Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46903 

1Although states and tribes may designate as 

Class I additional areas which they consider to have 

visibility as an important value, the requirements of 

the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 

the CAA apply only to mandatory Class I Federal 

areas. When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this 

action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

area.’’ 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

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

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0792 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T05–0792 Safety Zone, Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway; Camp Lejeune, NC. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters on the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, from 

approximate position 34°32′46′′ N., 

77°19′17′′ W. to 34°34′25′′ N., 77°16′14′′ 

W. (NAD 1983) at Camp Lejeune, NC. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

designated by the Captain of the Port 

North Carolina (COTP) for the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

‘‘Captain of the Port’’ means the 

Commander, Sector North Carolina. 

‘‘Participants’’ means persons and 

vessels involved in support of a military 

exercise. 

(c) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations governing safety zones in 

§ 165.23 apply to the area described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(2) With the exception of participants, 

entry into or remaining in this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port, North Carolina 

or designated representative(s). 

(3) All vessels within this safety zone 

when this section becomes effective 

must depart the zone immediately. 

(4) The Captain of the Port, North 

Carolina can be reached through the 

Coast Guard Sector North Carolina 

Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, 

North Carolina at telephone number 

910–343–3882. 

(5) The Coast Guard and designated 

security vessels enforcing the safety 

zone can be contacted on VHF–FM 

marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 

MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the safety zone by 

Federal, State, and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement periods. This section 

will be enforced on the following dates 

and times in October 2017: 

Date Time 

10th–12th ..... 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. and 1 

p.m. through 4 p.m. 

13th .............. 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 

p.m. through 4 p.m. 

Date Time 

18th .............. 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. 

24th .............. 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 

p.m. through 4 p.m. 

25th–26th ..... 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. and 2 

p.m. through 5 p.m. 

27th–28th ..... 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. 

29th–30th ..... 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. 

Dated: October 3, 2017. 

Bion B. Stewart, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21709 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0092, FRL–9968–97– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a sourcespecific revision to the Arizona state 

implementation plan (SIP) that provides 

an alternative to Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) for the Coronado 

Generating Station (‘‘Coronado’’), 

owned and operated by the Salt River 

Project Agricultural Improvement and 

Power District (SRP). The EPA has 

determined that the BART alternative 

for Coronado would provide greater 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions than BART, based 

on the criteria established in the EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with 

this approval, we are withdrawing those 

portions of the federal implementation 

plan (FIP) that address BART for 

Coronado. We are also codifying the 

removal of those portions of the Arizona 

SIP that have either been superseded by 

this approval of the SIP revision for 

Coronado or by previously-approved 

revisions to the Arizona SIP. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

9, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017– 

0092 for this action. All documents in 

the docket are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, 

Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 

999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Proposed Action 

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Environmental Justice Considerations 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

• The words Arizona and State mean 

the State of Arizona. 

• The word Coronado refers to the 

Coronado Generating Station. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

• The initials BOD mean or refer to 

boiler operating day. 

• The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area.1

• The initials CAA mean or refer to 

the Clean Air Act. 

• The words EPA, we, us, or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

federal implementation plan. 

• The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer 

to pounds per million British thermal 

units. 

• The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46904 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

2As noted in our proposal, the Coronado SIP 

Revision includes both the original version of the 

revision (dated July 19, 2016) that was proposed by 

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) for public comment, and an addendum 

(‘‘Addendum’’ dated November 10, 2016), in 

addition to various supporting materials. The 

Addendum documents changes to the Coronado 

BART Alternative since ADEQ’s July 19, 2016 

proposal. Unless otherwise specified, references in 

this document to the Coronado SIP Revision 

include both of these documents, as well as the 

other materials included in ADEQ’s submittal. 

3 82 FR 19333. Please refer to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for background information 

concerning the CAA, the Regional Haze Rule, and 

the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, and a 

detailed analysis of the Coronado BART 

Alternative. 

4 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3). 

5Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 

64169 as amended by Significant Revision to 

operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016). 

The provisions implementing the Coronado BART 

Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the 

permit. Attachment E will become effective under 

State law on the date of the EPA’s final action to 

approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP and 

rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze 

FIP that apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E, 

section I.A. 

6For purposes of our evaluation, we consider 

BART for Coronado to consist of a combination of 

(1) ADEQ’s BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, 

which were approved into the applicable SIP, and 

(2) the EPA’s BART determination for NOX in the 

2016 BART Reconsideration (collectively the 

‘‘Coronado BART Control Strategy’’). See 82 FR 

19337. 

7Letter from Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice, to 

Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) 

(‘‘Earthjustice comment letter’’). 

8Letter from Bruce Polkowsky and Graham 

McCahan, EDF, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 

12, 2017) (‘‘EDF comment letter’’). 

9Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Krishna 

Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (‘‘SRP comment 

letter’’). 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter, which is inclusive of 

PM10 (particulate matter less than or 

equal to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5

(particulate matter less than or equal to 

2.5 micrometers). 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

selective catalytic reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

state implementation plan. 

• The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

• The initials SRP mean or refer to 

the Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District. 

• The initials tpy mean or refer to 

tons per year. 

II. Proposed Action 

On April 27, 2017, the EPA proposed 

to approve a revision to the Arizona 

Regional Haze SIP for Coronado 

(‘‘Coronado SIP Revision’’) 2 that 

provides an alternative to BART for 

Coronado (‘‘Coronado BART 

Alternative’’).3 The Coronado SIP 

Revision and BART Alternative consist 

of an interim operating strategy 

(‘‘Interim Strategy’’) that will take effect 

on December 5, 2017, and a final 

operating strategy (‘‘Final Strategy’’) that 

will take effect no later than December 

31, 2025. The Coronado BART 

Alternative was submitted pursuant to 

provisions of the Regional Haze Rule 

that allows states to adopt alternative 

measures in lieu of source-specific 

BART controls if they can demonstrate 

that the alternative measures provide 

greater reasonable progress towards 

natural visibility conditions than 

BART.4

The Interim Strategy includes three 

different operating options, each of 

which requires a period of seasonal 

curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for 

Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and 

implement one of the three options 

based on the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

emissions performance of Unit 1 and the 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions 

performance of Units 1 and 2 in that 

year. In addition, under each option, the 

facility must comply with an annual 

SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tons per year 

(tpy) from Unit 1 and Unit 2 effective 

beginning in 2018. The Final Strategy in 

the Coronado SIP Revision requires the 

installation of selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) on Unit 1 (‘‘SCR 

Option’’) or the permanent cessation of 

operation of Unit 1 (‘‘Shutdown 

Option’’) no later than December 31, 

2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ 

and the EPA of its selection of either the 

SCR Option or the Shutdown Option by 

December 31, 2022. The Final Strategy 

includes two additional features: An 

SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, 

calculated on a 30-boiler operating day 

(BOD) rolling average, which applies to 

Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it continues 

operating), and an annual SO2 emissions 

cap of either 1,970 tpy from Unit 1 and 

Unit 2, if both units continue operating, 

or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down. ADEQ 

incorporated the revised emission 

limits, as well as associated compliance 

deadlines and monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements, as a permit revision to 

Coronado’s existing Operating Permit, 

which was submitted as part of the 

Coronado SIP Revision (‘‘Coronado 

Permit Revision’’).5

We proposed to approve the Coronado 

SIP Revision because in our assessment 

it complied with the relevant 

requirements of the CAA and the 

Regional Haze Rule. In particular, we 

proposed to find that the Coronado 

BART Alternative would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards natural 

visibility conditions than would be 

achieved through the installation and 

operation of BART at Coronado.6

Because this approval would fill the gap 

in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by 

the EPA’s prior partial disapproval with 

respect to Coronado, we also proposed 

to withdraw the provisions of the 

Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to 

Coronado. Finally, we proposed 

revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to codify the 

removal of those portions of the Arizona 

Regional Haze SIP that have either been 

superseded by previously-approved 

revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be 

superseded by final approval of the 

Coronado SIP Revision. 

III. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 45-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received comment 

letters from Earthjustice (on behalf of 

the Sierra Club and the National Parks 

Conservation Association),7

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),8

SRP,9 and two anonymous commenters. 

Summaries of significant comments and 

our responses are provided below. 

Comments From Non-Governmental 

Organizations 

Comment: Earthjustice argued that the 

EPA should not approve the Coronado 

BART Alternative because ADEQ and 

SRP’s rationale for replacing the original 

BART determination with the BART 

Alternative is now invalid. Citing 

several administrative law cases, the 

commenter stated that the EPA must 

provide a valid rationale for issuing any 

regulation, including an approval or 

disapproval of a SIP, given that standard 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

requirements apply to such actions. The 

commenter noted that both ADEQ and 

SRP had indicated that the purpose of 

the Coronado BART Alternative was to 

delay Unit 1’s BART obligations until 

SRP knew whether it would choose to 

retire Coronado to comply with the 

Clean Power Plan (CPP). In particular, 

the commenter cited statements in the 

Coronado SIP Revision that referred to 

regulatory uncertainty related to the 

CPP. The commenter noted that the 

‘‘EPA and the new administration have 

taken multiple actions to indefinitely 

suspend and review the [CPP]’’ and 

asserted that these actions undercut 

ADEQ’s rationale for replacing the 

original BART determination with the 

Coronado BART Alternative. 

Earthjustice acknowledged that the 

EPA did not discuss the CPP in our 

proposal. However, citing Arizona v. 

EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016), 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46905 

10We note that the EPA is issuing this final rule 

under section 307(d) of the CAA, which provides 

that that: ‘‘[t]he provisions of section 553 through 

557 . . . of [the APA] shall not, except as expressly 

provided in this section, apply to actions to which 

[CAA section 307(d)] applies.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1). 

Nonetheless, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(9)(A), 

the same arbitrary-and-capricious standard of 

review applies to an action under 307(d) as to an 

action subject to the APA. 

11See CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) 

(‘‘[T]he) Administrator shall approve such submittal 

as a whole if it meets all of the applicable 

requirements of [the CAA].’’ (emphasis added)). 

12 82 FR 15139, 15142 (March 27, 2017). 

13Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 

2016) (quoting North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 

761 (8th Cir. 2013)). 

14See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), at 

2–3. 

15We also note that, contrary to the commenters’ 

suggestion, none of the cited examples involve a 

shutdown or switch to gas to comply with the 

original BART determination for the facility. The 

switch to natural gas at Apache Generating Station 

Unit 2 is part of a BART alternative that replaced 

the original BART determinations for that facility. 

See 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2017). The closure of 

Cholla Generating Station Unit 2 and cessation of 

coal burning at Units 3 and 4 are part of a BART 

reassessment that replaced the original BART 

determinations for that facility. See 82 FR 15139 

(March 27, 2017). Finally, as noted by the 

commenter, the possible closure of Navajo 

Generating Station is due to economic factors. See, 

e.g., Ryan Randazzo, Utilities vote to close Navajo 

coal plant at end of 2019, Arizona Republic 

(February 13, 2017). 

16 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 

in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the 

EPA’s disapproval of ADEQ’s original 

NOX BART determination for Coronado, 

the commenter asserted that, ‘‘if ADEQ’s 

plan is based on an invalid rationale it 

is unreasonable, and EPA’s approval of 

the plan would also necessarily be 

unreasonable and arbitrary.’’ The 

commenter argued that the ‘‘EPA cannot 

cure this fatal flaw with the BART 

alternative by attempting to come up 

with other rationales for the alternative 

in response to these comments.’’ 

Earthjustice further asserted that 

ADEQ should ‘‘propose a new BART 

revision that is based on a valid 

rationale.’’ The commenter also noted 

that SRP could comply with the existing 

BART determination by shutting down 

Unit 1 and asserted that ‘‘this result 

would be consistent with other recent 

decisions across Arizona to shut down 

coal plants or switch them to gas.’’ 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that APA requirements 

generally apply to the EPA’s approval or 

disapproval of a SIP revision and that 

we must provide a reasoned justification 

for such actions.10 We also agree with 

the commenter that both ADEQ and SRP 

previously indicated that the Coronado 

BART Alternative was developed to 

align SRP’s compliance obligations 

under the CPP and the Regional Haze 

Rule. 

In reviewing a SIP submittal, 

however, the EPA’s role is to evaluate 

whether the submittal meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

the EPA’s regulations. If these 

requirements are met, the EPA must 

approve the submittal.11 As noted by the 

commenter, ‘‘the EPA does not usurp a 

state’s authority but ensures that such 

authority is reasonably exercised.’’ 12

However, the state’s underlying 

motivation in submitting the SIP 

revision, which the commenter refers to 

as the state’s ‘‘rationale’’ is not one of 

the elements that the EPA is required to 

evaluate under the CAA. Therefore, in 

acting on the Coronado SIP Revision, we 

have not considered the state’s 

motivation in developing the SIP 

revision. Rather, as described in our 

proposal and elsewhere in this 

document, we have evaluated the 

Coronado SIP Revision in relation to the 

relevant requirements of the CAA and 

the EPA’s regulations, and we have 

determined that it meets all of these 

requirements. In particular, the 

Coronado SIP Revision includes 

detailed and technically sound analyses 

supporting the State’s determination 

that the Coronado BART Alternative 

would provide greater reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions than BART. In contrast to the 

flawed analyses underlying ADEQ’s 

original NOX BART determination for 

Coronado, which we disapproved, the 

analyses supporting the Coronado BART 

Alternative were both ‘‘reasoned [and] 

moored to the [Act]’s provisions,’’ 13 for 

the reasons explained in our proposal 

and elsewhere in this document. 

Therefore, the commenter’s reliance on 

the decision of the Ninth Circuit in 

Arizona v. EPA, which upheld that prior 

disapproval, is misplaced. 

Furthermore, the State’s analyses 

supporting its determination of greater 

reasonable progress do not rely on the 

requirements of the CPP or any 

uncertainty related to those 

requirements. While the State included 

a discussion of the CPP in its proposed 

SIP revision to explain the proposed 

compliance schedule for the Coronado 

BART Alternative,14 the Addendum, 

which reflects the final requirements of 

the Coronado SIP Revision, includes a 

different compliance schedule and no 

mention of the CPP. 

Finally, while the commenter is 

correct that SRP could choose to comply 

with the existing BART determination 

for Coronado Unit 1 by simply shutting 

down that unit, this fact has no bearing 

on the approvability of the Coronado 

SIP Revision. Likewise, the fact that the 

owners of units of other coal plants in 

Arizona have chosen to shut down units 

or switch them to natural gas is not 

pertinent to the current action.15

Comment: EDF and Earthjustice both 

objected to the EPA’s and ADEQ’s 

reliance on the two-prong modeling test 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to 

demonstrate that the Interim Strategy 

would achieve greater reasonable 

progress than the Coronado BART 

Alternative. The commenters noted that 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) outlines two 

different tests for evaluating whether a 

BART alternative achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART. In 

particular, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides 

that: 

If the distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under BART, and 

the alternative measure results in greater 

emission reductions, then the alternative 

measure may be deemed to achieve greater 

reasonable progress. If the distribution of 

emissions is significantly different, the State 

must conduct dispersion modeling to 

determine differences in visibility between 

BART and the trading program for each 

impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 

20 percent of days. The modeling would 

demonstrate ‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ if 

both of the following two criteria are met: 

(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class 

I area, and 

(ii) There is an overall improvement in 

visibility, determined by comparing the 

average differences between BART and the 

alternative over all affected Class I areas.16

The commenters noted that the EPA 

has consistently interpreted the term 

‘‘distribution’’ under the first test in 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the ‘‘emissionsreduction test’’) to refer to geographic 

distribution. Citing to prior EPA 

rulemaking actions, EDF stated that the 

‘‘EPA has traditionally applied the 

modeling test only in cases where ‘the 

distribution of emissions is significantly 

different’ between BART and the BART 

alternative.’’ Earthjustice further 

asserted that, ‘‘[w]hen deciding which 

‘Better than BART’ test applies, the 

determinative factor is whether the 

distribution of emissions between the 

alternative and BART is substantially 

different.’’ The commenters also noted 

that, in our proposal to approve the 

Coronado BART Alternative, we again 

interpreted ‘‘distribution’’ to refer to 

geographic distribution when we 

proposed to determine that the Final 

Strategy would not result in a 

substantially different distribution of 

emissions from BART. However, the 

commenters suggested that, by 

proposing to approve ADEQ’s use of the 

two-prong modeling test, rather than the 

emissions-reduction test, to evaluate the 

Interim Strategy, the EPA was 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46906 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

17As noted by the conservation organizations, the 

Ninth Circuit recently upheld this interpretation as 

reasonable. Yazzie v. EPA, 851 F.3d 960, 973 (9th 

Cir. 2017). 

18See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 

935–37 (10th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that a state 

may choose to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) or under a weight-of-evidence 

approach). 

19 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 

20 Id. (‘‘If the distribution of emissions is 

significantly different, the State must conduct 

dispersion modeling’’ (emphasis added)). 

21This general trend is unsurprising, given that 

the emissions-reduction test demands less time and 

effort as it does not require modeling. 

22 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015). 

23 Id. at 19221. 

24 80 FR 19221. 

25 78 FR 79344, 79355 (December 30, 2013). 

26See 76 FR 10530, 10534 (February 25, 2011) 

(‘‘EPA is proposing to find, based on the weight of 

evidence, that [the proposed alternative] will result 

in greater reasonable progress towards the national 

visibility goal under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA’s 

October 19, 2010 BART proposal’’ and 10537 

(discussing modeling results, even though the 

alternative could be deemed to result in greater 

reasonable progress based on the emissionsreduction test). 

27As explained in our proposal, while the Final 

Strategy by itself would not meet the requirements 

for a BART alternative, we considered whether the 

Final Strategy would provide for ongoing visibility 

improvement, as compared with BART, by 

evaluating whether the Final Strategy meets both 

conditions of the emissions-reduction test under 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(3). 82 FR 19342. 

improperly applying a different 

interpretation of ‘‘distribution’’ to the 

Interim Strategy. 

Earthjustice further asserted that the 

Coronado BART Alternative ‘‘fails’’ the 

emissions-reduction test, which it 

characterized as the ‘‘correct’’ test to 

apply in this instance. Citing the 

difference in total NOX, SO2, and PM10

emissions for each of the Interim 

Strategy scenarios compared with 

BART, Earthjustice stated that each of 

the Interim Strategy options ‘‘will result 

in greater overall air pollution than 

BART for eight years after the December 

2017 BART compliance deadline.’’ For 

this reason, the commenter concluded 

that the Coronado BART Alternative is 

not ‘‘Better than BART’’ and that the 

EPA should disapprove it. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) is that, if the geographic 

distribution of emissions is the same 

under the BART alternative and BART, 

then the emissions distribution is not 

substantially different.17 However, as 

explained further below, we do not 

agree with the commenters that the 

distribution of emissions is a 

determinative factor, such that if the 

distribution of emissions under the 

BART alternative is not substantially 

different than under BART, then the 

alternative must be evaluated using the 

emissions-reduction test. We also do not 

agree that the EPA has previously 

interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to 

include such a requirement. 

Accordingly, contrary to the 

commenters’ assertions, we have not 

departed from our long-standing 

interpretation in evaluating the 

Coronado SIP Revision. 

As an initial matter, we note that 

under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a SIP 

revision establishing a BART alternative 

must include a determination under 40 

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

the clear weight of evidence that the 

alternative achieves greater reasonable 

progress than BART. Thus, a state (or 

the EPA in promulgating a FIP) always 

has the option to make a ‘‘clear weight 

of evidence’’ demonstration rather than 

choosing either of the two options under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).18

If a state does elect to make a 

demonstration under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissionsreductions test) provides the option to 

make a demonstration without the need 

for dispersion modeling when two 

conditions are satisfied: (1) ‘‘the 

distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under 

BART’’ and (2) ‘‘the alternative measure 

results in greater emission 

reductions.’’ 19 If the first condition is 

not satisfied (and the state has opted to 

make a demonstration under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) rather than a weight-ofevidence demonstration), then 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) provides that the state must 

make a demonstration under the twoprong modeling test.20 By contrast, 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not indicate that 

a state must apply the emissionsreduction test whenever the first 

condition of the emissions-reduction 

test is satisfied. Thus, a state may 

choose to apply the two-prong modeling 

test even if it determines that the first 

condition of the emissions-reductions 

test is satisfied. 

None of the examples of prior EPA 

actions cited by the commenters 

indicate that the EPA has previously 

interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to 

require use of the emissions-reduction 

test whenever the first condition of that 

test is satisfied. Rather, the examples 

demonstrate that states and the EPA 

have generally applied the emissionsreduction test where both conditions of 

that test were clearly satisfied.21

However, in other instances, states and 

the EPA have made a weight-ofevidence demonstration when the first 

condition of the emissions-reduction 

test was satisfied, but it was not clear 

whether the second condition was 

satisfied. For example, in 2015 we 

approved a weight-of-evidence 

demonstration submitted by ADEQ for a 

BART alternative at the Apache 

Generating Station (‘‘Apache BART 

Alternative’’).22 In that case, all of the 

emissions were from a single facility, so 

the first condition of the emissionsreduction test was satisfied. However, as 

with the Coronado BART Alternative, 

the Apache BART Alternative was 

expected to result in greater NOX

emissions but lower emissions of SO2

and PM10 compared with BART.23 We 

found that, ‘‘[i]n this situation, where 

BART and the BART Alternative result 

in reduced emissions of one pollutant 

but increased emissions of another, it is 

not appropriate to use the ‘greater 

emissions reductions’ test under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3).’’ 24 Similarly, when 

evaluating a BART alternative for the 

Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes, 

Washington, we determined that, even 

though all of the emissions were from a 

single facility, modeling was needed ‘‘to 

assess whether the visibility 

improvement from the BART 

Alternative’s SO2 emission reductions 

would be greater than the visibility 

improvement from the BART NOX

reductions.’’ 25 Likewise, when 

evaluating a proposed BART alternative 

for the Four Corners Power Plant, the 

EPA considered the weight of evidence, 

including visibility modeling, even 

though all emissions were from a single 

facility.26

In evaluating the Coronado BART 

Alternative, we have followed our longstanding interpretation of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) that, if the geographic 

distribution of emissions is the same 

under the BART alternative and BART, 

then the emissions distribution is not 

substantially different. With regard to 

the Final Strategy, we found that the 

distribution of emissions would not be 

substantially different than under BART 

because all emissions under both 

scenarios were from Coronado. 

Furthermore, under the Final Strategy, 

emissions of each pollutant would be 

lower than or equal to BART, and the 

collective emissions from the facility 

would be lower than BART.27 This 

allowed us to use the emissionsreduction test to confirm that the Final 

Strategy would ensure greater 

reasonable progress than BART. 

In our proposal, we did not evaluate 

the Interim Strategy under the 

emissions-reduction test because ADEQ 

did not make a demonstration under 

this test. Therefore, we had no cause to 

consider whether the two conditions of 

that test were satisfied. Nonetheless, in 

response to the commenters’ concerns, 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46907 

28 82 FR 19338. 

29Coronado SIP Revision, Addendum page 4. 

30 81 FR 2004, 2028 (January 14, 2016) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted). 31 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

we wish to clarify that the same 

interpretation of ‘‘distribution of 

emissions’’ would apply to the Interim 

Strategy. Because all of the emissions 

under the Interim Strategy and BART 

are from Coronado, the distribution of 

emissions would not be substantially 

different under the two scenarios, so the 

first condition of the test is satisfied. 

Regarding the second condition of the 

emissions-reduction test, ADEQ found 

that the Interim Strategy would result in 

greater NOX emissions, but lower 

emissions of SO2 and PM10 compared 

with BART.28 Contrary to Earthjustice’s 

suggestion, ADEQ did not determine 

that the Interim Strategy ‘‘fails’’ the 

emissions-reduction test. Rather, ADEQ 

found that the Interim Strategy would 

not necessarily achieve greater 

emissions reductions than BART.29

Furthermore, while the commenters 

point to the difference in total NOX, SO2, 

and PM10 emissions for each of the 

Interim Strategy scenarios compared 

with BART, we do not consider this 

comparison to be useful. As we 

explained in evaluating a proposed 

BART alternative submitted by Utah: 

We have not considered a total emissions 

profile that combines emissions of multiple 

pollutants to determine whether BART or the 

alternative is ‘‘better,’’ except where every 

visibility impairing pollutant is reduced by a 

greater amount under the BART alternative. 

A comparison of mass emissions from 

multiple pollutants (such as NOX and SO2) is 

not generally informative, particularly in 

assessing whether the alternative approach 

provides for greater reasonable progress 

towards improving visibility. Instead, when 

emissions of one or more pollutants increases 

under an alternative, EPA has given the most 

weight to the visibility impacts based on air 

quality modeling and used modeling to 

determine whether or not a BART Alternative 

measure that relies on interpollutant trading 

results in greater reasonable progress.30

Accordingly, we do not agree with the 

commenters that the Coronado BART 

Alternative ‘‘fails’’ the emissionsreduction test. Rather, we find that the 

emissions-reduction test is not the 

appropriate test to evaluate the Interim 

Strategy of the Coronado BART 

Alternative, and it was appropriate and 

reasonable for the State to apply the 

two-prong modeling test to evaluate the 

Interim Strategy. 

Comment: Earthjustice argued that the 

Coronado BART Alternative violates 

CAA section 110(l)’s anti-backsliding 

requirement because it weakens the 

existing BART determination for 

Coronado. Quoting CAA section 110(l) 

and citing several court cases 

interpreting that provision, the 

commenter stated that section 110(l) 

‘‘prohibits plan revisions that would 

interfere with an existing BART 

determination’’ and that the ‘‘EPA’s 

common sense interpretation of section 

110(l) is that it prevents plan revisions 

that backslide or weaken an existing 

Clean Air Act requirement by increasing 

overall air pollution or causing worse 

air quality.’’ The commenter asserted 

that the Coronado BART Alternative 

weakens the existing BART 

determination for Coronado because it 

would result in increased air pollution 

and cause worse visibility impairment 

at multiple Class I areas in the years 

2018 through 2025 and therefore 

violates section 110(l). 

The commenter further argued that 

the EPA improperly based our 110(l) 

analysis on our determination that the 

Coronado BART Alternative would 

result in greater reasonable progress 

than BART. The commenter re-asserted 

its claim that the Coronado BART 

Alternative is not ‘‘Better than BART’’ 

because it ‘‘fails’’ the emissionsreduction test. Earthjustice also argued 

that, ‘‘[b]ecause the purposes of a BART 

alternative and section 110(l) are 

distinct and a BART alternative may 

perform worse than BART in some 

respects, it is unreasonable to use the 

‘Better than BART’ test as the sole 

criterion for whether an alternative 

complies with section 110(l).’’ 

Earthjustice further noted that ADEQ 

was not choosing between BART and a 

BART alternative for Coronado in the 

first instance, but was instead replacing 

an existing BART determination that 

had been fully litigated and in place for 

four and a half years. They argued that, 

under these circumstances, section 

110(l) requires the EPA to 

independently determine whether the 

alternative weakens the existing BART 

determination, and the EPA cannot rely 

on the ‘‘Better than BART’’ test as the 

sole criterion for whether an alternative 

complies with section 110(l). 

Finally, the commenter made several 

points related to the EPA’s approval of 

a SIP revision that established a new 

BART determination for Cholla 

Generating Station (‘‘Cholla BART 

Reassessment’’). Noting certain 

similarities between the Coronado 

BART Alternative and the Cholla BART 

Reassessment, the commenter argued 

that the EPA had improperly ‘‘applied a 

completely different rationale and 

analysis when determining whether the 

two BART revisions complied with 

section 110(l) for regional haze 

purposes.’’ The commenter also 

criticized the EPA’s responses to 

comments on section 110(l) issues 

related to the Cholla BART 

Reassessment and asserted that the EPA 

‘‘should not attempt to justify the 

Coronado BART alternative on similar 

grounds.’’ In particular, the commenter 

asserted that the EPA had (1) conflated 

its section 110(l) analysis regarding 

NAAQS attainment with its section 

110(l) analysis regarding Cholla’s 

existing regional haze requirements, (2) 

unreasonably dismissed the relevant 

section 110(l) case law, and (3) 

incorrectly relied, in part, on post-2025 

emissions reductions from Cholla to 

justify why the plan complied with 

section 110(l). 

Response: We do not agree that the 

Coronado SIP Revision violates CAA 

section 110(l). As explained further 

below, the commenter has 

mischaracterized the requirements of 

section 110(l) and the EPA’s 

interpretation of those requirements. 

Neither the statutory language nor the 

case law cited by the commenter 

support the commenter’s interpretation 

that a SIP revision that allows for 

additional air emissions or less stringent 

requirements than the existing plan per 

se constitutes a violation of CAA section 

110(l). 

Section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from 

approving a SIP revision ‘‘if the revision 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in [CAA section 171]), or any other 

applicable requirement of [the CAA].’’ 31

This language does not prohibit the EPA 

from approving any SIP revision that 

weakens the existing plan’s 

requirements or allows for an increase 

in emissions of a particular pollutant, 

nor has the EPA interpreted section 

110(l) in this manner. The EPA’s 

evaluation of whether a noninterference 

determination can be made under 

section 110(l) is a case-by-case 

assessment based on the specific facts 

and circumstances at issue. The 

commenter has selectively quoted from 

the EPA’s prior actions and court cases 

concerning those actions in order to 

support their position. In particular, the 

commenter asserts that, ‘‘in Kentucky 

Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 

986 (6th Cir. 2006), EPA interpreted 

section 110(l) as allowing the agency to 

approve a plan revision that weakened 

some existing control measures while 

strengthening others, but only ‘[a]s long 

as actual emissions in the air are not 

increased.’ ’’ However, the context for 

the quote makes clear that the EPA was 

not referring to a blanket prohibition on 

increases in emissions. Rather, we were 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46908 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

32 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005) (emphasis 

added). 

33See ‘‘Demonstrating Noninterference Under 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act When Revising 

a State Implementation Plan,’’ 6, 10–11 (June 8, 

2005) (Draft Guidance). 

34 Id. at 8. 

35 467 F.3d 986, 996 (6th Cir. 2006). 

36 711 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013). 

37 796 F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2015). 

38 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). 

39 Id. at 1160, n.11 (‘‘Our assessment of the EPA’s 

reasoning does not apply to review of rules 

governing areas that are in attainment.’’). 

40See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (‘‘[T]he 

Conservation Organizations take no issue with 

EPA’s finding that the alternative does not interfere 

with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.’’). 

41 Id. at 20. 

42 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). 

43See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (‘‘[T]he 

Conservation Organizations take no issue with 

EPA’s finding that the alternative does not interfere 

with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.’’). 

44WildEarth Guardians, 759 F.3d at 1074. 

45 Id. 

46 723 F.3d 1201, 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013). 

47The court specifically noted that the visibility 

protection provisions of CAA section 169A and 

169B are ‘‘applicable requirements’’ for purposes of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We agree with the 

commenter that these requirements are also 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ for purposes of section 

110(l). 

48CAA section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2). 

49CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 

7491(b)(2)(A). 

50Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. 

EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993). 

51 Id. 

52Center for Energy and Economic Development 

v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility 

describing our interpretation of section 

110(l) as applied to a SIP revision that 

substituted emissions reductions to 

make up for increased emissions 

resulting from moving an existing 

control measure to a contingency 

measure. We determined that we could 

approve this change without requiring 

an attainment demonstration, 

explaining that: 

Prior to the time when the control strategy 

SIP revisions are due, to demonstrate no 

[interference] with any applicable NAAQS or 

requirement of the Clean Air Act under 

section 110(l), EPA has interpreted this 

section such that States can substitute 

equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions 

to compensate for the control measure being 

moved from the regulatory portion to the 

contingency provisions. As long as actual 

emissions in the air are not increased, EPA 

believes that equivalent (or greater) emissions 

reductions will be acceptable to demonstrate 

non-interference.32

Thus, in the circumstances presented 

in that case, we found that, rather than 

submit a new attainment demonstration, 

the state could instead substitute one 

measure for another with equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions/air quality 

benefit in order to demonstrate 

noninterference with attainment, 

maintenance, and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) requirements. However, 

the EPA has never indicated that such 

a substitution approach is required in 

all cases. In some cases, states can 

provide an air quality analysis, typically 

based on modeling, showing that 

removing a particular control measure 

will not interfere with attainment, 

maintenance, or RFP requirements.33

Additionally, a modeling-based 

demonstration of non-interference with 

these requirements may be possible 

where increases in one pollutant are 

offset by decreases in another pollutant 

and the modeling analysis shows that 

the decreases will provide at least 

equivalent air quality benefits for each 

affected NAAQS.34

The cases cited by the commenter also 

fail to support the commenter’s 

interpretation. In Kentucky Resources 

Council, the court upheld the EPA’s 

decision that a new attainment 

demonstration was not required in order 

to show that the SIP revision would not 

interfere pursuant to section 110(l).35

Thus, the examination of whether the 

SIP revision would ‘‘worsen air quality’’ 

was based on whether the area, which 

was designated as a nonattainment area 

for the relevant NAAQS, would have 

more difficulty in attaining and 

maintaining the NAAQS with the SIP 

revision—not, as the commenter argues 

here, whether the SIP revision would 

simply result in increased emissions. 

Similarly, the Ala. Envtl. Council v. 

EPA 36 and Indiana v. EPA 37 courts 

upheld the EPA’s interpretation that 

section 110(l) allows for a substitution 

approach to demonstrate noninterference with the Act’s 

requirements, but did not hold that an 

increase in emissions per se constituted 

a violation of section 110(l). 

A fourth case cited by the commenter, 

Hall v. EPA,38 concerned the EPA’s 

analysis of non-interference with 

attainment requirements in a 

nonattainment area and did not address 

the Act’s other requirements (including 

visibility protection requirements) or 

how those requirements apply in 

attainment areas.39 Thus, the case is not 

relevant to the commenters’ objections, 

which specifically concern visibility 

protection requirements.40

Two additional cases cited by the 

commenter concerned regional haze SIP 

actions, but do not support the 

commenter’s contention that ‘‘after EPA 

approves a BART determination (or 

other regional haze requirement), the 

agency cannot later modify the BART 

determination in a manner that weakens 

it.’’ 41 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA 42

involved a challenge to a regional haze 

plan under section 110(l)’s requirements 

concerning noninterference with 

attainment and maintenance, which the 

commenter acknowledges are not of 

concern in relation to the Coronado SIP 

Revision.43 In that case, the court found 

that the petitioner had identified 

nothing in the SIP revision at issue ‘‘that 

weakens or removes any pollution 

controls.’’ 44 Contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, the court did not 

suggest that, if the petitioner had 

identified such a provision, it would 

necessarily have constituted a violation 

of section 110(l). In fact, the court 

declined to decide if section 110(l) even 

applied to the plan in question, stating 

only in dicta that, ‘‘even if the SIP 

merely maintained the status quo, that 

would not interfere with the attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 45

Oklahoma v. EPA 46 affirmed the 

EPA’s authority to review state BART 

determinations, based on, among other 

things, section 110(l). However, contrary 

to the commenter’s suggestion, the 

Oklahoma court did not indicate that 

individual BART determinations 

themselves are ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ for purposes of section 

110(l). Rather, the court found that the 

underlying statutory requirements 

concerning visibility protection 

constitute ‘‘applicable requirements.’’ 47

Accordingly, it is these generally 

applicable statutory requirements for 

which a demonstration of noninterference is required. 

In this instance, the critical statutory 

requirement is that the applicable 

implementation plan ‘‘contain such 

emission limits, schedules of 

compliance and other measures as may 

be necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal’’ of preventing any future and 

remedying any existing visibility 

impairment in Class I areas due to 

manmade air pollution.48 While 

measures for achieving ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ generally include 

requirements for source-specific BART 

determinations,49 the EPA has long 

interpreted CAA section 169A(b)(2) to 

allow for the adoption of 

‘‘implementation plan provisions other 

than those provided by BART analyses 

in situations where the agency 

reasonably concludes that more 

‘reasonable progress’ will thereby be 

attained’’ because ‘‘ ‘reasonable 

progress’ is the overarching requirement 

that implementation plan revisions 

under 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must 

address.’’ 50 This interpretation has been 

upheld by both the Ninth Circuit 51 and 

the D.C. Circuit 52 and is reflected in the 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46909 

Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340– 

41 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

53 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)–(6). See also Central 

Arizona Water Conservation District, 990 F.2d at 

1543; Center for Energy and Economic 

Development, 398 F.3d at 660; Utility Air 

Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340–41 (upholding 

the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ provisions). 

54The commenter does not appear to object to our 

determination that implementation of the Final 

Strategy would clearly satisfy section 110(l) because 

it would result in overall greater emissions 

reductions compared to the BART Control Strategy. 

55 Draft Guidance at 8. 

56See 82 FR 19338–19341. 

57Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340– 

41. 

58We do not agree with the commenter that it is 

inappropriate to consider post-2025 emissions 

reductions under section 110(l), given that such 

reductions will help to ensure continued 

compliance with the Act’s reasonable progress 

requirements. 

59 81 FR 46862; 82 FR 15150. 

60 Id. 

61See, e.g., Yazzie, 851 F.3d at 969 (affirming that 

statutory deadline for BART does not apply to a 

BART alternative). 

‘‘Better than BART’’ provisions of the 

Regional Haze Rule that apply to the 

Coronado SIP Revision.53 Accordingly, 

in evaluating the Coronado SIP Revision 

under section 110(l) with respect to the 

Act’s visibility protection requirements, 

the relevant question is not whether it 

would interfere with the BART 

determination in our FIP, but whether it 

would interfere with the overall 

statutory requirement for reasonable 

progress, as implemented through the 

‘‘Better than BART’’ provisions of the 

Regional Haze Rule. For the reasons 

explained in our proposal and 

elsewhere in this document, we have 

determined that the Coronado SIP 

Revision satisfies the ‘‘Better than 

BART’’ requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule, meaning that it will result in 

greater reasonable progress than the 

existing BART requirements for 

Coronado. Therefore, the Coronado SIP 

Revision complies with the Act’s 

reasonable progress requirements. As 

such, we do not agree with the 

commenter that we must apply some 

separate criterion to determine whether 

the Coronado SIP Revision would 

interfere with those same requirements. 

Furthermore, even if such a separate 

evaluation were necessary, we believe 

that the modeling performed to support 

ADEQ’s demonstration of greater 

reasonable progress for the Interim 

Strategy is adequate to demonstrate noninterference with the Act’s visibility 

protection provisions.54 As noted above, 

we interpret section 110(l) to allow for 

a modeling-based demonstration of noninterference with attainment, 

maintenance, and RFP requirements 

where increases in one pollutant are 

offset by decreases in another pollutant 

and the modeling analysis shows that 

the decreases will provide at least 

equivalent air quality benefits for each 

affected NAAQS.55 Similarly, such a 

modeling demonstration is appropriate 

to demonstrate non-interference with 

visibility protection requirements when 

reductions of one or more pollutants (in 

the case of the Interim Strategy, SO2 and 

PM) are being substituted for reductions 

of another pollutant (in the case of the 

Interim Strategy, NOX). As described in 

our proposal and elsewhere in this 

document, the modeling submitted with 

the Coronado SIP Revision demonstrates 

that the Interim Strategy will result in 

improved visibility at all affected Class 

I areas compared with 2014 Baseline 

Emissions (prong 1) and will result in 

improved visibility, on average, across 

all Class I areas, compared with BART 

on both the 20% best and worst days 

(prong 2).56 As the commenter noted, 

the modeling indicates that visibility 

improvement at certain Class I areas 

will be slightly less under the Interim 

Strategy as compared with BART 

between 2018 and 2025. However, we 

do not believe that a temporary decrease 

in the rate of improvement at these areas 

constitutes ‘‘interference’’ with the Act’s 

visibility protection requirements, given 

that it is accompanied by a greater 

improvement at other Class I areas. As 

the D.C. Circuit has explained, ‘‘nothing 

in [CAA] § 169A(b)’s ‘reasonable 

progress’ language requires at least as 

much improvement at each and every 

individual area as BART itself would 

achieve (much less improvement at each 

area at every instant) . . . .’’ 57

Furthermore, once the Final Strategy is 

implemented by 2026, we anticipated 

that there will be greater improvement 

across all Class I areas compared to 

BART.58 Therefore, we conclude that 

the Coronado SIP Revision will not 

interfere with the CAA’s visibility 

protection requirements. 

The commenters’ statements 

regarding the Cholla BART 

Reassessment are out of the scope of 

today’s action. That action was a 

separate analysis based on the facts and 

circumstances of that SIP revision, 

which we finalized on March 17, 2017. 

We also do not agree with the 

commenter that we improperly applied 

a different rationale and analysis when 

determining whether the Coronado 

BART Alternative and the Cholla BART 

Reassessment complied with section 

110(l). In both cases, we considered 

whether the relevant SIP revision would 

interfere with the applicable statutory 

requirements.59 However, despite some 

similarities between the two SIP 

revisions, they are not subject to all the 

same statutory requirements, so the 

respective section 110(l) analyses 

necessarily differ in some respects. In 

particular, because the Cholla BART 

Reassessment was a BART 

determination, we considered whether 

it met the CAA’s BART requirements, as 

well as whether it was consistent with 

the CAA’s long-term national goal of 

restoring natural visibility conditions at 

Class I areas.60 Because the CAA’s 

BART requirements do not apply to a 

BART alternative,61 we did not consider 

them in reviewing the Coronado SIP 

Revision under section 110(l). Rather, as 

explained above, we have considered 

whether the Coronado SIP Revision is 

consistent with the CAA requirement 

for reasonable progress toward the longterm national goal. 

Finally, while we do not agree that 

our responses to comments concerning 

the Cholla BART Reassessment were 

mistaken, those responses are not at 

issue in this action. To the extent that 

the commenter’s concerns are relevant 

to the Coronado SIP Revision, we have 

addressed them above. 

Comment: Earthjustice and EDF both 

raised concerns with the CAMx 

modeling relied upon by ADEQ and the 

EPA to determine that the Interim 

Strategy would result in greater 

reasonable progress than BART. They 

noted that, although ADEQ had 

performed additional analyses to 

determine if the modeled visibility 

changes could be attributed to emissions 

changes rather than model ‘‘noise,’’ the 

results were ‘‘still applicable to only one 

year’s meteorological transport pattern.’’ 

They asserted that the EPA should 

require a demonstration that the 

emissions curtailments would result in 

better visibility conditions across varied 

air transport conditions. 

EDF acknowledged that the EPA’s 

modeling guidance allows the use of a 

single year of meteorological data for 

modeling of regional scale pollutants 

using CAMx. However, the commenters 

noted that the CAMx modeling for the 

Coronado BART Alternative focused on 

a single source’s impacts on very 

specific geographic locations that 

‘‘would have large variations due to 

yearly meteorological changes in wind 

transport patterns.’’ Earthjustice stated 

that most BART determinations and all 

BART alternatives that it was aware of 

relied on CALPUFF modeling. EDF and 

Earthjustice also noted that, where the 

EPA had previously used CAMx 

modeling for BART determinations, it 

was in conjunction with CALPUFF 

modeling, which typically uses at least 

a three-year meteorological database. 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46910 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

62 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

EPA–454/B–07–002 (April 2007) p. 149. 

63 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, 

and Regional Haze, 17 (December 2014) (draft). 

64See 70 FR 39107–39108 (‘‘For assessing the 

fifth factor, the degree of improvement in visibility 

from various BART control options, the States may 

run CALPUFF or another appropriate dispersion 

model to predict visibility impacts . . . The 

maximum 24-hour emission rates would be 

modeled for a period of three or five years of 

meteorological data.’’). 

65See, e.g., BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix Y, section IV.D.5. (‘‘Use CALPUFF or 

other appropriate dispersion model to determine 

the visibility improvement expected at a Class I area 

from the potential BART control technology applied 

to the source’’); 70 FR 39123 (‘‘For the specific 

purposes of the regional haze rule’s BART 

provisions . . . we have concluded that CALPUFF 

is sufficiently reliable to inform the decisionmaking process.’’). 

66 ‘‘Additional Documentation on the Coronado 

Generating Station Better-than-BART Modeling 

Analysis to Address EPA’s October 2016 Request’’, 

Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph 

Morris, Ramboll Environ to Bill McClellan, Salt 

River Project (April 6, 2017). 

They asserted that, in light of the small 

changes in visibility between the 

modeled emissions scenarios, ‘‘the 

difference in impacts that delineate one 

alternative curtailment period from 

another are within the margin of error 

for the model output.’’ They also stated 

that, if the difference were consistent 

from year to year, ‘‘it would provide 

more confidence in the resulting 

implementation of multiple curtailment 

periods.’’ Earthjustice added that ‘‘the 

demonstration provided by ADEQ only 

gives information about the relative 

performance of BART versus the 

alternative if the 2008 meteorological 

conditions are duplicated in every 

future year.’’ 

Response: We acknowledge the 

commenters’ concern about the 

robustness of a modeling analysis based 

on a single year of meteorology, given 

the year-to-year variability of 

meteorological conditions and their 

possible effect on visibility impacts. 

However, the Regional Haze Rule does 

not require modeling of a longer period 

to make a demonstration under the twoprong test, and EPA guidance also does 

not recommend a longer period. Rather, 

to address a range of meteorological 

conditions, the EPA’s photochemical 

modeling guidance recommends 

modeling a full year. Our current 

guidance states that ‘‘the preferred 

approach for regional haze-related 

model applications is to simulate an 

entire, representative year.’’ 62 More 

recent draft guidance states: 

Regional Haze—Choose time periods 

which reflect the variety of meteorological 

conditions which represent visibility 

impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst 

days in the Class I areas being modeled (high 

and low concentrations necessary). This is 

best accomplished by modeling a full year.63

Thus, modeling a full year with a 

photochemical model to represent 

visibility impairment on the 20% best 

and worst days is consistent with EPA 

guidance. 

We also note that states and the EPA 

rarely, if ever, model more than a single 

year with a photochemical model even 

for NAAQS attainment demonstrations 

covering large urban areas with 

thousands of sources possibly subject to 

emission controls. A key reason for the 

practice and recommendation of 

modeling just a single year is the time 

and expense involved in running the 

computationally-intensive computer 

model and in preparing meteorological 

and emissions inputs. The emission 

inventory requires economic variables 

and population estimates for the whole 

area covered in the model domain, as 

well as the emissions calculations for 

the many sources of pollution in the 

domain. Meteorological and other 

model input parameters typically must 

be adjusted in an iterative process to 

ensure the model performs adequately. 

The model’s performance must then be 

evaluated. All of these tasks must be 

done separately for each year. Thus, 

while modeling longer periods may 

improve the robustness of the modeling 

results, it also requires significant 

additional time and resources. 

Therefore, it is prudent to assess 

whether the benefits of the modeling 

justify the additional effort for each 

individual application. Given that the 

modeling for the Coronado SIP Revision 

affects only a single source for a limited 

period of time (i.e., the period of the 

Interim Strategy), we do not think it is 

reasonable to require more than a single 

year of photochemical modeling. 

We note that the situation was 

different for the CALPUFF modeling 

that states and the EPA conducted for 

BART determinations, for which the 

EPA recommended that at least three 

years of meteorological data be used.64

Under the BART Guidelines, CALPUFF 

could be used for assessing the visibility 

impacts of a single source without the 

process of input adjustment and 

performance evaluation described above 

for photochemical models.65

Furthermore, the emission inventory for 

BART modeling was a single source, 

rather than the thousands of sources 

needed in a photochemical model such 

as CAMx. The meteorological inputs to 

CALPUFF are also simpler than for a 

photochemical model, and they were 

developed by multistate Regional 

Planning Organizations, such as the 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP), for use in BART 

determinations for numerous different 

facilities. In summary, while the 

CALPUFF modeling used for BART 

determinations employed multiple years 

of meteorology, the cost and effort 

involved was lower than for CAMx, and 

it was spread over multiple states and 

sources. By contrast, the Interim 

Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision 

affects only a single source for a limited 

period of time. Accordingly, we find 

that modeling multiple years with 

CAMx for the two-prong test applied to 

the Interim Strategy would constitute a 

disproportionately high level of effort 

relative to the modest benefit of such an 

approach. 

Regarding the specific year chosen for 

modeling the Interim Strategy, as 

discussed in connection with SRP’s 

comments and the analysis submitted 

by Ramboll Environ,66 we find that the 

2008 meteorology year was adequately 

representative for the two-prong test. In 

addition, as explained further below, 

that analysis presented evidence that 

2008 was a conservative year, in that the 

Interim Strategy would be expected to 

show a greater benefit compared to the 

baseline and BART in other years. 

Comment: Earthjustice and EDF 

expressed concern about the use of a 

projected 2020 inventory rather than 

clean conditions or the inventory of a 

‘‘known year’’ for the CAMx modeling. 

Earthjustice asserted that, ‘‘[t]o the 

extent EPA considers 2020 to be more 

representative of future or cleaner air 

quality conditions, CAMx should 

instead have been run with only single 

source emissions plus 

nonanthropogenic emissions to simulate 

reaction chemistry under natural 

conditions.’’ They argued that the EPA 

must include CALPUFF modeling to 

help support the conclusion that the 

Coronado BART Alternative is in fact 

better than BART ‘‘when looking at 

source impacts compared with natural 

conditions.’’ 

Response: We do not agree that ADEQ 

should have used natural conditions or 

the inventory of a ‘‘known’’ (i.e., past) 

year to evaluate the Interim Strategy. 

The Regional Haze Rule does not 

identify which background conditions 

states must use for evaluating greater 

reasonable progress under the twoprong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 

However, in the preamble to the final 

rule promulgating the two-prong test, 

we explained that: 

The underlying purpose of both prongs of 

the test is to assess whether visibility 

conditions at Class I areas would be better 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46911 

67 70 FR 39104, 39138 (July 6, 2005). 

68 82 FR 19338–19339. 

69As explained in response to comments above, 

it was appropriate and reasonable for the State to 

apply the two-prong modeling test to the Coronado 

BART Alternative. 

70See, e.g., 82 FR 5182, 5196 (‘‘Source sensitivity 

and apportionment techniques implemented in 

photochemical grid models have evolved 

sufficiently and provide the opportunity for 

estimating potential visibility and deposition 

impacts from one or a small group of emission 

sources using a full science photochemical grid 

model.’’). 

71See, e.g., 81 FR 296, 327–28 (January 5, 2016) 

(describing the use of CAMx for evaluating 

visibility impacts of sources in a Texas Regional 

Haze FIP). 

72Neither the Regional Haze Rule nor EPA 

guidance define ‘‘affected’’ Class I areas for 

purposes of the two-prong test. 

73This is illustrated in the graphic ‘‘Coronado 

CAMx Baseline Impacts—Baseline delta DV Impact 

vs. km distance,’’ in the file titled ‘‘Coronado_

baseline_CAMx_ddv_vs_distance.pdf,’’ available in 

the docket for this action. 

74See 82 FR 19338, dated April, 27, 2017; 

footnote 31. 

with the alternative program in place than 

they would without it. . . . In both cases, 

the logical reference point is visibility 

conditions as they are expected to be at the 

time of program implementation but in the 

absence of the program.’’ 67

In other words, the projected 

conditions at the time the BART 

alternative will be implemented, 

including emissions from all other 

sources, but assuming that no emission 

reductions from BART or the BART 

alternative have yet occurred, are an 

appropriate background for modeling 

under the two-prong test. Here, the 

Interim Strategy will be implemented 

between 2018 and 2025, so ADEQ’s 

decision to use the 2020 emissions 

inventory as the background conditions 

for comparing the Interim Strategy to 

BART was reasonable. 

We also do not believe that it is 

necessary to conduct CALPUFF 

modeling to support the conclusion that 

the Coronado BART Alternative would 

result in greater reasonable progress 

than BART. While ADEQ could have 

elected to conduct CALPUFF modeling 

to make a demonstration of greater 

reasonable progress, it instead chose to 

use CAMx modeling to make this 

demonstration. As explained in our 

proposal: 

CAMx has a scientifically current 

treatment of chemistry to simulate the 

transformation of emissions into visibilityimpairing particles of species such as 

ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, 

and is often employed in large-scale 

modeling when many sources of pollution 

and/or long transport distances are involved. 

Photochemical grid models like CAMx 

include all emissions sources and have 

realistic representations of formation, 

transport, and removal processes of the 

particulate matter that causes visibility 

degradation.68

Because it incorporates the many 

emissions sources that create the 

background conditions at the time the 

BART alternative will be implemented, 

CAMx is well suited for modeling under 

the two-prong test.69 Furthermore, as a 

result of recent developments in 

modeling techniques,70 the EPA and 

states have begun to use photochemical 

models such as CAMx to assess the 

visibility impacts from individual 

sources such as Coronado.71 Thus, 

ADEQ appropriately relied on CAMx 

modeling to assess the Coronado BART 

Alternative under the two-prong 

modeling test. 

Comment: Earthjustice and EDF 

objected to the fact that the CAMx 

modeling used to assess the Coronado 

BART Alternative was limited to a range 

of 300 kilometers (km), given that the 

EPA has previously used CAMx to 

assess impacts beyond the 300 km 

range. EDF stated that the EPA should 

explain why the 300 km limit was 

appropriate. Earthjustice argued that the 

EPA should include modeling results 

for Class I areas outside of 300 km. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that there is no a priori 

reason to limit the modeling under the 

two-prong test to Class I areas within 

300 km.72 We nevertheless find that the 

set of Class I areas evaluated in the 

CAMx modeling is adequately 

representative in this instance. The 300 

km radius used in the modeling covers 

a large region, a range of geographic 

settings, and a full range of compass 

directions from Coronado. In addition, 

the visibility impacts of Coronado’s 

emissions generally decline with 

distance.73 Because of that, when 

comparing projected visibility 

conditions under the BART Alternative 

scenario to projected visibility 

conditions under the baseline scenario, 

the differences between the two 

scenarios generally decline with 

distance. The same is true when 

comparing the BART Alternative to 

BART. As a result, while including 

more distant areas would have a small 

effect on the numerical values used in 

the two-prong test, doing so would be 

unlikely to change the outcome of the 

test. 

Comment: SRP commented that it 

strongly supports the EPA’s: 

• Proposed approval of ADEQ’s 

demonstration under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) that the Coronado BART 

Alternative Interim Strategy will 

achieve greater reasonable progress than 

BART at Coronado; 

• proposed approval of the CAMx 

modeling used by ADEQ; 

• determination that the Coronado 

BART Alternative Final Strategy will 

result in greater emission reductions 

than BART for Coronado; and 

• determination that the Final 

Strategy and its associated emission 

reductions are not necessary to 

demonstrate that the Coronado BART 

Alternative will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than BART during 

the period of the first long-term strategy. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

comments. 

Comment: SRP urged the EPA to note 

the assessment that ADEQ conducted 

that shows the importance of SO2 (and 

resulting sulfate) reductions in 

improving visibility in Class I areas 

potentially affected by Coronado. In 

particular, SRP asserted that: 

ADEQ demonstrated that SO2 emission 

reductions, such as those that would occur 

under the [Coronado] BART Alternative, are 

very significant in light of the facts that ‘‘the 

SO2-attributed visibility extinction is 

generally more than three times the NOXattributed visibility extinction’’ and that, in 

particular, ‘‘the ratios of SO2-attributed 

visibility extinction to NOX-attributed 

visibility extinction averaged over all Class I 

areas are 3.7, 4.2 and 4.2 for the 20% best 

days, the 20% worst days, and all days, 

respectively.’’ 

Response: As noted in footnote 31 of 

our proposal,74 ADEQ’s ‘‘Supplemental 

Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring Data’’ 

is not directly relevant to the State’s 

demonstration of greater reasonable 

progress under the two-prong test in 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(3), so we did not consider 

it in evaluating the State’s 

demonstration. The results of the CAMx 

modeling establish that, through a 

combination of controls, emission 

reductions, atmospheric chemistry, and 

meteorology, the Coronado BART 

Alternative will result in greater 

reasonable progress than BART, as 

required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 

Comment: SRP stated that, while the 

Coronado BART Alternative was 

proposed to be approved under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3), it is also approvable under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) under the 

weight-of-evidence test. SRP further 

noted that ‘‘[t]he clear weight of 

evidence test allows states to take into 

consideration a wide range of factors, 

visibility metrics, or other relevant 

considerations in making a better-thanBART determination.’’ 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment: SRP noted that the EPA 

described the Interim Strategy as ‘‘in 

effect from December 5, 2017 to 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46912 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

75 82 FR 19344 (emphasis added). 

76Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph 

Morris, Ramboll Environ (September 22, 2016). 

77 82 FR 19341. 

78The memorandum refers to IS3 and IS4 as BtB3 

and BtB4, respectively. 

December 31, 2025,’’ and indicated that 

the Final Strategy ‘‘would take effect on 

January 1, 2026.’’ The commenter stated 

that, ‘‘the December 31, 2025, date 

represents a deadline for SRP to install 

and operate an SCR on Unit 1 or close 

Unit 1, rather than the conclusion of the 

effective period for the Interim Strategy’’ 

and requested that the EPA clarify that 

the installation and operation of the 

SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1 will 

occur no later than December 31, 2025, 

and that the Interim Strategy will be in 

effect until the installation of SCR on 

Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the installation and 

operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or 

closure of Unit 1 must occur no later 

than December 31, 2025, and that the 

Interim Strategy will be in effect until 

the installation of SCR on Unit 1 or 

closure of Unit 1. We have made this 

clarification in this final notice. 

Comment: SRP noted that the EPA 

described the SO2 emission cap as 

‘‘plant-wide’’ and ‘‘facility-wide.’’ The 

commenter recommended that the EPA 

‘‘clarify that the 1,970 tpy SO2 emission 

cap applies to the aggregate annual 

emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2 only 

and does not apply to any emissions 

from any other sources at the site.’’ The 

commenter also noted that, ‘‘[i]n the 

event that Unit 1 shuts down, the SO2- 

emission tonnage limit applicable after 

the shutdown of that unit is 1,080 tons 

per calendar year.’’ 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the 1,970 tpy SO2

emission cap applies to the aggregate 

emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2, and 

that, if Unit 1 shuts down, an SO2

emission cap of 1,080 tpy would apply 

to Unit 2. We have made this 

clarification in this final notice. 

Comment: SRP asserted that the EPA 

incorrectly stated that ‘‘the Coronado 

SIP Revision will require equivalent or 

lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2

for all future years, compared to the 

emission levels currently allowed under 

the applicable implementation plan 

(including both the Arizona Regional 

Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze 

FIP).’’ The commenter noted that the 

Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX

reductions than the Arizona Regional 

Haze FIP. 

Response: We agree with SRP that the 

Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX

reductions than the Arizona Regional 

Haze FIP between December 5, 2017, 

and December 31, 2025. However, the 

statement from our proposal quoted by 

the commenter refers to ‘‘the emission 

levels currently allowed under the 

applicable implementation plan.’’ 75

Because the compliance date for the 

NOX emission limits in the Arizona 

Regional Haze FIP is December 5, 2017, 

the applicable implementation plan 

does not currently limit NOX emissions 

from Coronado. Thus, as correctly noted 

in our proposal, the Coronado SIP 

Revision will require lower emissions of 

NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years, 

compared to the emission levels 

currently allowed under the applicable 

implementation plan. 

Comment: SRP included as an 

attachment to its comments a technical 

memorandum from Ramboll Environ 

that evaluated whether the CAMx 

modeling results for the two-prong test 

were influenced by numerical noise, 

based on a spatial and numerical 

analysis of CAMx model outputs for 

visibility and its sulfate and nitrate 

components.76 The components reflect 

the differences in SO2 and NOX, 

respectively, between BART and the 

Interim Strategy. The differences 

showed a spatial pattern consistent with 

realistic gradual variation in the 

atmosphere, rather than random 

variation as would be expected from 

numerical noise. Therefore, the 

memorandum concluded that the 

modeled numerical differences 

represent real visibility improvements 

and are not just numerical artifacts. 

Response: This same analysis was 

included in the Coronado SIP Revision 

and evaluated for our proposal. We 

reaffirm our finding that the analysis 

supports the conclusion that the twoprong test results indicate actual 

visibility improvement under the 

Interim Strategy compared to BART and 

no degradation relative to the baseline.77

Comment: SRP included as an 

attachment to its comments a second 

memorandum from Ramboll Environ 

analyzing (1) whether the meteorology 

from the year that was used for 

modeling (2008) was adequately 

representative of other years and (2) 

whether, extending the length of the 

curtailment periods under the Interim 

Strategy would give additional visibility 

benefits. 

The first of three Ramboll Environ 

analyses of the representativeness of 

2008 was a comparison of 2008 

temperatures and precipitation to 

typical conditions based on more than 

100 years of meteorological data. The 

memorandum noted that temperature 

affects the oxidizing potential of the 

atmosphere, which in turn affects the 

conversion of SO2 and NOX emissions 

into visibility-impairing sulfates and 

nitrates. Ramboll Environ found that 

2008 was somewhat warmer than the 

average, but that generally the 

temperature was well within the normal 

range of variation. The memorandum 

also noted that precipitation can remove 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

atmosphere and found that 2008 

precipitation was classified as ‘‘Near 

Normal.’’ Accordingly, Ramboll Environ 

concluded that 2008 was reasonably 

representative for purposes of the 

visibility modeling. 

In a second analysis, Ramboll Environ 

examined visibility-impairing 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate concentrations during 2000–2012 

as measured at four Class I areas in 

different compass directions from 

Coronado. These are shown as time 

series bar or line graphs for the various 

pollutants and areas. Ramboll Environ 

found that the annual averages for 2008 

were near the middle of the averages for 

the individual years from 2000–2012. 

Monthly averages for 2008 were also 

consistent with the overall range seen 

from 2000–2012. Compared to other 

years, monthly sulfate averages for 2008 

tended to be on the high side during 

March, April, and September, and on 

the low side in mid-summer and in 

December through February, but 

nevertheless consistent with the overall 

range seen for 2000–2012. Ramboll 

Environ concluded that, because the 

curtailment periods for Interim Strategy 

options IS3 and IS4 78 are from 

November 21 through January 21, 

overlapping the period for which 2008 

tended to have lower sulfate, the 

modeled visibility improvement for 

these options would also tend to be 

lower than would be expected for other 

years. That is, the actual visibility 

benefits of these options would 

generally be expected to be larger than 

the modeling results indicate. The same 

conclusion applies to nitrate, for which 

2008 monthly averages tend to be on the 

low side, compared to the averages for 

2000–2012 years during the months that 

include the curtailment periods 

(November, December, and January). 

In its third analysis, Ramboll Environ 

examined the monthly distribution of 

the 20% worst visibility days to see how 

many fell within the November 21– 

January 20 curtailment period for 2008 

in comparison to 2000–2012. This 

analysis showed that 2008 had a lower 

than average number of 20% worst 

visibility days within this period. 

Ramboll Environ concluded that, 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46913 

79 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

because more of the 20% worst 

visibility days would fall within the 

curtailment period in a typical year, the 

actual visibility benefits of the Interim 

Strategy would generally be larger than 

the modeling results indicate. 

Ramboll Environ’s analysis of the 

approximately 60-day curtailment 

period used in Interim Strategy options 

IS3 and IS4 relied on post-processing of 

modeling results to assess extending the 

period by 20, 40, 60, and 80 days. 

Ramboll Environ presented bar graphs 

showing the amount by which 

extending the curtailment period 

impacted the strengths of the directional 

results of the two-prong test. For prong 

1, the visibility benefit of the Interim 

Strategy increased very little as the 

curtailment period was extended. For 

prong 2, Ramboll Environ stated that 

even doubling the curtailment period 

would yield only a 0.002 deciview 

improvement over the proposed period, 

which Ramboll Environ viewed as 

small. Therefore, SRP concluded that 

extending the curtailment period would 

have only a small visibility benefit. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

additional analysis provided by SRP, 

which supports the conclusion that 

2008 is a representative year for 

modeling and that modeling results for 

this single year are adequate for 

evaluating the Interim Strategy under 

the two-prong test. Although the 

Ramboll Environ analysis primarily 

addressed IS3 and IS4, the curtailment 

period for IS2 (October 21–January 31) 

also includes the months of November 

through January, so the same conclusion 

also applies to IS2. 

We acknowledge the analysis of 

extending the curtailment period, but 

we note that this analysis is not 

necessary to demonstrate that the 

Interim Strategy would result in greater 

reasonable progress than BART. It is 

sufficient that the modeling 

demonstrates that each of the Interim 

Strategy options passes the two-prong 

test. 

IV. Final Action 

For the reasons explained in our 

proposal and in our responses to 

comments in this document, we have 

determined that the Coronado SIP 

Revision will provide for greater 

reasonable progress toward natural 

visibility conditions than BART. We 

have also determined that the Coronado 

SIP Revision meets all other 

requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations. Therefore, 

we are approving the Coronado SIP 

Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because 

this approval fills the gap in the Arizona 

Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA’s 

prior partial disapproval with respect to 

Coronado, we are withdrawing those 

portions of the Arizona Regional Haze 

FIP that address BART for Coronado. 

Additionally, we are taking final action 

to remove those portions of the Arizona 

SIP that have either been superseded by 

previously-approved revisions to the 

Arizona SIP or are being superseded by 

this final approval of the Coronado SIP 

revision. 

V. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

As explained above, the Coronado SIP 

Revision will result in reduced 

emissions of both SO2 and PM10

compared to the existing Arizona 

Regional Haze SIP and FIP 

requirements. While the Coronado SIP 

Revision will result in fewer NOX

reductions than the Arizona Regional 

Haze FIP would have required between 

2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX

emissions remain at or below current 

levels until 2025, after which it will 

require NOX emissions reductions 

equivalent to or greater than would have 

been required under the Arizona 

Regional Haze FIP. Furthermore, 

Coronado is located in an area that is 

designated attainment, unclassifiable/ 

attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not 

yet been designated for each of the 

current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA 

believes that this action will not have 

potential disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the state 

permit provisions described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at the EPA Region IX Office (please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in the 

SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of the EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.79

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule 

applies to only a single facility and is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action approving revisions to a State 

Implementation Plan and removing the 

applicable Federal Implementation Plan 

for Regional Haze applies to only a 

single facility and is therefore is a Rule 

of Particular Applicability that is 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This rule applies to only a single 

facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping 

and reporting provisions do not 

constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’ 

as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 

5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. Firms primarily engaged in the 

generation, transmission, and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale 

are small if, including affiliates, the total 

electric output for the preceding fiscal 

year did not exceed 4 million megawatt 

hours. The owner of facility affected by 

this rule, SRP, exceeds this threshold. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
46914 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on any Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks that the EPA has reason to 

believe may disproportionately affect 

children, per the definition of ‘‘covered 

regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of 

the Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. The EPA is not 

revising any technical standards or 

imposing any new technical standards 

in this action. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The documentation for this decision is 

contained in section V above. 

L. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), 

the EPA has determined that this action 

is subject to the provisions of section 

307(d). Section 307(d) establishes 

procedural requirements specific to 

certain rulemaking actions under the 

CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 

307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the 

provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze 

FIP that apply to Coronado is subject to 

the requirements of CAA section 307(d), 

as it constitutes a revision to a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, 

CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that 

the provisions of section 307(d) apply to 

‘‘such other actions as the Administrator 

may determine.’’ The EPA determines 

that the provisions of 307(d) apply to 

the EPA’s action on the Coronado SIP 

Revision. 

M. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This rule is exempt from the CRA 

because it is a rule of particular 

applicability. The EPA is not required to 

submit a rule report regarding this 

action under section 801 because this is 

a rule of particular applicability that 

only applies to a single named facility. 

N. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility. 

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

Dated: September 28, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator, EPA. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (d), under the table 

heading ‘‘EPA-Approved SourceSpecific Requirements’’ by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’ 

after the entry for ‘‘Cholla Power Plant;’’ 

■ b. In paragraph (e), under the table 

heading ‘‘Table 1—EPA-Approved NonRegulatory and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures’’ by adding an entry for 

‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’ after the 

entry for ‘‘Cholla SIP Revision.’’ 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

*******

Coronado Generating Station Permit #64169 (as amended 

by Significant Revision 

#63088) Cover Page and 

Attachment ‘‘E’’: BART Alternatives.

November 9, 2017 ...... October 10, 2017, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].Permit issued by Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality. Submitted on December 15, 2016. 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46915 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area or title/subject 

State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan 

Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans) 

*******

Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan 

for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station, excluding Appendix B.

Source-Specific ........... December 15, 2016 .... October 10, 2017, [INSERT Federal Register CITATION].BART Alternative for 

Coronado Generating Station 

adopted December 

14, 2016. 

* * * * * * * 

1Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and 

Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.145 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(1). 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)– 

(vi). 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(f). 

[FR Doc. 2017–21604 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0617; FRL–9969–04– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Utah on 

January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. The 

submittals request SIP revisions to the 

State’s General Burning rule; a repeal 

and reenactment of the General Burning 

rule with changes to applicability, 

timing and duration of burning 

windows, and an amendment to exempt 

Native American ceremonial burning 

during restricted burning days. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 9, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0617. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6385, 

dresser.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In our notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on July 13, 2017 (82 FR 

32282), the EPA proposed to approve 

Utah’s January 28, 2013 SIP submission, 

which repeals and reenacts the General 

Burning provisions in R307–202 with 

several amendments (discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking). Additionally, the 

EPA proposed approval of Utah’s July 8, 

2015 revisions, which exempts 

ceremonial burning conducted by a 

‘‘Native American spiritual advisor’’ 

during restricted burn days. In this 

rulemaking, we are taking final action 

on both SIP submittals. The reasons for 

our approval are provided in detail in 

the proposed rule. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received no comments on the 

proposed rule. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons expressed in the 

proposed rule, the EPA is approving 

revisions to Sections in R307–202 of the 

State’s General Burning provisions from 

the January 28, 2013 and July 8, 2015 

submittals. 


Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES