alternative to baseline conditions to ensure that the 

alternative will not result in worsened conditions anywhere than would otherwise exist.36 The 

Apache BART Alternative clearly meets this prong, as the visibility modeling results indicated 

that the Alternative will result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with 

baseline conditions, as shown in Table 5. Under the second prong, we compared the average 

differences between BART and the Apache BART Alternative over all affected Class I areas to 

ensure that there is an overall improvement in visibility.37 The Apache BART Alternative also 

meets this prong, as the modeling results indicated that the Alternative would result in improved 

visibility, on average, across all Class I Areas, compared with BART. 

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 

 

35 70 FR 39170. CALPUFF is the single source air quality model that is recommended in the BART Guidelines. Since 

CALPUFF was used for this analysis, the modeling results were post-processed in a manner consistent with the BART 

Guidelines. 

36 See 70 FR 39137. 

37 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 21 of 30

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 

 

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

39 See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 

8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 22 of 30

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). 

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 

 

memoranda/2002bye—gm.pdf. 

40 See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 23 of 30

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: 

 

41 See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 51.212(c). 

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

43 Apache SIP Revision, pages 9-10, Table 1.5. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 24 of 30

· 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 

 

44 Id. page 12. 

45 Id. page 11, footnote 9. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 25 of 30

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 26 of 30

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.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 

 

46 Arizona’s G&T Cooperatives Annual Report (2013), page 17. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 27 of 30

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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 28 of 30

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), Pub L. No. 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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 29 of 30

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 lowincome 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, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, on September 5, 2014. We have taken 

steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 30 of 30

including any minority or low-income population, at a lower cost than the FIP. 

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. 

September 5, 2014 /s/ 

_______________________________ _____________________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 

 Regional Administrator, 

 EPA Region IX