Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647-0028
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration
Posted Date: 2014-09-19T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56322-56331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22403]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647, FRL-9916-85-Region 9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) that establishes an alternative to best available retrofit 
technology (BART) for Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at Arizona 
Electric Power Cooperative's (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station 
(Apache). The SIP revision also revises the emission limit for nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) applicable to Steam Unit 1 (ST1), when it is 
operated in combined-cycle mode with Gas Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA proposes 
to find that the BART alternative for ST2 and ST3 would provide greater 
reasonable progress

[[Page 56323]]

toward natural visibility conditions than BART, in accordance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule 
(RHR). We also propose to approve the revision to the NOX 
emission limit for ST1 and GT1. In conjunction with this proposed 
approval, we propose to withdraw those portions of the federal 
implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Apache. We previously 
partially granted AEPCO's petition for reconsideration of that FIP and 
are now proposing to find that withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies to 
Apache, constitutes our action on AEPCO's Petition for Reconsideration 
of the FIP.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 
2014. Requests for public hearing must be received on or before October 
6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further 
instructions on where and how to learn more about this proposal, 
request a public hearing, or submit comments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. The Apache SIP Revision
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

 A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the 
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department 
of Environmental Quality.
     The initials AEPCO mean or refer to Arizona Electric Power 
Cooperative.
     The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
     The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
     The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I 
Federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business 
Information.
     The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating 
Unit.
     The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation 
Plan.
     The initials GT1 mean or refer to Gas Turbine Unit 1.
     The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX 
burners.
     The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British 
thermal units
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen 
oxides.
     The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.
     The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
     The initials RHR mean or refer to EPA's Regional Haze 
Rule.
     The initials SCR mean or refer to Selective Catalytic 
Reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 
dioxide.
     The initials ST1 mean or refer to Steam Unit 1.
     The initials ST2 mean or refer to Steam Unit 2.
     The initials ST3 mean or refer to Steam Unit 3.

B. Docket

    The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that 
are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically at 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of 
the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the individual 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard 
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday 
through Friday, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal holidays.

C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA

    Written comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 2014. 
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-
0647, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov..
     Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb).
     Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, 
Air Division (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only accepted Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public 
docket without change. We may make comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other 
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or that is otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, we 
will include your email address as part of the comment that is placed 
in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit 
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and 
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk 
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include 
special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses.

D. Submitting Confidential Business Information

    Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or by 
email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim 
as CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 
mark the outside

[[Page 56324]]

of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and identify electronically within the 
disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 
public docket. We will not disclose information so marked except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register date 
and page number).
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the identified 
comment period deadline.

 F. Public Hearings

    If anyone contacts EPA by October 6, 2014 requesting to speak at a 
public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the 
hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at (415) 947-4139 
or at webb.thomas@epa.gov to request a hearing or to determine if a 
hearing will be held.

II. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    This section provides a brief overview of the requirements of the 
CAA and RHR, as they apply to this particular action. Please refer to 
our previous rulemakings on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP for 
additional background regarding the visibility protection provisions of 
the CAA and the RHR.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 77 FR 42834, 42837-42839 (July 20, 2012), (Arizona Regional 
Haze ``Phase 1'' Rule) 77 FR 75704, 75709-75712 (December 21, 2012), 
(Arizona Regional Haze ``Phase 2'' Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \3\ It also directs 
states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, 
often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address 
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that 
certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 
1962 and 1977 (known as ``BART-eligible'' sources) procure, install, 
and operate BART. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the 
visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of 
regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude 
of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).
    \4\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, we promulgated the RHR, which requires states to develop 
and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I areas) \5\ by 
reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.\6\ Under 
the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for BART-
eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area.\7\ In lieu of requiring 
source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to 
adopt alternative measures, as long as the alternative provides greater 
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART 
(i.e., the alternative must be ``better than BART'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
    \6\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
    \7\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
    \8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of State Submittals and EPA Actions

1. 2011 Arizona RH SIP
    On February 28, 2011, the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP under Section 308 of the 
RHR (``Arizona RH SIP'') to EPA. This submittal included BART 
determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers 
(PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) at Apache Units 
ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is a wall-fired boiler with a net unit 
output of 85 MW that burns pipeline-quality natural gas as its primary 
fuel. Units ST2 and ST3 are both dry-bottom, Riley Stoker turbo-fired 
boilers, operating on sub-bituminous coal, each with a gross unit 
output of 204 MW.
2. 2012 EPA Action on Arizona RH SIP and FIP
    On December 5, 2012, we issued a final rule approving in part and 
disapproving in part ADEQ's BART determinations for three sources, 
including Apache.\9\ In particular, we approved ADEQ's BART 
determinations for NOX, PM10, and SO2 
at Apache ST1 and PM10 and SO2 at ST2 and ST3, 
but disapproved ADEQ's BART determinations for NOX at ST2 
and ST3. We also found that the SIP lacked enforceable emission limits 
for all units and pollutants. In the same action, we promulgated a FIP 
for the disapproved portions of the SIP, including NOX BART 
determinations for ST2 and ST3. We determined that BART for 
NOX at ST2 and ST3 was an emission limit of 0.070 pounds per 
million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) determined as an average 
across the two units, based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day 
average, which is achievable with the use of low-NOX burners 
(LNB), overfire air (OFA) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). We 
also established compliance dates and requirements for equipment 
maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for all units and 
all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 77 FR 72512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2013 AEPCO Petition for Reconsideration of RH FIP for Apache 
Generating Station
    On February 4, 2013, AEPCO submitted a petition to EPA seeking 
reconsideration of the final rule (``AEPCO Petition'').\10\ On May 29, 
2013, AEPCO submitted a supplemental petition providing an alternative 
to the BART determinations in that rule (``Apache BART 
Alternative'').\11\ The Apache BART Alternative consisted of a 
conversion to pipeline natural gas (PNG) combustion at ST2 and a 
NOX emission

[[Page 56325]]

limit based upon selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) at ST3. On 
June 6, 2013, we sent a letter to representatives of AEPCO granting 
partial reconsideration of the final rule under CAA section 
307(d)(7)(B).\12\ Specifically, we stated that we were granting 
reconsideration of the emission limits for NOX, 
PM10, and SO2 at ST2 and ST3, the compliance 
methodology for NOX at ST2 and ST3, and the provisions of 
the rule applicable to ST1 and GT1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to Lisa 
Jackson, EPA (February 2, 2013).
    \11\ Letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to 
Robert Perciasepe and Jared Blumenfeld, EPA (May 29, 2013).
    \12\ Letter from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Eric Hiser, Jorden, 
Bischoff and Hiser (June 6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 2013 Arizona RH SIP Revision and Clarification
    On May 3, 2013, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona RH 
SIP.\13\ Among other things, the SIP revision clarified that the BART 
emission limits for ST1 apply when ST1 operates alone or if ST1 is 
operated in combined-cycle mode with the adjacent GT1, but not to (a) 
GT1 in stand-alone simple-cycle operation or (b) ST1/GT1 when ST1 
burners are shut off and ST1 is not producing electricity.\14\ EPA 
approved this clarification in our July 30, 2013 Phase 2 final rule on 
the Arizona RH SIP.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA 
(May 3, 2013), Enclosure 3, Arizona RH SIP Revision.
    \14\ Id. Appendix D, pages 5-6 (footnotes to tables 1.1, 1.2 and 
1.3) and page 49. The reason for this distinction is that gas 
turbines are not among the 26 industrial source categories included 
in the definition of ``existing stationary facility'' in the 
Regional Haze Rule, whereas combined cycle turbines are included in 
this list. See 40 CFR 51.301; 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section 
II.A.1.
    \15\ See Supplemental Proposal, 78 FR 46142, 46175 (codified at 
40 CFR 52.120(c)(158)(ii)(A)(1)(iii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. 2014 Arizona RH SIP Revision for Apache Generating Station
    On May 13, 2014, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona RH SIP 
that incorporated the Apache BART Alternative (``Apache SIP 
Revision'').\16\ The Apache SIP Revision also revised the 
NOX emission limit for ST1 during combined-cycle operation. 
The Apache SIP Revision is the subject of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA 
(May 13, 2014), Enclosure 3, Revision to the Arizona RH Plan for 
AEPCO Apache Generating Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Apache SIP Revision

 A. Summary of the Apache SIP Revision

    The Apache SIP Revision consists of two components: a BART 
Alternative for ST2 and ST3, and a revised NOX emission 
limit for ST1 and GT1 when operated in combined-cycle mode.
 1. Apache BART Alternative
    Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 would be converted from a 
primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts pipeline-quality 
natural gas, while ST3 would remain as a coal-fired unit and would be 
retrofitted with SNCR. The emission limits associated with the 
Alternative are summarized in Table 1. The compliance date for all 
limits is December 5, 2017, except that a more stringent limit for 
PM10 at ST2 (0.008 lb/MMBtu) that will be effective on 
December 5, 2018.

                              Table 1--Emission Limits for Apache BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Emission limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days)
                 Unit                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             NOX                          PM10                          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2..................................           0.085  0.01, then 0.008 (effective December 5,           0.00064
                                                        2018).
ST3..................................            0.23  0.03.....................................            0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ incorporated the revised emission limits, as well as 
associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements, as an addendum to Apache's Operating Permit, 
which was submitted as part of the Apache SIP Revision.\17\ The SIP 
revision also includes ADEQ's determination that the Apache BART 
Alternative is ``better than BART,'' based on total estimated emissions 
reductions, reductions in visibility impairing pollutants, IMPROVE 
monitoring data, and improvements in modeled visibility impacts from 
Apache.\18\ More information regarding ADEQ's analysis is set forth 
below, along with EPA's evaluation of the analysis. On July 18, 2014, 
EPA determined that the Apache SIP Revision was complete under CAA 
section 110(k)(1)(B).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Apache SIP Revision, Appendix B, Significant Revision No. 
59195 to Air Quality Control Permit No. 55412 (``Apache Permit 
Revision'')(issued May 13, 2014).
    \18\ Apache SIP Revision, sections 2.2 and 2.3.
    \19\ Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA, to Eric Massey, ADEQ (July 
18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Revised Emission Limit for ST1 and GT1
    The Apache SIP Revision revises the NOX emission limit 
for the combined-cycle operation of ST1 with GT1 from 0.056 lb/MMBtu to 
0.10 lb/MMBtu, based on a determination that the 0.056 lb/MMBtu limit 
is not achievable during combined cycle operations and that inclusion 
of emissions from GT1 would result in an emission rate of 0.10 lb/
MMbtu.\20\ In order to ensure that this revision does not result in an 
overall increase in NOX emissions, the SIP Revision also 
sets a 1205 lb/day limit, based on a 30-calendar-day average, for ST1 
operating in standalone mode or in combined-cycle mode with GT1. ADEQ 
derived this emission limit based on the existing emission limit of 
0.056 lb/MMBtu (the original NOX emission limit required for 
ST1 and GT1 in combined-cycle mode), and a conservative estimate of the 
heat rate (10,985 Btu/kWhr) over the primary operating range of ST1 and 
GT1 in combined-cycle operation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to 
Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013).
    \21\ Id. section 3.1, footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Evaluation of Apache BART Alternative

    The RHR requires that a SIP revision establishing a BART 
alternative include three elements as listed below. We have evaluated 
the Apache BART Alternative with respect to each of these elements.
     A demonstration that the emissions trading program or 
other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than 
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all 
sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative 
program.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take 
place during

[[Page 56326]]

the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting 
from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions 
resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of 
the baseline date of the SIP.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Demonstration of the Alternative Measure Will Achieve Greater 
Reasonable Progress
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), ADEQ must demonstrate that the 
alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would 
have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all 
sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative 
program. This demonstration must be based on five criteria, which are 
addressed below.
a. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the SIP must include a list 
of all BART-eligible sources within the State. ADEQ included a list of 
BART-eligible sources in the Arizona RH SIP.\25\ As part of the Phase 2 
Arizona regional haze rulemaking, EPA approved the majority of ADEQ's 
BART-eligibility determinations, but disapproved ADEQ's finding that 
Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Sundt Unit 4 was not BART-eligible.\26\ In 
the Phase 3 Arizona regional haze rulemaking, EPA determined that TEP 
Sundt Unit 4 was BART-eligible and subject-to-BART and made final BART 
determinations for this unit.\27\ Thus, all BART-eligible sources in 
the State have been addressed either in a SIP or FIP. We propose to 
find that the existing Arizona RH SIP and FIP fulfill the requirement 
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A) for a list of all BART-eligible sources 
within the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 77 FR 75704, 75719-75720; 78 FR 46142, 46151-46152.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ 79 FR 52420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All Bart Source Categories 
Covered by the Alternative Program
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), each BART-eligible source in 
the State must be subject to the requirements of the alternative 
program or have a federally enforceable emission limitation determined 
by the State and approved by EPA as meeting BART. In this instance, the 
alternative program covers only Apache ST2 and ST3. All other BART-
eligible sources and units in the State have already been addressed in 
the Arizona RH SIP and FIP.\28\ Therefore, we propose to find that the 
Apache SIP Revision meets the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See generally 77 FR 72512, 78 FR 46142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP must include an 
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at ST2 and ST3. As 
noted above, ADEQ's BART analyses and determinations for ST2 and ST3 
were included in the Arizona RH SIP. EPA approved ADEQ's BART 
determinations for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved 
ADEQ's BART determination for NOX at ST2 and ST3 and 
conducted our own BART analysis and determination for NOX 
BART for ST2 and ST3 in a FIP.
    In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ compared the BART Alternative both 
to ADEQ's original BART determinations and to EPA's BART determinations 
in the FIP. For purposes of our evaluation, we consider BART for ST2 
and ST3 to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART determinations 
for PM10 and SO2, which were approved into the 
applicable SIP, and (2) EPA's BART determination for NOX in 
the Arizona RH FIP. These BART determinations are summarized in Table 
2.

                                    Table 2--BART Emission Limits for Apache
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Emission limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler-operating days)
                 Unit                 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          NOX                          PM10             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2..................................  0.070 (across two units).................            0.03            0.15
ST3..................................  .........................................            0.03            0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Technical Support Document (TSD) included with the Apache 
SIP Revision, ADEQ calculated estimated annual emission reductions 
achievable with BART by comparing projected emissions from ST2 and ST3 
with BART \29\ to baseline emissions.\30\ The results of these 
calculations are shown in Table 3. Because BART for PM10 and 
SO2 was determined to be consistent with existing controls, 
no emission reductions are expected to result from BART. However, 
significant NOX emission reductions (4,502 tpy) are expected 
to result from implementation of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ADEQ refers to the BART control scenario as ``2013 SCR.'' 
See TSD page 4 (``This scenario assumes SCR, LNB, and OFA 
implementation as well as ESP and wet scrubber upgrades.'').
    \30\ ADEQ considered two different baseline scenarios--2007 
(assuming use of Electrostatic Precipitation (ESP) and wet scrubber 
upgrades) and 2013 (assuming use of OFA, ESP, and wet scrubber 
upgrades). See SIP TSD at 3. We have chosen to employ the 2013 
Baseline, consistent with our original BART analysis, which used a 
baseline with OFA. See 78 FR 42856, Table 16.

                     Table 3--Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With BART at Apache
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        ST2 and ST3 Total emissions  (tpy)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        NOX            PM10             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (``2013 Baseline'') \a\................................           5,441             403           2,013
BART (``2013 SCR'') \b\.........................................             939             403           2,013
Emission Reduction (``2013 SCR'' minus ``2013 Baseline'') \c\...           4,502               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Apache SIP Revision TSD Table 6.

[[Page 56327]]

 
\b\ Id.
\c\ Id. Table 7.

We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of 
BART and associated emission reductions achievable at Apache ST2 and 
ST3 under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
d. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through the 
BART Alternative
    In the Apache SIP Revision TSD, ADEQ calculated emissions 
reductions achievable through the BART Alternative by comparing 
estimated annual emissions from ST2 and ST3 under the BART Alternative 
\31\ with baseline emissions. The results of these calculations are 
shown in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ADEQ refers to the BART Alternative as ``2013 9bv2 PNGt.'' 
See TSD page 4 (``The 2013 9bv2 PNGt scenario reflects the 
implementation of the AEPCO alternative controls . . .'').

                 Table 4--Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With Apache BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        ST2 and ST3 Total emissions  (tpy)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        NOX            PM10             SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (``2013 Baseline'') \a\................................           5,441             403           2,013
BART Alternative (``2013 9bv2 PNGt'') \b\.......................           2,122             262           1,056
Emission Reduction (``2013 9bv2 PNGt'' minus ``2013 Baseline'')            3,318             141             957
 \ c\...........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Apache SIP Revision TSD Table 6.
\b\ Id.
\c\ Id. Table 7.

We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of 
the projected emissions reductions achievable through the alternative 
measure under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
e. A Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable 
Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation 
of BART
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the State must provide a 
determination that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress 
than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear 
weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides two 
different tests for determining whether the alternative achieves 
greater reasonable progress than BART. If the distribution of emissions 
is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative 
measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative 
measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the 
distribution of emissions is significantly different, however, then the 
State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in 
visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class 
I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would 
demonstrate ``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the following 
two criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I 
area, and; (2) there is an overall improvement in visibility, 
determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the 
alternative over all affected Class I areas.
    In the Apache SIP Revision, ADEQ determined that neither of the two 
tests under 51.308(e)(3) was appropriate for evaluating the Apache BART 
Alternative. Therefore, ADEQ conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis 
based on reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants, IMPROVE 
monitoring data, and improvements in modeled visibility impacts from 
Apache.
    The reductions in visibility-impairing pollutants from the Apache 
BART Alternative, as estimated by ADEQ, are summarized in Table 4 
above. As noted above, compared with BART, ADEQ projects that the 
Apache BART Alternative will result in 1183 tpy more NOX 
emissions, 957 tpy fewer SO2 emissions, and 141 tpy fewer 
PM10 emissions than BART.
    ADEQ next considered historical emission inventory and ambient 
monitoring data. In particular, ADEQ noted that, in 2008, state-wide 
emissions of SO2 (84,784 tons) were less than a third of 
state-wide NOX emissions (290,344 tons). ADEQ also reviewed 
ambient monitoring data from Class I areas impacted by emissions from 
Apache and found that visibility impairment due to SO2 was 
more than three times greater than impairment from NOX.\32\ 
Based on the monitoring and emission inventory data, ADEQ concluded 
that, ``for the State of Arizona, it is likely more beneficial to 
reduce SO2 emissions as compared to NOX emissions 
when applying pollution controls to point sources to improve class I 
area visibility. Therefore, ADEQ believes AEPCO's proposed alternative 
control methodology would realize higher real-world visibility benefits 
than the other control methods tested.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Apache SIP Revision page 5.
    \33\ Id. TSD page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, ADEQ considered the results of air quality modeling (using 
the CALPUFF model) performed by AEPCO to assess the visibility impacts 
of Apache under various control scenarios.\34\ These results, 
summarized in Table 5, show that, compared with BART, the Apache BART 
Alternative would result in greater visibility improvement at all but 
two areas (Gila Wilderness Area and Mount Baldy Wilderness Area), and 
would result in greater improvement on average across all areas. In 
addition, implementation of the Apache BART Alternative would result in 
improvement at all affected Class I areas, in comparison to the base 
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. See also TSD pages 15-22.

[[Page 56328]]

                                                      Table 5--Modeled Visibility Impacts of Apache
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline (2013 baseline)             BART (2013 SCR)           BART alternative (2013 9bv2
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------              PNGt)
                                                             Visibility impacts  (dv)        Visibility impacts  (dv)    -------------------------------
                      Class I area                       ----------------------------------------------------------------    Visibility impacts  (dv)
                                                                                                                         -------------------------------
                                                             Avg 98th        22nd high       Avg 98th        22nd high       Avg 98th        22nd high
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiricahua National Monument............................           3.328           3.409           1.978           1.996           1.882           1.909
Chiricahua Wilderness Area..............................           3.418           3.464           1.886           1.979           1.851           1.852
Galiuro Wilderness Area.................................           2.178           2.219           1.208           1.205           1.111           1.135
Gila Wilderness Area....................................           0.642           0.629           0.262           0.279           0.287           0.295
Mazatzal Wilderness Area................................           0.266           0.277           0.156           0.147           0.126           0.124
Mt. Baldy Wilderness Area...............................           0.269           0.282           0.109           0.114           0.112           0.116
Saguaro National Park...................................           2.502           2.493           1.421           1.463           1.346           1.317
Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area............................           0.289           0.287           0.153           0.158           0.130           0.128
Superstition Wilderness Area............................           0.596           0.612           0.313           0.315           0.275           0.283
Average.................................................           1.499           1.519           0.832           0.851           0.791           0.795
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: ``Avg 98th'' refers to the average of the annual 98th percentile visibility impacts in deciviews (dv) from 2001-2003. ``22nd high'' refers to the
  22nd highest visibility impact in deciviews for combined 2001-2003 data. In all modeling scenarios, background ammonia concentrations are 1 ppb for
  Method 8 estimations using best 20-percent days visibility.

    In evaluating ADEQ's weight-of-evidence demonstration, we have 
considered all elements of ADEQ's analysis, but we have given the most 
weight to the visibility impacts based on air quality modeling. In 
order to evaluate whether the Apache BART Alternative is indeed better 
than BART, we have applied a modified version of the two-prong modeling 
test set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), using the air quality modeling 
results. In particular, rather than considering the best twenty-percent 
days and worst twenty-percent days, as provided for under 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(3), we have considered the 98th percentile impacts (averaged 
across three years), consistent with the approach recommended by the 
BART Guidelines for comparing control alternatives at a single 
source.\35\ Under the first prong of the test (the ``no-degradation 
prong''), we compared the Apache BART Alternative to baseline 
conditions to ensure that the alternative will not result in worsened 
conditions anywhere than would otherwise exist.\36\ The Apache BART 
Alternative clearly meets this prong, as the visibility modeling 
results indicated that the Alternative will result in improved 
visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with baseline 
conditions, as shown in Table 5. Under the second prong, we compared 
the average differences between BART and the Apache BART Alternative 
over all affected Class I areas to ensure that there is an overall 
improvement in visibility.\37\ The Apache BART Alternative also meets 
this prong, as the modeling results indicated that the Alternative 
would result in improved visibility, on average, across all Class I 
Areas, compared with BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 70 FR 39170. CALPUFF is the single source air quality model 
that is recommended in the BART Guidelines. Since CALPUFF was used 
for this analysis, the modeling results were post-processed in a 
manner consistent with the BART Guidelines.
    \36\ See 70 FR 39137.
    \37\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the weight-of-evidence presented, we propose to approve 
ADEQ's determination that the Apache BART Alternative would achieve 
greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). 
In particular, the BART Alternative will result in 957 tpy fewer 
SO2 emissions compared to BART. In spite of more 
NOX emissions (1183 tpy) compared to BART, modeling 
submitted by ADEQ shows that the BART Alternative will result in 
improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with 
baseline conditions and will result in improved visibility, on average, 
across all Class I Areas, compared with BART. This conclusion is 
further supported by the IMPROVE visibility monitoring data, which 
indicates that all of the affected Class I areas have more than three 
times the visibility impairment due to SO2 compared to 
NOX.
2. Requirement That Emission Reductions Take Place During Period of 
First Long-Term Strategy
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the State must ensure that 
all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the 
first long-term strategy for regional haze, i.e. by December 31, 2018. 
The RHR further provides that, to meet this requirement, the State must 
provide a detailed description of the alternative measure, including 
schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the 
program, all necessary administrative and technical procedures for 
implementing the program, rules for accounting and monitoring 
emissions, and procedures for enforcement.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As noted above, the Apache SIP Revision incorporates the Apache 
Permit Revision, which includes conditions implementing the Apache BART 
Alternative. In addition to the emission limitations for 
NOX, PM10, and SO2 listed in Table 1 
above, the Apache Permit Revision includes compliance dates, operation 
and maintenance requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. We propose to find that these provisions meet 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration That Emissions Reductions From Alternative Measure 
Will Be Surplus
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that 
the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be 
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet 
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The 
baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002.\39\ All of the emission 
reductions required by the Apache BART Alternative are surplus to 
reductions resulting from measures applicable to Apache as of 2002. 
Therefore, we propose to find that the Apache BART Alternative complies 
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf.

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

[[Page 56329]]

    In sum, we propose to find that the Apache BART Alternative meets 
all of the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

C. EPA's Evaluation of the ST1 Emission Limit Revision

    In addition to the Apache BART Alternative, which applies to ST2 
and ST3, the Apache SIP Revision includes a revision in the 
NOX limit for ST1 when operating in combined-cycle mode with 
GT1. The SIP Revision would raise this limit from 0.056 lb/MMbtu to 
0.10 lb/MMbtu based on a determination that the 0.056 lb/MMbtu limit is 
unachievable when ST1 is operated in combined cycle with GT1.\40\ The 
revised limit of 0.10 is lb/MMbtu achievable when ST1 is operated in 
combined cycle with GT1 and is consistent with the use of natural gas, 
which ADEQ previously determined to constitute BART for this unit. 
Therefore, we propose to find that this revision to the emission limit 
for ST1, when operated in combined cycle mode with GT1, is consistent 
with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e) requiring SIPs to contain 
emission limits representing BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See letter from Eric Hiser, Jorden, Bischoff and Hiser, to 
Eric Massey, ADEQ (November 25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Evaluation of Other Applicable Requirements

1. Enforceable Emission Limits
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable 
emissions limitations necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable 
requirements of the Act. In addition, SIPs must contain regulatory 
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
applicable emissions limitations.\41\ The Apache Permit Revision 
includes such enforceable emission limits, as well as associated 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for all units 
and pollutants. Therefore, we propose to find that the Apache SIP 
Revision meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing 
regulations for enforceable emission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements
    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall 
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere 
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable 
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.\42\ 
EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including 
SO2, PM10, NO2 (a component of 
NOX), and pollutants such as ozone and PM2.5 that 
are formed in the atmosphere from reactions between NOX and 
other pollutants. Using a process that considers air quality data and 
other factors, EPA designates areas as ``nonattainment'' if those areas 
cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS. Reasonable further 
progress, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to 
attainment and means annual incremental reductions in emissions of the 
relevant air pollutant for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 
applicable NAAQS. Apache is located in north central Cochise County, 
Arizona, which is designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment for all of 
the NAAQS.\43\ Therefore, we propose to find that a revision to the 
BART emission limits for NOX will not interfere with 
attainment or reasonable further progress for any air quality standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    \43\ Apache SIP Revision, pages 9-10, Table 1.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to Apache 
are:
     Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 
(NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, subpart D;
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP), 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU;
     Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM), 40 CFR part 64; and
     BART and other visibility protection requirements under 
CAA section 169A and 40 CFR Part 52, subpart P.

Today's proposed revisions would not affect the applicable requirements 
of the NESHAP, NSPS or CAM. Furthermore, as noted by ADEQ, a switch 
from coal to gas at ST2 will result in significant reductions in 
hazardous air pollutants.\44\ Therefore, we propose to find that these 
revisions would not interfere with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions would alter the applicable emission limits 
for NOX, SO2 and PM10 at Apache under 
CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e). However, as explained above, the 
visibility improvement expected to result from the Apache BART 
Alternative for ST2 and ST3 is expected to result in greater visibility 
improvement on average across all affected Class I areas compared with 
BART. In addition, while there will be an increase in the 
NOX limit for ST1 when operating in combined-cycle mode with 
GT1, from 0.056 lb/MMbtu to 0.10 lb/MMbtu, the addition of a lb/day 
limit will ensure that there will not be an increase in overall 
emissions from this unit.\45\ Therefore, we propose to find that the 
Apache SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement 
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. page 11, footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, EPA proposes to approve the Apache 
SIP Revision and withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze 
FIP that apply to Apache. We also propose to find that withdrawal of 
the FIP would constitute our action on AEPCO's Petition for 
Reconsideration of the FIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a

[[Page 56330]]

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. Firms primarily engaged in the 
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for 
sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for 
the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. 
AEPCO sold under 3 million megawatt hours in 2013 and is therefore a 
small entity.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Arizona's G&T Cooperatives Annual Report (2013), page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

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

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA 
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by 
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA 
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects 
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 
proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

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

[[Page 56331]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 5, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-22403 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P