82 FR 46903 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 194 (October 10, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 194 (October 10, 2017)
| Page Range | 46903-46915 | |
| FR Document | 2017-21604 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 46903-46915] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-21604] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 source-specific 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 We are also codifying the removal of those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by this approval of the SIP revision for Coronado or by previously- approved revisions to the Arizona SIP.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 [email protected]. 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. [[Page 46904]] The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides. The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter, which is inclusive of PM 10 (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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ As 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (NO X ) 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Coronado 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ For 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Letter from Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (``Earthjustice comment letter''). \8\ Letter from Bruce Polkowsky and Graham McCahan, EDF, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (``EDF comment letter''). \9\ Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (``SRP comment letter''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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), [[Page 46905]] 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ We 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See 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). \13\ Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), at 2-3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ We 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). The commenters noted that the EPA has consistently interpreted the term ``distribution'' under the first test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the ``emissions-reduction 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 [[Page 46906]] 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 long-standing 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ As 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If a state does elect to make a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissions-reductions 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- of-evidence demonstration), then 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides that the state must make a demonstration under the two-prong modeling test.\20\ By contrast, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not indicate that a state must apply the emissions-reduction 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 emissions-reduction test where both conditions of that test were clearly satisfied.\21\ However, in other instances, states and the EPA have made a weight-of- evidence 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 emissions-reduction 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ This 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). \26\ See 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 emissions- reduction test). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In evaluating the Coronado BART Alternative, we have followed our long-standing 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 emissions-reduction test to confirm that the Final Strategy would ensure greater reasonable progress than BART. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ As 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, [[Page 46907]] 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: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ 82 FR 19338. \29\ Coronado SIP Revision, Addendum page 4. 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ 81 FR 2004, 2028 (January 14, 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Accordingly, we do not agree with the commenters that the Coronado BART Alternative ``fails'' the emissions-reduction 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 emissions-reduction 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 [[Page 46908]] 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: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005) (emphasis added). 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ See ``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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 non-interference with the Act's requirements, but did not hold that an increase in emissions per se constituted a violation of section 110(l). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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.''). \40\ See 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.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ Id. at 20. \42\ 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). \43\ See 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.''). \44\ WildEarth Guardians, 759 F.3d at 1074. \45\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 non-interference is required. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ 723 F.3d 1201, 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013). \47\ The 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [[Page 46909]] ``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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ CAA section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2). \49\ CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). \50\ Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993). \51\ Id. \52\ Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 non-interference with the Act's visibility protection provisions.\54\ As noted above, we interpret section 110(l) to allow for a modeling-based demonstration of non-interference 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] Sec. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ The 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. \56\ See 82 FR 19338-19341. \57\ Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340-41. \58\ We 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 long-term national goal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\ 81 FR 46862; 82 FR 15150. \60\ Id. \61\ See, e.g., Yazzie, 851 F.3d at 969 (affirming that statutory deadline for BART does not apply to a BART alternative). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. [[Page 46910]] 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 two-prong 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: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \63\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 , and Regional Haze, 17 (December 2014) (draft). 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \64\ See 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.''). \65\ See, 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 decision-making process.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 two-prong 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 [[Page 46911]] 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \67\ 70 FR 39104, 39138 (July 6, 2005). 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 visibility-impairing 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \68\ 82 FR 19338-19339. 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \69\ As 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. \70\ See, 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.''). \71\ See, 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \72\ Neither the Regional Haze Rule nor EPA guidance define ``affected'' Class I areas for purposes of the two-prong test. \73\ This 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 SO 2 (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 NOX -attributed 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \74\ See 82 FR 19338, dated April, 27, 2017; footnote 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-than-BART 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 [[Page 46912]] 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \75\ 82 FR 19344 (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \76\ Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris, Ramboll Environ (September 22, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 two-prong test results indicate actual visibility improvement under the Interim Strategy compared to BART and no degradation relative to the baseline.\77\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \77\ 82 FR 19341. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \78\ The memorandum refers to IS3 and IS4 as BtB3 and BtB4, respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, [[Page 46913]] 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\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \79\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/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. [[Page 46914]] 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, low-income 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 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart D--Arizona 0 2. Section 52.120 is amended: 0 a. In paragraph (d), under the table heading ``EPA-Approved Source- Specific Requirements'' by adding an entry for ``Coronado Generating Station'' after the entry for ``Cholla Power Plant;'' 0 b. In paragraph (e), under the table heading ``Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'' by adding an entry for ``Coronado Generating Station'' after the entry for ``Cholla SIP Revision.'' Sec. 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 November 9, 2017................ October 10, 2017, [INSERT Permit issued by Arizona amended by Significant Federal Register CITATION]. Department of Revision #63088) Cover Environmental Quality. Page and Attachment Submitted on December ``E'': BART 15, 2016. Alternatives. [[Page 46915]] * * * * * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * (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\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicable geographic or Name of SIP provision nonattainment area or title/ State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation subject -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Source-Specific................. December 15, 2016.............. October 10, 2017, [INSERT BART Alternative Plan Revision to the Arizona Federal Register CITATION]. for Coronado Regional Haze Plan for the Salt Generating River Project Coronado Station adopted Generating Station, excluding December 14, Appendix B. 2016. * * * * * * * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Table 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. * * * * * 0 3. Section 52.145 is amended by: 0 a. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1). 0 b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)-(vi). 0 c. Removing and reserving paragraph (f). [FR Doc. 2017-21604 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46903
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Date Time Business Information (CBI) or other
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS information whose disclosure is
18th .............. 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. restricted by statute. Certain other
■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 24th .............. 8 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 material, such as copyrighted material,
continues to read as follows: p.m. through 4 p.m. is not placed on the Internet and will be
25th–26th ..... 9 a.m. through 1 p.m. and 2 publicly available only in hard copy
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
p.m. through 5 p.m.
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
27th–28th ..... 7 a.m. through 5 p.m.
form. Publicly available docket
Department of Homeland Security Delegation materials are available through http://
No. 0170.1. 29th–30th ..... 7 a.m. through 11 a.m.
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0792 to read as the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
Dated: October 3, 2017.
follows: INFORMATION CONTACT section for
Bion B. Stewart, additional availability information.
§ 165.T05–0792 Safety Zone, Atlantic Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Intracoastal Waterway; Camp Lejeune, NC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Port North Carolina.
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
(a) Location. The following area is a [FR Doc. 2017–21709 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am]
Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520)
safety zone: All waters on the Atlantic BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@
Intracoastal Waterway, from
approximate position 34°32′46″ N., epa.gov.
77°19′17″ W. to 34°34′25″ N., 77°16′14″ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
W. (NAD 1983) at Camp Lejeune, NC. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
(b) Definitions. As used in this AGENCY and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
section, ‘‘designated representative’’
40 CFR Part 52 Table of Contents
means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0092, FRL–9968–97– I. General Information
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer Region 9] II. Proposed Action
designated by the Captain of the Port III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
North Carolina (COTP) for the Approval and Promulgation of Air IV. Final Action
Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; V. Environmental Justice Considerations
enforcement of the safety zone. VI. Incorporation by Reference
‘‘Captain of the Port’’ means the Regional Haze State and Federal
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Commander, Sector North Carolina. Implementation Plans
‘‘Participants’’ means persons and I. General Information
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
vessels involved in support of a military Agency (EPA). Definitions
exercise.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general ACTION: Final rule. For the purpose of this document, we
regulations governing safety zones in are giving meaning to certain words or
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection initials as follows:
§ 165.23 apply to the area described in Agency (EPA) is approving a source-
paragraph (a) of this section. • The initials ADEQ mean or refer to
specific revision to the Arizona state the Arizona Department of
(2) With the exception of participants,
implementation plan (SIP) that provides Environmental Quality.
entry into or remaining in this safety
an alternative to Best Available Retrofit • The words Arizona and State mean
zone is prohibited unless authorized by
Technology (BART) for the Coronado the State of Arizona.
the Captain of the Port, North Carolina
Generating Station (‘‘Coronado’’), • The word Coronado refers to the
or designated representative(s).
owned and operated by the Salt River Coronado Generating Station.
(3) All vessels within this safety zone
when this section becomes effective
Project Agricultural Improvement and • The initials BART mean or refer to
Power District (SRP). The EPA has Best Available Retrofit Technology.
must depart the zone immediately.
(4) The Captain of the Port, North determined that the BART alternative • The initials BOD mean or refer to
Carolina can be reached through the for Coronado would provide greater boiler operating day.
Coast Guard Sector North Carolina reasonable progress toward natural • The term Class I area refers to a
Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, visibility conditions than BART, based mandatory Class I Federal area.1
North Carolina at telephone number on the criteria established in the EPA’s • The initials CAA mean or refer to
910–343–3882. Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with the Clean Air Act.
(5) The Coast Guard and designated this approval, we are withdrawing those • The words EPA, we, us, or our mean
security vessels enforcing the safety portions of the federal implementation or refer to the United States
zone can be contacted on VHF–FM plan (FIP) that address BART for Environmental Protection Agency.
marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Coronado. We are also codifying the • The initials FIP mean or refer to
MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 MHz). removal of those portions of the Arizona federal implementation plan.
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast SIP that have either been superseded by • The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer
Guard may be assisted in the patrol and this approval of the SIP revision for to pounds per million British thermal
enforcement of the safety zone by Coronado or by previously-approved units.
Federal, State, and local agencies. revisions to the Arizona SIP. • The initials NAAQS mean or refer
(e) Enforcement periods. This section DATES: This rule is effective November to National Ambient Air Quality
will be enforced on the following dates 9, 2017. Standards.
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
and times in October 2017: ADDRESSES: The EPA has established 1 Although states and tribes may designate as
Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017– Class I additional areas which they consider to have
Date Time 0092 for this action. All documents in visibility as an important value, the requirements of
the docket are listed on the http:// the visibility program set forth in section 169A of
10th–12th ..... 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. and 1 the CAA apply only to mandatory Class I Federal
p.m. through 4 p.m. www.regulations.gov Web site. Although areas. When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this
13th .............. 9 a.m. through 12 p.m. and 1 listed in the index, some information is action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
p.m. through 4 p.m. not publicly available, e.g., Confidential area.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/1.svg)
![46904 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
• The initials NOX mean or refer to emissions performance of Unit 1 and the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to
nitrogen oxides. sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions Coronado. Finally, we proposed
• The initials PM mean or refer to performance of Units 1 and 2 in that revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to codify the
particulate matter, which is inclusive of year. In addition, under each option, the removal of those portions of the Arizona
PM10 (particulate matter less than or facility must comply with an annual Regional Haze SIP that have either been
equal to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5 SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tons per year superseded by previously-approved
(particulate matter less than or equal to (tpy) from Unit 1 and Unit 2 effective revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be
2.5 micrometers). beginning in 2018. The Final Strategy in superseded by final approval of the
• The initials SCR mean or refer to the Coronado SIP Revision requires the Coronado SIP Revision.
selective catalytic reduction. installation of selective catalytic
III. Public Comments and EPA
• The initials SIP mean or refer to reduction (SCR) on Unit 1 (‘‘SCR
Option’’) or the permanent cessation of Responses
state implementation plan.
• The initials SO2 mean or refer to operation of Unit 1 (‘‘Shutdown The EPA’s proposed action provided
sulfur dioxide. Option’’) no later than December 31, a 45-day public comment period. During
• The initials SRP mean or refer to 2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ this period, we received comment
the Salt River Project Agricultural and the EPA of its selection of either the letters from Earthjustice (on behalf of
Improvement and Power District. SCR Option or the Shutdown Option by the Sierra Club and the National Parks
• The initials tpy mean or refer to December 31, 2022. The Final Strategy Conservation Association),7
tons per year. includes two additional features: An Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),8
SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, SRP,9 and two anonymous commenters.
II. Proposed Action calculated on a 30-boiler operating day Summaries of significant comments and
On April 27, 2017, the EPA proposed (BOD) rolling average, which applies to our responses are provided below.
to approve a revision to the Arizona Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it continues
Comments From Non-Governmental
Regional Haze SIP for Coronado operating), and an annual SO2 emissions
Organizations
(‘‘Coronado SIP Revision’’) 2 that cap of either 1,970 tpy from Unit 1 and
provides an alternative to BART for Unit 2, if both units continue operating, Comment: Earthjustice argued that the
Coronado (‘‘Coronado BART or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down. ADEQ EPA should not approve the Coronado
Alternative’’).3 The Coronado SIP incorporated the revised emission BART Alternative because ADEQ and
Revision and BART Alternative consist limits, as well as associated compliance SRP’s rationale for replacing the original
of an interim operating strategy deadlines and monitoring, BART determination with the BART
(‘‘Interim Strategy’’) that will take effect recordkeeping, and reporting Alternative is now invalid. Citing
on December 5, 2017, and a final requirements, as a permit revision to several administrative law cases, the
operating strategy (‘‘Final Strategy’’) that Coronado’s existing Operating Permit, commenter stated that the EPA must
will take effect no later than December which was submitted as part of the provide a valid rationale for issuing any
31, 2025. The Coronado BART Coronado SIP Revision (‘‘Coronado regulation, including an approval or
Alternative was submitted pursuant to Permit Revision’’).5 disapproval of a SIP, given that standard
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule We proposed to approve the Coronado Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
that allows states to adopt alternative SIP Revision because in our assessment requirements apply to such actions. The
measures in lieu of source-specific it complied with the relevant commenter noted that both ADEQ and
BART controls if they can demonstrate requirements of the CAA and the SRP had indicated that the purpose of
that the alternative measures provide Regional Haze Rule. In particular, we the Coronado BART Alternative was to
greater reasonable progress towards proposed to find that the Coronado delay Unit 1’s BART obligations until
natural visibility conditions than BART Alternative would achieve greater SRP knew whether it would choose to
BART.4 reasonable progress towards natural retire Coronado to comply with the
The Interim Strategy includes three visibility conditions than would be Clean Power Plan (CPP). In particular,
different operating options, each of achieved through the installation and the commenter cited statements in the
which requires a period of seasonal operation of BART at Coronado.6 Coronado SIP Revision that referred to
curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for Because this approval would fill the gap regulatory uncertainty related to the
Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by CPP. The commenter noted that the
implement one of the three options the EPA’s prior partial disapproval with ‘‘EPA and the new administration have
based on the nitrogen oxides (NOX) respect to Coronado, we also proposed taken multiple actions to indefinitely
to withdraw the provisions of the suspend and review the [CPP]’’ and
2 As noted in our proposal, the Coronado SIP asserted that these actions undercut
Revision includes both the original version of the 5 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. ADEQ’s rationale for replacing the
revision (dated July 19, 2016) that was proposed by 64169 as amended by Significant Revision to original BART determination with the
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016).
(ADEQ) for public comment, and an addendum The provisions implementing the Coronado BART
Coronado BART Alternative.
(‘‘Addendum’’ dated November 10, 2016), in Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the Earthjustice acknowledged that the
addition to various supporting materials. The permit. Attachment E will become effective under EPA did not discuss the CPP in our
Addendum documents changes to the Coronado State law on the date of the EPA’s final action to proposal. However, citing Arizona v.
BART Alternative since ADEQ’s July 19, 2016 approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP and
proposal. Unless otherwise specified, references in rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze
EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016),
this document to the Coronado SIP Revision FIP that apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E,
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
include both of these documents, as well as the 7 Letter from Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice, to
section I.A.
other materials included in ADEQ’s submittal. 6 For purposes of our evaluation, we consider Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017)
3 82 FR 19333. Please refer to the notice of
BART for Coronado to consist of a combination of (‘‘Earthjustice comment letter’’).
proposed rulemaking for background information (1) ADEQ’s BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, 8 Letter from Bruce Polkowsky and Graham
concerning the CAA, the Regional Haze Rule, and which were approved into the applicable SIP, and McCahan, EDF, to Krishna Viswanathan, EPA (June
the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, and a (2) the EPA’s BART determination for NOX in the 12, 2017) (‘‘EDF comment letter’’).
detailed analysis of the Coronado BART 2016 BART Reconsideration (collectively the 9 Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Krishna
Alternative. ‘‘Coronado BART Control Strategy’’). See 82 FR Viswanathan, EPA (June 12, 2017) (‘‘SRP comment
4 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3). 19337. letter’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46905
in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the proposal and elsewhere in this Comment: EDF and Earthjustice both
EPA’s disapproval of ADEQ’s original document, we have evaluated the objected to the EPA’s and ADEQ’s
NOX BART determination for Coronado, Coronado SIP Revision in relation to the reliance on the two-prong modeling test
the commenter asserted that, ‘‘if ADEQ’s relevant requirements of the CAA and under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
plan is based on an invalid rationale it the EPA’s regulations, and we have demonstrate that the Interim Strategy
is unreasonable, and EPA’s approval of determined that it meets all of these would achieve greater reasonable
the plan would also necessarily be requirements. In particular, the progress than the Coronado BART
unreasonable and arbitrary.’’ The Coronado SIP Revision includes Alternative. The commenters noted that
commenter argued that the ‘‘EPA cannot detailed and technically sound analyses 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) outlines two
cure this fatal flaw with the BART supporting the State’s determination different tests for evaluating whether a
alternative by attempting to come up that the Coronado BART Alternative BART alternative achieves greater
with other rationales for the alternative would provide greater reasonable reasonable progress than BART. In
in response to these comments.’’ progress toward natural visibility particular, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) provides
Earthjustice further asserted that conditions than BART. In contrast to the that:
ADEQ should ‘‘propose a new BART flawed analyses underlying ADEQ’s If the distribution of emissions is not
revision that is based on a valid original NOX BART determination for substantially different than under BART, and
rationale.’’ The commenter also noted Coronado, which we disapproved, the the alternative measure results in greater
that SRP could comply with the existing analyses supporting the Coronado BART emission reductions, then the alternative
BART determination by shutting down Alternative were both ‘‘reasoned [and] measure may be deemed to achieve greater
Unit 1 and asserted that ‘‘this result moored to the [Act]’s provisions,’’ 13 for reasonable progress. If the distribution of
would be consistent with other recent the reasons explained in our proposal emissions is significantly different, the State
decisions across Arizona to shut down and elsewhere in this document. must conduct dispersion modeling to
determine differences in visibility between
coal plants or switch them to gas.’’ Therefore, the commenter’s reliance on BART and the trading program for each
Response: We agree with the the decision of the Ninth Circuit in impacted Class I area, for the worst and best
commenter that APA requirements Arizona v. EPA, which upheld that prior 20 percent of days. The modeling would
generally apply to the EPA’s approval or disapproval, is misplaced. demonstrate ‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ if
disapproval of a SIP revision and that Furthermore, the State’s analyses both of the following two criteria are met:
we must provide a reasoned justification supporting its determination of greater (i) Visibility does not decline in any Class
for such actions.10 We also agree with reasonable progress do not rely on the I area, and
the commenter that both ADEQ and SRP requirements of the CPP or any (ii) There is an overall improvement in
previously indicated that the Coronado uncertainty related to those visibility, determined by comparing the
BART Alternative was developed to average differences between BART and the
requirements. While the State included
alternative over all affected Class I areas.16
align SRP’s compliance obligations a discussion of the CPP in its proposed
under the CPP and the Regional Haze SIP revision to explain the proposed The commenters noted that the EPA
Rule. compliance schedule for the Coronado has consistently interpreted the term
In reviewing a SIP submittal, BART Alternative,14 the Addendum, ‘‘distribution’’ under the first test in 40
however, the EPA’s role is to evaluate which reflects the final requirements of CFR 51.308(e)(3) (the ‘‘emissions-
whether the submittal meets the the Coronado SIP Revision, includes a reduction test’’) to refer to geographic
applicable requirements of the CAA and different compliance schedule and no distribution. Citing to prior EPA
the EPA’s regulations. If these mention of the CPP. rulemaking actions, EDF stated that the
requirements are met, the EPA must Finally, while the commenter is ‘‘EPA has traditionally applied the
approve the submittal.11 As noted by the correct that SRP could choose to comply modeling test only in cases where ‘the
commenter, ‘‘the EPA does not usurp a with the existing BART determination distribution of emissions is significantly
state’s authority but ensures that such for Coronado Unit 1 by simply shutting different’ between BART and the BART
authority is reasonably exercised.’’ 12 down that unit, this fact has no bearing alternative.’’ Earthjustice further
However, the state’s underlying on the approvability of the Coronado asserted that, ‘‘[w]hen deciding which
motivation in submitting the SIP SIP Revision. Likewise, the fact that the ‘Better than BART’ test applies, the
revision, which the commenter refers to owners of units of other coal plants in determinative factor is whether the
as the state’s ‘‘rationale’’ is not one of Arizona have chosen to shut down units distribution of emissions between the
the elements that the EPA is required to or switch them to natural gas is not alternative and BART is substantially
evaluate under the CAA. Therefore, in pertinent to the current action.15 different.’’ The commenters also noted
acting on the Coronado SIP Revision, we that, in our proposal to approve the
have not considered the state’s 13 Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. Coronado BART Alternative, we again
motivation in developing the SIP 2016) (quoting North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, interpreted ‘‘distribution’’ to refer to
761 (8th Cir. 2013)).
revision. Rather, as described in our 14 See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), at
geographic distribution when we
2–3. proposed to determine that the Final
10 We note that the EPA is issuing this final rule 15 We also note that, contrary to the commenters’ Strategy would not result in a
under section 307(d) of the CAA, which provides suggestion, none of the cited examples involve a substantially different distribution of
that that: ‘‘[t]he provisions of section 553 through shutdown or switch to gas to comply with the
557 . . . of [the APA] shall not, except as expressly
emissions from BART. However, the
original BART determination for the facility. The
provided in this section, apply to actions to which switch to natural gas at Apache Generating Station
commenters suggested that, by
[CAA section 307(d)] applies.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1). Unit 2 is part of a BART alternative that replaced proposing to approve ADEQ’s use of the
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Nonetheless, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(9)(A), the original BART determinations for that facility. two-prong modeling test, rather than the
the same arbitrary-and-capricious standard of See 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2017). The closure of
review applies to an action under 307(d) as to an
emissions-reduction test, to evaluate the
Cholla Generating Station Unit 2 and cessation of
action subject to the APA. coal burning at Units 3 and 4 are part of a BART
Interim Strategy, the EPA was
11 See CAA section 110(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3)
reassessment that replaced the original BART
(‘‘[T]he) Administrator shall approve such submittal determinations for that facility. See 82 FR 15139 e.g., Ryan Randazzo, Utilities vote to close Navajo
as a whole if it meets all of the applicable (March 27, 2017). Finally, as noted by the coal plant at end of 2019, Arizona Republic
requirements of [the CAA].’’ (emphasis added)). commenter, the possible closure of Navajo (February 13, 2017).
12 82 FR 15139, 15142 (March 27, 2017). Generating Station is due to economic factors. See, 16 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/3.svg)
![46906 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
improperly applying a different 51.308(e)(3), the first test (the emissions- but increased emissions of another, it is
interpretation of ‘‘distribution’’ to the reductions test) provides the option to not appropriate to use the ‘greater
Interim Strategy. make a demonstration without the need emissions reductions’ test under 40 CFR
Earthjustice further asserted that the for dispersion modeling when two 51.308(e)(3).’’ 24 Similarly, when
Coronado BART Alternative ‘‘fails’’ the conditions are satisfied: (1) ‘‘the evaluating a BART alternative for the
emissions-reduction test, which it distribution of emissions is not Tesoro Refinery in Anacortes,
characterized as the ‘‘correct’’ test to substantially different than under Washington, we determined that, even
apply in this instance. Citing the BART’’ and (2) ‘‘the alternative measure though all of the emissions were from a
difference in total NOX, SO2, and PM10 results in greater emission single facility, modeling was needed ‘‘to
emissions for each of the Interim reductions.’’ 19 If the first condition is assess whether the visibility
Strategy scenarios compared with not satisfied (and the state has opted to improvement from the BART
BART, Earthjustice stated that each of make a demonstration under 40 CFR Alternative’s SO2 emission reductions
the Interim Strategy options ‘‘will result 51.308(e)(3) rather than a weight-of- would be greater than the visibility
in greater overall air pollution than evidence demonstration), then 40 CFR improvement from the BART NOX
BART for eight years after the December 51.308(e)(3) provides that the state must reductions.’’ 25 Likewise, when
2017 BART compliance deadline.’’ For make a demonstration under the two- evaluating a proposed BART alternative
this reason, the commenter concluded prong modeling test.20 By contrast, 40 for the Four Corners Power Plant, the
that the Coronado BART Alternative is CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not indicate that EPA considered the weight of evidence,
not ‘‘Better than BART’’ and that the a state must apply the emissions- including visibility modeling, even
EPA should disapprove it. reduction test whenever the first though all emissions were from a single
Response: We agree with the condition of the emissions-reduction facility.26
commenters that the EPA’s long- test is satisfied. Thus, a state may In evaluating the Coronado BART
standing interpretation of 40 CFR choose to apply the two-prong modeling Alternative, we have followed our long-
51.308(e)(3) is that, if the geographic test even if it determines that the first standing interpretation of 40 CFR
distribution of emissions is the same condition of the emissions-reductions 51.308(e)(3) that, if the geographic
under the BART alternative and BART, test is satisfied. distribution of emissions is the same
then the emissions distribution is not None of the examples of prior EPA under the BART alternative and BART,
substantially different.17 However, as actions cited by the commenters then the emissions distribution is not
explained further below, we do not indicate that the EPA has previously substantially different. With regard to
agree with the commenters that the interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to the Final Strategy, we found that the
distribution of emissions is a require use of the emissions-reduction distribution of emissions would not be
determinative factor, such that if the test whenever the first condition of that substantially different than under BART
distribution of emissions under the test is satisfied. Rather, the examples because all emissions under both
BART alternative is not substantially demonstrate that states and the EPA scenarios were from Coronado.
different than under BART, then the have generally applied the emissions- Furthermore, under the Final Strategy,
alternative must be evaluated using the reduction test where both conditions of emissions of each pollutant would be
emissions-reduction test. We also do not that test were clearly satisfied.21 lower than or equal to BART, and the
agree that the EPA has previously However, in other instances, states and collective emissions from the facility
interpreted 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to the EPA have made a weight-of- would be lower than BART.27 This
include such a requirement. evidence demonstration when the first allowed us to use the emissions-
Accordingly, contrary to the condition of the emissions-reduction reduction test to confirm that the Final
commenters’ assertions, we have not test was satisfied, but it was not clear Strategy would ensure greater
departed from our long-standing whether the second condition was reasonable progress than BART.
interpretation in evaluating the satisfied. For example, in 2015 we In our proposal, we did not evaluate
Coronado SIP Revision. approved a weight-of-evidence the Interim Strategy under the
As an initial matter, we note that demonstration submitted by ADEQ for a emissions-reduction test because ADEQ
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a SIP BART alternative at the Apache did not make a demonstration under
revision establishing a BART alternative Generating Station (‘‘Apache BART this test. Therefore, we had no cause to
must include a determination under 40 Alternative’’).22 In that case, all of the consider whether the two conditions of
CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on emissions were from a single facility, so that test were satisfied. Nonetheless, in
the clear weight of evidence that the the first condition of the emissions- response to the commenters’ concerns,
alternative achieves greater reasonable reduction test was satisfied. However, as
progress than BART. Thus, a state (or with the Coronado BART Alternative, 24 80 FR 19221.
the EPA in promulgating a FIP) always the Apache BART Alternative was 25 78 FR 79344, 79355 (December 30, 2013).
has the option to make a ‘‘clear weight expected to result in greater NOX 26 See 76 FR 10530, 10534 (February 25, 2011)
emissions but lower emissions of SO2 (‘‘EPA is proposing to find, based on the weight of
of evidence’’ demonstration rather than evidence, that [the proposed alternative] will result
choosing either of the two options under and PM10 compared with BART.23 We in greater reasonable progress towards the national
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).18 found that, ‘‘[i]n this situation, where visibility goal under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA’s
If a state does elect to make a BART and the BART Alternative result October 19, 2010 BART proposal’’ and 10537
in reduced emissions of one pollutant (discussing modeling results, even though the
demonstration under 40 CFR alternative could be deemed to result in greater
19 40
reasonable progress based on the emissions-
CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
17 As noted by the conservation organizations, the reduction test).
20 Id. (‘‘If the distribution of emissions is
Ninth Circuit recently upheld this interpretation as 27 As explained in our proposal, while the Final
reasonable. Yazzie v. EPA, 851 F.3d 960, 973 (9th significantly different, the State must conduct Strategy by itself would not meet the requirements
Cir. 2017). dispersion modeling’’ (emphasis added)). for a BART alternative, we considered whether the
18 See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 21 This general trend is unsurprising, given that
Final Strategy would provide for ongoing visibility
935–37 (10th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that a state the emissions-reduction test demands less time and improvement, as compared with BART, by
may choose to make a demonstration under 40 CFR effort as it does not require modeling. evaluating whether the Final Strategy meets both
22 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
51.308(e)(3) or under a weight-of-evidence conditions of the emissions-reduction test under 40
approach). 23 Id. at 19221. CFR 51.308(e)(3). 82 FR 19342.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46907
we wish to clarify that the same and citing several court cases comments on section 110(l) issues
interpretation of ‘‘distribution of interpreting that provision, the related to the Cholla BART
emissions’’ would apply to the Interim commenter stated that section 110(l) Reassessment and asserted that the EPA
Strategy. Because all of the emissions ‘‘prohibits plan revisions that would ‘‘should not attempt to justify the
under the Interim Strategy and BART interfere with an existing BART Coronado BART alternative on similar
are from Coronado, the distribution of determination’’ and that the ‘‘EPA’s grounds.’’ In particular, the commenter
emissions would not be substantially common sense interpretation of section asserted that the EPA had (1) conflated
different under the two scenarios, so the 110(l) is that it prevents plan revisions its section 110(l) analysis regarding
first condition of the test is satisfied. that backslide or weaken an existing NAAQS attainment with its section
Regarding the second condition of the Clean Air Act requirement by increasing 110(l) analysis regarding Cholla’s
emissions-reduction test, ADEQ found overall air pollution or causing worse existing regional haze requirements, (2)
that the Interim Strategy would result in air quality.’’ The commenter asserted unreasonably dismissed the relevant
greater NOX emissions, but lower that the Coronado BART Alternative section 110(l) case law, and (3)
emissions of SO2 and PM10 compared weakens the existing BART incorrectly relied, in part, on post-2025
with BART.28 Contrary to Earthjustice’s determination for Coronado because it emissions reductions from Cholla to
suggestion, ADEQ did not determine would result in increased air pollution justify why the plan complied with
that the Interim Strategy ‘‘fails’’ the and cause worse visibility impairment section 110(l).
emissions-reduction test. Rather, ADEQ at multiple Class I areas in the years Response: We do not agree that the
found that the Interim Strategy would 2018 through 2025 and therefore Coronado SIP Revision violates CAA
not necessarily achieve greater violates section 110(l). section 110(l). As explained further
emissions reductions than BART.29 The commenter further argued that below, the commenter has
Furthermore, while the commenters the EPA improperly based our 110(l) mischaracterized the requirements of
point to the difference in total NOX, SO2, analysis on our determination that the section 110(l) and the EPA’s
and PM10 emissions for each of the Coronado BART Alternative would interpretation of those requirements.
Interim Strategy scenarios compared result in greater reasonable progress Neither the statutory language nor the
with BART, we do not consider this than BART. The commenter re-asserted case law cited by the commenter
comparison to be useful. As we its claim that the Coronado BART support the commenter’s interpretation
explained in evaluating a proposed Alternative is not ‘‘Better than BART’’ that a SIP revision that allows for
BART alternative submitted by Utah: because it ‘‘fails’’ the emissions- additional air emissions or less stringent
reduction test. Earthjustice also argued requirements than the existing plan per
We have not considered a total emissions that, ‘‘[b]ecause the purposes of a BART se constitutes a violation of CAA section
profile that combines emissions of multiple
alternative and section 110(l) are 110(l).
pollutants to determine whether BART or the
alternative is ‘‘better,’’ except where every distinct and a BART alternative may Section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from
visibility impairing pollutant is reduced by a perform worse than BART in some approving a SIP revision ‘‘if the revision
greater amount under the BART alternative. respects, it is unreasonable to use the would interfere with any applicable
A comparison of mass emissions from ‘Better than BART’ test as the sole requirement concerning attainment and
multiple pollutants (such as NOX and SO2) is criterion for whether an alternative reasonable further progress (as defined
not generally informative, particularly in complies with section 110(l).’’ in [CAA section 171]), or any other
assessing whether the alternative approach Earthjustice further noted that ADEQ applicable requirement of [the CAA].’’ 31
provides for greater reasonable progress was not choosing between BART and a This language does not prohibit the EPA
towards improving visibility. Instead, when BART alternative for Coronado in the from approving any SIP revision that
emissions of one or more pollutants increases
first instance, but was instead replacing weakens the existing plan’s
under an alternative, EPA has given the most
weight to the visibility impacts based on air an existing BART determination that requirements or allows for an increase
quality modeling and used modeling to had been fully litigated and in place for in emissions of a particular pollutant,
determine whether or not a BART Alternative four and a half years. They argued that, nor has the EPA interpreted section
measure that relies on interpollutant trading under these circumstances, section 110(l) in this manner. The EPA’s
results in greater reasonable progress.30 110(l) requires the EPA to evaluation of whether a noninterference
Accordingly, we do not agree with the independently determine whether the determination can be made under
commenters that the Coronado BART alternative weakens the existing BART section 110(l) is a case-by-case
Alternative ‘‘fails’’ the emissions- determination, and the EPA cannot rely assessment based on the specific facts
reduction test. Rather, we find that the on the ‘‘Better than BART’’ test as the and circumstances at issue. The
emissions-reduction test is not the sole criterion for whether an alternative commenter has selectively quoted from
appropriate test to evaluate the Interim complies with section 110(l). the EPA’s prior actions and court cases
Finally, the commenter made several concerning those actions in order to
Strategy of the Coronado BART
points related to the EPA’s approval of support their position. In particular, the
Alternative, and it was appropriate and
a SIP revision that established a new commenter asserts that, ‘‘in Kentucky
reasonable for the State to apply the
BART determination for Cholla Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d
two-prong modeling test to evaluate the
Generating Station (‘‘Cholla BART 986 (6th Cir. 2006), EPA interpreted
Interim Strategy.
Comment: Earthjustice argued that the Reassessment’’). Noting certain section 110(l) as allowing the agency to
similarities between the Coronado approve a plan revision that weakened
Coronado BART Alternative violates
BART Alternative and the Cholla BART some existing control measures while
CAA section 110(l)’s anti-backsliding
Reassessment, the commenter argued strengthening others, but only ‘[a]s long
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
requirement because it weakens the
that the EPA had improperly ‘‘applied a as actual emissions in the air are not
existing BART determination for
completely different rationale and increased.’ ’’ However, the context for
Coronado. Quoting CAA section 110(l)
analysis when determining whether the the quote makes clear that the EPA was
28 82 FR 19338.
two BART revisions complied with not referring to a blanket prohibition on
29 Coronado SIP Revision, Addendum page 4. section 110(l) for regional haze increases in emissions. Rather, we were
30 81 FR 2004, 2028 (January 14, 2016) (internal purposes.’’ The commenter also
citations and quotations omitted). criticized the EPA’s responses to 31 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/5.svg)
![46908 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
describing our interpretation of section was based on whether the area, which of section 110(l). In fact, the court
110(l) as applied to a SIP revision that was designated as a nonattainment area declined to decide if section 110(l) even
substituted emissions reductions to for the relevant NAAQS, would have applied to the plan in question, stating
make up for increased emissions more difficulty in attaining and only in dicta that, ‘‘even if the SIP
resulting from moving an existing maintaining the NAAQS with the SIP merely maintained the status quo, that
control measure to a contingency revision—not, as the commenter argues would not interfere with the attainment
measure. We determined that we could here, whether the SIP revision would or maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 45
approve this change without requiring simply result in increased emissions. Oklahoma v. EPA 46 affirmed the
an attainment demonstration, Similarly, the Ala. Envtl. Council v. EPA’s authority to review state BART
explaining that: EPA 36 and Indiana v. EPA 37 courts determinations, based on, among other
Prior to the time when the control strategy upheld the EPA’s interpretation that things, section 110(l). However, contrary
SIP revisions are due, to demonstrate no section 110(l) allows for a substitution to the commenter’s suggestion, the
[interference] with any applicable NAAQS or approach to demonstrate non- Oklahoma court did not indicate that
requirement of the Clean Air Act under interference with the Act’s individual BART determinations
section 110(l), EPA has interpreted this requirements, but did not hold that an themselves are ‘‘applicable
section such that States can substitute increase in emissions per se constituted requirements’’ for purposes of section
equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions a violation of section 110(l). 110(l). Rather, the court found that the
to compensate for the control measure being A fourth case cited by the commenter, underlying statutory requirements
moved from the regulatory portion to the Hall v. EPA,38 concerned the EPA’s concerning visibility protection
contingency provisions. As long as actual analysis of non-interference with
emissions in the air are not increased, EPA
constitute ‘‘applicable requirements.’’ 47
attainment requirements in a Accordingly, it is these generally
believes that equivalent (or greater) emissions
reductions will be acceptable to demonstrate nonattainment area and did not address applicable statutory requirements for
non-interference.32 the Act’s other requirements (including which a demonstration of non-
visibility protection requirements) or interference is required.
Thus, in the circumstances presented how those requirements apply in In this instance, the critical statutory
in that case, we found that, rather than attainment areas.39 Thus, the case is not requirement is that the applicable
submit a new attainment demonstration, relevant to the commenters’ objections, implementation plan ‘‘contain such
the state could instead substitute one which specifically concern visibility emission limits, schedules of
measure for another with equivalent or protection requirements.40 compliance and other measures as may
greater emissions reductions/air quality Two additional cases cited by the be necessary to make reasonable
benefit in order to demonstrate commenter concerned regional haze SIP progress toward meeting the national
noninterference with attainment, actions, but do not support the goal’’ of preventing any future and
maintenance, and reasonable further commenter’s contention that ‘‘after EPA remedying any existing visibility
progress (RFP) requirements. However, approves a BART determination (or impairment in Class I areas due to
the EPA has never indicated that such other regional haze requirement), the manmade air pollution.48 While
a substitution approach is required in agency cannot later modify the BART measures for achieving ‘‘reasonable
all cases. In some cases, states can determination in a manner that weakens progress’’ generally include
provide an air quality analysis, typically it.’’ 41 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA 42 requirements for source-specific BART
based on modeling, showing that involved a challenge to a regional haze determinations,49 the EPA has long
removing a particular control measure plan under section 110(l)’s requirements interpreted CAA section 169A(b)(2) to
will not interfere with attainment, concerning noninterference with allow for the adoption of
maintenance, or RFP requirements.33 attainment and maintenance, which the ‘‘implementation plan provisions other
Additionally, a modeling-based commenter acknowledges are not of than those provided by BART analyses
demonstration of non-interference with concern in relation to the Coronado SIP in situations where the agency
these requirements may be possible Revision.43 In that case, the court found reasonably concludes that more
where increases in one pollutant are that the petitioner had identified ‘reasonable progress’ will thereby be
offset by decreases in another pollutant nothing in the SIP revision at issue ‘‘that attained’’ because ‘‘ ‘reasonable
and the modeling analysis shows that weakens or removes any pollution progress’ is the overarching requirement
the decreases will provide at least controls.’’ 44 Contrary to the that implementation plan revisions
equivalent air quality benefits for each commenter’s assertion, the court did not under 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must
affected NAAQS.34 suggest that, if the petitioner had address.’’ 50 This interpretation has been
The cases cited by the commenter also identified such a provision, it would upheld by both the Ninth Circuit 51 and
fail to support the commenter’s necessarily have constituted a violation the D.C. Circuit 52 and is reflected in the
interpretation. In Kentucky Resources
Council, the court upheld the EPA’s 36 711 F.3d 1277, 1293 (11th Cir. 2013). 45 Id.
decision that a new attainment 37 796 F.3d 803, 812 (7th Cir. 2015). 46 723 F.3d 1201, 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013).
demonstration was not required in order 38 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). 47 The court specifically noted that the visibility
to show that the SIP revision would not 39 Id. at 1160, n.11 (‘‘Our assessment of the EPA’s protection provisions of CAA section 169A and
interfere pursuant to section 110(l).35 reasoning does not apply to review of rules 169B are ‘‘applicable requirements’’ for purposes of
governing areas that are in attainment.’’). CAA section 110(a)(2)(J). We agree with the
Thus, the examination of whether the 40 See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (‘‘[T]he commenter that these requirements are also
SIP revision would ‘‘worsen air quality’’ Conservation Organizations take no issue with ‘‘applicable requirements’’ for purposes of section
EPA’s finding that the alternative does not interfere 110(l).
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
32 70 FR 28429, 28430 (May 18, 2005) (emphasis with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.’’). 48 CAA section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2).
added). 41 Id. at 20. 49 CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C.
33 See ‘‘Demonstrating Noninterference Under 42 759 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2014). 7491(b)(2)(A).
Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act When Revising 43 See Earthjustice comment letter at 22 (‘‘[T]he 50 Central Arizona Water Conservation District v.
a State Implementation Plan,’’ 6, 10–11 (June 8, Conservation Organizations take no issue with EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993).
2005) (Draft Guidance). EPA’s finding that the alternative does not interfere 51 Id.
34 Id. at 8. with attainment of the applicable NAAQS.’’). 52 Center for Energy and Economic Development
35 467 F.3d 986, 996 (6th Cir. 2006). 44 WildEarth Guardians, 759 F.3d at 1074. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Utility
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46909
‘‘Better than BART’’ provisions of the our proposal and elsewhere in this particular, because the Cholla BART
Regional Haze Rule that apply to the document, the modeling submitted with Reassessment was a BART
Coronado SIP Revision.53 Accordingly, the Coronado SIP Revision demonstrates determination, we considered whether
in evaluating the Coronado SIP Revision that the Interim Strategy will result in it met the CAA’s BART requirements, as
under section 110(l) with respect to the improved visibility at all affected Class well as whether it was consistent with
Act’s visibility protection requirements, I areas compared with 2014 Baseline the CAA’s long-term national goal of
the relevant question is not whether it Emissions (prong 1) and will result in restoring natural visibility conditions at
would interfere with the BART improved visibility, on average, across Class I areas.60 Because the CAA’s
determination in our FIP, but whether it all Class I areas, compared with BART BART requirements do not apply to a
would interfere with the overall on both the 20% best and worst days BART alternative,61 we did not consider
statutory requirement for reasonable (prong 2).56 As the commenter noted, them in reviewing the Coronado SIP
progress, as implemented through the the modeling indicates that visibility Revision under section 110(l). Rather, as
‘‘Better than BART’’ provisions of the improvement at certain Class I areas explained above, we have considered
Regional Haze Rule. For the reasons will be slightly less under the Interim whether the Coronado SIP Revision is
explained in our proposal and Strategy as compared with BART consistent with the CAA requirement
elsewhere in this document, we have between 2018 and 2025. However, we for reasonable progress toward the long-
determined that the Coronado SIP do not believe that a temporary decrease term national goal.
Revision satisfies the ‘‘Better than in the rate of improvement at these areas Finally, while we do not agree that
BART’’ requirements of the Regional constitutes ‘‘interference’’ with the Act’s our responses to comments concerning
Haze Rule, meaning that it will result in visibility protection requirements, given the Cholla BART Reassessment were
greater reasonable progress than the that it is accompanied by a greater mistaken, those responses are not at
existing BART requirements for improvement at other Class I areas. As issue in this action. To the extent that
Coronado. Therefore, the Coronado SIP the D.C. Circuit has explained, ‘‘nothing the commenter’s concerns are relevant
Revision complies with the Act’s in [CAA] § 169A(b)’s ‘reasonable to the Coronado SIP Revision, we have
reasonable progress requirements. As progress’ language requires at least as addressed them above.
such, we do not agree with the much improvement at each and every Comment: Earthjustice and EDF both
commenter that we must apply some individual area as BART itself would raised concerns with the CAMx
separate criterion to determine whether achieve (much less improvement at each modeling relied upon by ADEQ and the
the Coronado SIP Revision would area at every instant) . . . .’’ 57 EPA to determine that the Interim
interfere with those same requirements. Furthermore, once the Final Strategy is Strategy would result in greater
Furthermore, even if such a separate implemented by 2026, we anticipated reasonable progress than BART. They
evaluation were necessary, we believe that there will be greater improvement noted that, although ADEQ had
that the modeling performed to support across all Class I areas compared to performed additional analyses to
ADEQ’s demonstration of greater BART.58 Therefore, we conclude that determine if the modeled visibility
reasonable progress for the Interim the Coronado SIP Revision will not changes could be attributed to emissions
Strategy is adequate to demonstrate non- interfere with the CAA’s visibility changes rather than model ‘‘noise,’’ the
interference with the Act’s visibility protection requirements. results were ‘‘still applicable to only one
protection provisions.54 As noted above, The commenters’ statements year’s meteorological transport pattern.’’
we interpret section 110(l) to allow for regarding the Cholla BART They asserted that the EPA should
a modeling-based demonstration of non- Reassessment are out of the scope of require a demonstration that the
interference with attainment, today’s action. That action was a emissions curtailments would result in
maintenance, and RFP requirements separate analysis based on the facts and better visibility conditions across varied
where increases in one pollutant are circumstances of that SIP revision, air transport conditions.
offset by decreases in another pollutant which we finalized on March 17, 2017. EDF acknowledged that the EPA’s
and the modeling analysis shows that We also do not agree with the modeling guidance allows the use of a
the decreases will provide at least commenter that we improperly applied single year of meteorological data for
equivalent air quality benefits for each a different rationale and analysis when modeling of regional scale pollutants
affected NAAQS.55 Similarly, such a determining whether the Coronado using CAMx. However, the commenters
modeling demonstration is appropriate BART Alternative and the Cholla BART noted that the CAMx modeling for the
to demonstrate non-interference with Reassessment complied with section Coronado BART Alternative focused on
visibility protection requirements when 110(l). In both cases, we considered a single source’s impacts on very
reductions of one or more pollutants (in whether the relevant SIP revision would specific geographic locations that
the case of the Interim Strategy, SO2 and interfere with the applicable statutory ‘‘would have large variations due to
PM) are being substituted for reductions requirements.59 However, despite some yearly meteorological changes in wind
of another pollutant (in the case of the similarities between the two SIP transport patterns.’’ Earthjustice stated
Interim Strategy, NOX). As described in revisions, they are not subject to all the that most BART determinations and all
same statutory requirements, so the BART alternatives that it was aware of
Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333, 1340– respective section 110(l) analyses relied on CALPUFF modeling. EDF and
41 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
53 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)–(6). See also Central
necessarily differ in some respects. In Earthjustice also noted that, where the
Arizona Water Conservation District, 990 F.2d at EPA had previously used CAMx
1543; Center for Energy and Economic 56 See 82 FR 19338–19341. modeling for BART determinations, it
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Development, 398 F.3d at 660; Utility Air 57 Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340– was in conjunction with CALPUFF
Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340–41 (upholding 41.
the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ provisions). 58 We do not agree with the commenter that it is
modeling, which typically uses at least
54 The commenter does not appear to object to our inappropriate to consider post-2025 emissions a three-year meteorological database.
determination that implementation of the Final reductions under section 110(l), given that such
Strategy would clearly satisfy section 110(l) because reductions will help to ensure continued 60 Id.
it would result in overall greater emissions compliance with the Act’s reasonable progress 61 See, e.g., Yazzie, 851 F.3d at 969 (affirming that
reductions compared to the BART Control Strategy. requirements. statutory deadline for BART does not apply to a
55 Draft Guidance at 8. 59 81 FR 46862; 82 FR 15150. BART alternative).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/7.svg)
![46910 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
They asserted that, in light of the small model and in preparing meteorological CALPUFF modeling used for BART
changes in visibility between the and emissions inputs. The emission determinations employed multiple years
modeled emissions scenarios, ‘‘the inventory requires economic variables of meteorology, the cost and effort
difference in impacts that delineate one and population estimates for the whole involved was lower than for CAMx, and
alternative curtailment period from area covered in the model domain, as it was spread over multiple states and
another are within the margin of error well as the emissions calculations for sources. By contrast, the Interim
for the model output.’’ They also stated the many sources of pollution in the Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision
that, if the difference were consistent domain. Meteorological and other affects only a single source for a limited
from year to year, ‘‘it would provide model input parameters typically must period of time. Accordingly, we find
more confidence in the resulting be adjusted in an iterative process to that modeling multiple years with
implementation of multiple curtailment ensure the model performs adequately. CAMx for the two-prong test applied to
periods.’’ Earthjustice added that ‘‘the The model’s performance must then be the Interim Strategy would constitute a
demonstration provided by ADEQ only evaluated. All of these tasks must be disproportionately high level of effort
gives information about the relative done separately for each year. Thus, relative to the modest benefit of such an
performance of BART versus the while modeling longer periods may approach.
alternative if the 2008 meteorological improve the robustness of the modeling Regarding the specific year chosen for
conditions are duplicated in every results, it also requires significant modeling the Interim Strategy, as
future year.’’ additional time and resources. discussed in connection with SRP’s
Response: We acknowledge the Therefore, it is prudent to assess comments and the analysis submitted
commenters’ concern about the whether the benefits of the modeling by Ramboll Environ,66 we find that the
robustness of a modeling analysis based justify the additional effort for each 2008 meteorology year was adequately
on a single year of meteorology, given individual application. Given that the representative for the two-prong test. In
the year-to-year variability of modeling for the Coronado SIP Revision addition, as explained further below,
meteorological conditions and their affects only a single source for a limited that analysis presented evidence that
possible effect on visibility impacts. period of time (i.e., the period of the 2008 was a conservative year, in that the
However, the Regional Haze Rule does Interim Strategy), we do not think it is Interim Strategy would be expected to
not require modeling of a longer period reasonable to require more than a single show a greater benefit compared to the
to make a demonstration under the two- year of photochemical modeling. baseline and BART in other years.
prong test, and EPA guidance also does We note that the situation was Comment: Earthjustice and EDF
not recommend a longer period. Rather, different for the CALPUFF modeling expressed concern about the use of a
to address a range of meteorological that states and the EPA conducted for projected 2020 inventory rather than
conditions, the EPA’s photochemical BART determinations, for which the clean conditions or the inventory of a
modeling guidance recommends EPA recommended that at least three ‘‘known year’’ for the CAMx modeling.
modeling a full year. Our current years of meteorological data be used.64 Earthjustice asserted that, ‘‘[t]o the
guidance states that ‘‘the preferred Under the BART Guidelines, CALPUFF extent EPA considers 2020 to be more
approach for regional haze-related could be used for assessing the visibility representative of future or cleaner air
model applications is to simulate an impacts of a single source without the quality conditions, CAMx should
entire, representative year.’’ 62 More process of input adjustment and instead have been run with only single
recent draft guidance states: performance evaluation described above source emissions plus
Regional Haze—Choose time periods for photochemical models.65 nonanthropogenic emissions to simulate
which reflect the variety of meteorological Furthermore, the emission inventory for reaction chemistry under natural
conditions which represent visibility BART modeling was a single source, conditions.’’ They argued that the EPA
impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst rather than the thousands of sources must include CALPUFF modeling to
days in the Class I areas being modeled (high needed in a photochemical model such help support the conclusion that the
and low concentrations necessary). This is as CAMx. The meteorological inputs to Coronado BART Alternative is in fact
best accomplished by modeling a full year.63 better than BART ‘‘when looking at
CALPUFF are also simpler than for a
Thus, modeling a full year with a photochemical model, and they were source impacts compared with natural
photochemical model to represent developed by multistate Regional conditions.’’
visibility impairment on the 20% best Planning Organizations, such as the Response: We do not agree that ADEQ
and worst days is consistent with EPA Western Regional Air Partnership should have used natural conditions or
guidance. (WRAP), for use in BART the inventory of a ‘‘known’’ (i.e., past)
We also note that states and the EPA determinations for numerous different year to evaluate the Interim Strategy.
rarely, if ever, model more than a single facilities. In summary, while the The Regional Haze Rule does not
year with a photochemical model even identify which background conditions
for NAAQS attainment demonstrations 64 See 70 FR 39107–39108 (‘‘For assessing the states must use for evaluating greater
covering large urban areas with fifth factor, the degree of improvement in visibility reasonable progress under the two-
thousands of sources possibly subject to from various BART control options, the States may prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
run CALPUFF or another appropriate dispersion However, in the preamble to the final
emission controls. A key reason for the model to predict visibility impacts . . . The
practice and recommendation of maximum 24-hour emission rates would be rule promulgating the two-prong test,
modeling just a single year is the time modeled for a period of three or five years of we explained that:
and expense involved in running the meteorological data.’’).
65 See, e.g., BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51,
The underlying purpose of both prongs of
computationally-intensive computer the test is to assess whether visibility
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
appendix Y, section IV.D.5. (‘‘Use CALPUFF or
other appropriate dispersion model to determine conditions at Class I areas would be better
62 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
the visibility improvement expected at a Class I area
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air from the potential BART control technology applied 66 ‘‘Additional Documentation on the Coronado
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, to the source’’); 70 FR 39123 (‘‘For the specific Generating Station Better-than-BART Modeling
EPA–454/B–07–002 (April 2007) p. 149. purposes of the regional haze rule’s BART Analysis to Address EPA’s October 2016 Request’’,
63 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating provisions . . . we have concluded that CALPUFF Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, is sufficiently reliable to inform the decision- Morris, Ramboll Environ to Bill McClellan, Salt
and Regional Haze, 17 (December 2014) (draft). making process.’’). River Project (April 6, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 46911
with the alternative program in place than visibility impacts from individual • determination that the Coronado
they would without it. . . . In both cases, sources such as Coronado.71 Thus, BART Alternative Final Strategy will
the logical reference point is visibility ADEQ appropriately relied on CAMx result in greater emission reductions
conditions as they are expected to be at the
time of program implementation but in the
modeling to assess the Coronado BART than BART for Coronado; and
absence of the program.’’ 67 Alternative under the two-prong • determination that the Final
modeling test. Strategy and its associated emission
In other words, the projected Comment: Earthjustice and EDF reductions are not necessary to
conditions at the time the BART objected to the fact that the CAMx demonstrate that the Coronado BART
alternative will be implemented, modeling used to assess the Coronado Alternative will achieve greater
including emissions from all other BART Alternative was limited to a range reasonable progress than BART during
sources, but assuming that no emission of 300 kilometers (km), given that the the period of the first long-term strategy.
reductions from BART or the BART EPA has previously used CAMx to Response: We acknowledge the
alternative have yet occurred, are an assess impacts beyond the 300 km comments.
appropriate background for modeling range. EDF stated that the EPA should Comment: SRP urged the EPA to note
under the two-prong test. Here, the explain why the 300 km limit was the assessment that ADEQ conducted
Interim Strategy will be implemented appropriate. Earthjustice argued that the that shows the importance of SO2 (and
between 2018 and 2025, so ADEQ’s EPA should include modeling results resulting sulfate) reductions in
decision to use the 2020 emissions for Class I areas outside of 300 km. improving visibility in Class I areas
inventory as the background conditions Response: We agree with the potentially affected by Coronado. In
for comparing the Interim Strategy to commenters that there is no a priori particular, SRP asserted that:
BART was reasonable. reason to limit the modeling under the
We also do not believe that it is ADEQ demonstrated that SO2 emission
two-prong test to Class I areas within reductions, such as those that would occur
necessary to conduct CALPUFF
300 km.72 We nevertheless find that the under the [Coronado] BART Alternative, are
modeling to support the conclusion that
set of Class I areas evaluated in the very significant in light of the facts that ‘‘the
the Coronado BART Alternative would SO2-attributed visibility extinction is
CAMx modeling is adequately
result in greater reasonable progress generally more than three times the NOX-
representative in this instance. The 300
than BART. While ADEQ could have attributed visibility extinction’’ and that, in
km radius used in the modeling covers
elected to conduct CALPUFF modeling particular, ‘‘the ratios of SO2-attributed
a large region, a range of geographic
to make a demonstration of greater visibility extinction to NOX-attributed
settings, and a full range of compass visibility extinction averaged over all Class I
reasonable progress, it instead chose to
directions from Coronado. In addition, areas are 3.7, 4.2 and 4.2 for the 20% best
use CAMx modeling to make this
the visibility impacts of Coronado’s days, the 20% worst days, and all days,
demonstration. As explained in our
emissions generally decline with respectively.’’
proposal:
distance.73 Because of that, when
CAMx has a scientifically current Response: As noted in footnote 31 of
comparing projected visibility
treatment of chemistry to simulate the our proposal,74 ADEQ’s ‘‘Supplemental
conditions under the BART Alternative
transformation of emissions into visibility- Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring Data’’
scenario to projected visibility
impairing particles of species such as is not directly relevant to the State’s
ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, conditions under the baseline scenario,
demonstration of greater reasonable
and is often employed in large-scale the differences between the two
progress under the two-prong test in 40
modeling when many sources of pollution scenarios generally decline with
CFR 51.308(e)(3), so we did not consider
and/or long transport distances are involved. distance. The same is true when
Photochemical grid models like CAMx it in evaluating the State’s
comparing the BART Alternative to
include all emissions sources and have demonstration. The results of the CAMx
BART. As a result, while including
realistic representations of formation, modeling establish that, through a
more distant areas would have a small
transport, and removal processes of the combination of controls, emission
particulate matter that causes visibility effect on the numerical values used in
reductions, atmospheric chemistry, and
degradation.68 the two-prong test, doing so would be
meteorology, the Coronado BART
unlikely to change the outcome of the
Because it incorporates the many Alternative will result in greater
test.
emissions sources that create the reasonable progress than BART, as
Comment: SRP commented that it required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
background conditions at the time the
strongly supports the EPA’s: Comment: SRP stated that, while the
BART alternative will be implemented,
• Proposed approval of ADEQ’s Coronado BART Alternative was
CAMx is well suited for modeling under
demonstration under 40 CFR proposed to be approved under 40 CFR
the two-prong test.69 Furthermore, as a
51.308(e)(3) that the Coronado BART 51.308(e)(3), it is also approvable under
result of recent developments in
Alternative Interim Strategy will 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) under the
modeling techniques,70 the EPA and
achieve greater reasonable progress than weight-of-evidence test. SRP further
states have begun to use photochemical
BART at Coronado; noted that ‘‘[t]he clear weight of
models such as CAMx to assess the
• proposed approval of the CAMx evidence test allows states to take into
67 70 FR 39104, 39138 (July 6, 2005).
modeling used by ADEQ; consideration a wide range of factors,
68 82 FR 19338–19339. visibility metrics, or other relevant
69 As explained in response to comments above, 71 See, e.g., 81 FR 296, 327–28 (January 5, 2016)
considerations in making a better-than-
it was appropriate and reasonable for the State to (describing the use of CAMx for evaluating
apply the two-prong modeling test to the Coronado visibility impacts of sources in a Texas Regional BART determination.’’
Response: The EPA acknowledges the
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
BART Alternative. Haze FIP).
70 See, e.g., 82 FR 5182, 5196 (‘‘Source sensitivity 72 Neither the Regional Haze Rule nor EPA comment.
and apportionment techniques implemented in guidance define ‘‘affected’’ Class I areas for Comment: SRP noted that the EPA
photochemical grid models have evolved purposes of the two-prong test.
described the Interim Strategy as ‘‘in
sufficiently and provide the opportunity for 73 This is illustrated in the graphic ‘‘Coronado
estimating potential visibility and deposition CAMx Baseline Impacts—Baseline delta DV Impact effect from December 5, 2017 to
impacts from one or a small group of emission vs. km distance,’’ in the file titled ‘‘Coronado_
sources using a full science photochemical grid baseline_CAMx_ddv_vs_distance.pdf,’’ available in 74 See 82 FR 19338, dated April, 27, 2017;
model.’’). the docket for this action. footnote 31.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/9.svg)
![46912 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
December 31, 2025,’’ and indicated that applicable implementation plan.’’ 75 conversion of SO2 and NOX emissions
the Final Strategy ‘‘would take effect on Because the compliance date for the into visibility-impairing sulfates and
January 1, 2026.’’ The commenter stated NOX emission limits in the Arizona nitrates. Ramboll Environ found that
that, ‘‘the December 31, 2025, date Regional Haze FIP is December 5, 2017, 2008 was somewhat warmer than the
represents a deadline for SRP to install the applicable implementation plan average, but that generally the
and operate an SCR on Unit 1 or close does not currently limit NOX emissions temperature was well within the normal
Unit 1, rather than the conclusion of the from Coronado. Thus, as correctly noted range of variation. The memorandum
effective period for the Interim Strategy’’ in our proposal, the Coronado SIP also noted that precipitation can remove
and requested that the EPA clarify that Revision will require lower emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from the
the installation and operation of the NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years, atmosphere and found that 2008
SCR on Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1 will compared to the emission levels precipitation was classified as ‘‘Near
occur no later than December 31, 2025, currently allowed under the applicable Normal.’’ Accordingly, Ramboll Environ
and that the Interim Strategy will be in implementation plan. concluded that 2008 was reasonably
effect until the installation of SCR on Comment: SRP included as an representative for purposes of the
Unit 1 or closure of Unit 1. attachment to its comments a technical visibility modeling.
Response: We agree with the memorandum from Ramboll Environ In a second analysis, Ramboll Environ
commenter that the installation and that evaluated whether the CAMx examined visibility-impairing
operation of the SCR on Unit 1 or modeling results for the two-prong test ammonium sulfate and ammonium
closure of Unit 1 must occur no later were influenced by numerical noise, nitrate concentrations during 2000–2012
based on a spatial and numerical as measured at four Class I areas in
than December 31, 2025, and that the
analysis of CAMx model outputs for different compass directions from
Interim Strategy will be in effect until
visibility and its sulfate and nitrate Coronado. These are shown as time
the installation of SCR on Unit 1 or
components.76 The components reflect series bar or line graphs for the various
closure of Unit 1. We have made this
the differences in SO2 and NOX, pollutants and areas. Ramboll Environ
clarification in this final notice.
respectively, between BART and the found that the annual averages for 2008
Comment: SRP noted that the EPA were near the middle of the averages for
Interim Strategy. The differences
described the SO2 emission cap as the individual years from 2000–2012.
showed a spatial pattern consistent with
‘‘plant-wide’’ and ‘‘facility-wide.’’ The Monthly averages for 2008 were also
realistic gradual variation in the
commenter recommended that the EPA consistent with the overall range seen
atmosphere, rather than random
‘‘clarify that the 1,970 tpy SO2 emission from 2000–2012. Compared to other
variation as would be expected from
cap applies to the aggregate annual years, monthly sulfate averages for 2008
numerical noise. Therefore, the
emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2 only tended to be on the high side during
memorandum concluded that the
and does not apply to any emissions March, April, and September, and on
modeled numerical differences
from any other sources at the site.’’ The the low side in mid-summer and in
represent real visibility improvements
commenter also noted that, ‘‘[i]n the December through February, but
and are not just numerical artifacts.
event that Unit 1 shuts down, the SO2- Response: This same analysis was nevertheless consistent with the overall
emission tonnage limit applicable after included in the Coronado SIP Revision range seen for 2000–2012. Ramboll
the shutdown of that unit is 1,080 tons and evaluated for our proposal. We Environ concluded that, because the
per calendar year.’’ reaffirm our finding that the analysis curtailment periods for Interim Strategy
Response: We agree with the supports the conclusion that the two- options IS3 and IS4 78 are from
commenter that the 1,970 tpy SO2 prong test results indicate actual November 21 through January 21,
emission cap applies to the aggregate visibility improvement under the overlapping the period for which 2008
emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2, and Interim Strategy compared to BART and tended to have lower sulfate, the
that, if Unit 1 shuts down, an SO2 no degradation relative to the baseline.77 modeled visibility improvement for
emission cap of 1,080 tpy would apply Comment: SRP included as an these options would also tend to be
to Unit 2. We have made this attachment to its comments a second lower than would be expected for other
clarification in this final notice. memorandum from Ramboll Environ years. That is, the actual visibility
Comment: SRP asserted that the EPA analyzing (1) whether the meteorology benefits of these options would
incorrectly stated that ‘‘the Coronado from the year that was used for generally be expected to be larger than
SIP Revision will require equivalent or modeling (2008) was adequately the modeling results indicate. The same
lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2 representative of other years and (2) conclusion applies to nitrate, for which
for all future years, compared to the whether, extending the length of the 2008 monthly averages tend to be on the
emission levels currently allowed under curtailment periods under the Interim low side, compared to the averages for
the applicable implementation plan Strategy would give additional visibility 2000–2012 years during the months that
(including both the Arizona Regional benefits. include the curtailment periods
Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze The first of three Ramboll Environ (November, December, and January).
FIP).’’ The commenter noted that the analyses of the representativeness of In its third analysis, Ramboll Environ
Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX 2008 was a comparison of 2008 examined the monthly distribution of
reductions than the Arizona Regional temperatures and precipitation to the 20% worst visibility days to see how
Haze FIP. typical conditions based on more than many fell within the November 21–
100 years of meteorological data. The January 20 curtailment period for 2008
Response: We agree with SRP that the in comparison to 2000–2012. This
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Interim Strategy requires fewer NOX memorandum noted that temperature
affects the oxidizing potential of the analysis showed that 2008 had a lower
reductions than the Arizona Regional than average number of 20% worst
Haze FIP between December 5, 2017, atmosphere, which in turn affects the
visibility days within this period.
and December 31, 2025. However, the 75 82 Ramboll Environ concluded that,
FR 19344 (emphasis added).
statement from our proposal quoted by 76 Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph
the commenter refers to ‘‘the emission Morris, Ramboll Environ (September 22, 2016). 78 The memorandum refers to IS3 and IS4 as BtB3
levels currently allowed under the 77 82 FR 19341. and BtB4, respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/10.svg)
![46914 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 10, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism imposing any new technical standards Administrator of this final rule does not
This action does not have federalism in this action. affect the finality of this rule for the
implications. It will not have substantial purposes of judicial review nor does it
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
direct effects on the states, on the extend the time within which a petition
Actions To Address Environmental
relationship between the national for judicial review may be filed, and
Justice in Minority Populations and
government and the states, or on the Low-Income Populations shall not postpone the effectiveness of
distribution of power and such rule or action. This action may not
The EPA believes that this action does be challenged later in proceedings to
responsibilities among the various not have disproportionately high and
levels of government. enforce its requirements (see section
adverse human health or environmental 307(b)(2)).
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation effects on minority populations, low-
and Coordination With Indian Tribal income populations, and/or indigenous List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Governments peoples, as specified in Executive Order Environmental protection, Air
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
This action does not have tribal
The documentation for this decision is Incorporation by reference,
implications, as specified in Executive
contained in section V above. Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on any Indian tribes, on L. Determination Under Section 307(d) Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
the relationship between the federal matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
government and Indian tribes, or on the requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.
the EPA has determined that this action
distribution of power and is subject to the provisions of section Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
responsibilities between the federal 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes Dated: September 28, 2017.
government and Indian tribes. Thus, procedural requirements specific to E. Scott Pruitt,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply certain rulemaking actions under the Administrator, EPA.
to this action. CAA. Pursuant to CAA section
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the For the reasons set forth in the
Children From Environmental Health provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
Risks and Safety Risks FIP that apply to Coronado is subject to 52 as follows:
the requirements of CAA section 307(d),
The EPA interprets Executive Order as it constitutes a revision to a FIP PART 52—APPROVAL AND
13045 as applying only to those under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, PROMULGATION OF
regulatory actions that concern health or CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
safety risks that the EPA has reason to the provisions of section 307(d) apply to
believe may disproportionately affect ‘‘such other actions as the Administrator ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
children, per the definition of ‘‘covered may determine.’’ The EPA determines continues to read as follows:
regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of that the provisions of 307(d) apply to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
the Executive Order. This action is not the EPA’s action on the Coronado SIP
subject to Executive Order 13045 Revision. Subpart D—Arizona
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk. M. Congressional Review Act (CRA) ■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended:
This rule is exempt from the CRA ■ a. In paragraph (d), under the table
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions heading ‘‘EPA-Approved Source-
because it is a rule of particular
Concerning Regulations That Specific Requirements’’ by adding an
applicability. The EPA is not required to
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, entry for ‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’
submit a rule report regarding this
Distribution, or Use after the entry for ‘‘Cholla Power Plant;’’
action under section 801 because this is
This action is not subject to Executive a rule of particular applicability that ■ b. In paragraph (e), under the table
Order 13211 because it is not a only applies to a single named facility. heading ‘‘Table 1—EPA-Approved Non-
significant regulatory action under Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory
Executive Order 12866. N. Petitions for Judicial Review
Measures’’ by adding an entry for
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), ‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’ after the
J. National Technology Transfer and petitions for judicial review of this entry for ‘‘Cholla SIP Revision.’’
Advancement Act action must be filed in the United States
This rulemaking does not involve Court of Appeals for the appropriate § 52.120 Identification of plan.
technical standards. The EPA is not circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a * * * * *
revising any technical standards or petition for reconsideration by the (d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
* * * * * * *
Coronado Generating Station Permit #64169 (as amended November 9, 2017 ...... October 10, 2017, [IN- Permit issued by Arizona De-
by Significant Revision SERT Federal Reg- partment of Environmental
#63088) Cover Page and ister CITATION]. Quality. Submitted on De-
Attachment ‘‘E’’: BART Al- cember 15, 2016.
ternatives.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/12.svg)
![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
Applicable
geographic or
Name of SIP provision State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment
area or title/subject
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 Revi- Source-Specific ........... December 15, 2016 .... October 10, 2017, [IN- BART Alternative for
sion to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan SERT Federal Reg- Coronado Gener-
for the Salt River Project Coronado Gen- ister CITATION]. ating Station
erating Station, excluding Appendix B. adopted December
14, 2016.
* * * * * * *
1 Table
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 Metropoli-
tan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
* * * * * and reenactment of the General Burning 80202–1129, (303) 312–6385,
■ 3. Section 52.145 is amended by: rule with changes to applicability, dresser.chris@epa.gov.
■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph timing and duration of burning SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(e)(1). windows, and an amendment to exempt
■ b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)– Native American ceremonial burning I. Background
(vi). during restricted burning days. In our notice of proposed rulemaking
■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph published on July 13, 2017 (82 FR
This rule is effective on
DATES:
32282), the EPA proposed to approve
(f).
November 9, 2017. Utah’s January 28, 2013 SIP submission,
[FR Doc. 2017–21604 Filed 10–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a which repeals and reenacts the General
docket for this action under Docket ID Burning provisions in R307–202 with
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0617. All several amendments (discussed in the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION documents in the docket are listed on proposed rulemaking). Additionally, the
AGENCY the http://www.regulations.gov Web EPA proposed approval of Utah’s July 8,
site. Although listed in the index, some 2015 revisions, which exempts
40 CFR Part 52 information is not publicly available, ceremonial burning conducted by a
e.g., CBI or other information whose ‘‘Native American spiritual advisor’’
[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0617; FRL–9969–04–
Region 8] disclosure is restricted by statute. during restricted burn days. In this
Certain other material, such as rulemaking, we are taking final action
Approval and Promulgation of Air copyrighted material, is not placed on on both SIP submittals. The reasons for
Quality Implementation Plans; State of the Internet and will be publicly our approval are provided in detail in
Utah; General Burning Rule Revisions available only in hard copy form. the proposed rule.
Publicly available docket materials are II. Response to Comments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection available through http://
Agency (EPA). www.regulations.gov, or please contact We received no comments on the
ACTION: Final rule. the person identified in the FOR FURTHER proposed rule.
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
INFORMATION CONTACT section for III. Final Action
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
additional availability information.
Agency (EPA) is approving State For the reasons expressed in the
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: proposed rule, the EPA is approving
submitted by the State of Utah on Chris Dresser, Air Program, U.S. revisions to Sections in R307–202 of the
January 28, 2013, and July 8, 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency State’s General Burning provisions from
submittals request SIP revisions to the (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, the January 28, 2013 and July 8, 2015
State’s General Burning rule; a repeal 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado submittals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:55 Oct 06, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR1.SGM 10OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_47097/page/13.svg)
Document Created: 2017-10-07 10:32:24
Document Modified: 2017-10-07 10:32:24
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective November 9, 2017. | |
| Contact | Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999-7880 or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 46903 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Visibility |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR