Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to New Source Review Rules, 21453-21471 [2012-8349]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations of CAA Section 110(a)(1) and (2) relevant to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State’s 1997 Ozone Infrastructure SIP is approved with respect to the requirements of the following elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). [FR Doc. 2012–8350 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003, FRL– 9616–7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to New Source Review Rules Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: EPA is approving those revisions adopted by the State of Colorado on April 16, 2004 to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements) that incorporate EPA’s December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. Colorado submitted the request for approval of these rule revisions into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 11, 2005 and supplemented its request on October 25, 2005. EPA is approving only the portions of Colorado’s revisions to Regulation Number 3 that relate to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment new source review (NSR) construction permit programs of the State of Colorado. Other revisions, renumberings, additions, or deletions to Regulation No. 3 made by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011). Colorado has a federally approved NSR program for new and modified sources impacting attainment and non-attainment areas in the State. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 10, 2012. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Jackson, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6107, jackson.scott@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background for This Action A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP does this action address? II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise. (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless the context indicates otherwise. I. Background for This Action On December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72744), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Colorado. The NPR proposed approval of portions of Colorado’s revisions to the Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements (Regulation No. 3) that incorporate EPA’s December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. The State of Colorado submitted the formal SIP revision on July 11, 2005 followed by a supplemental submittal on October 25, 2005. This final action PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 21453 updates the federally approved SIP to reflect changes made by Colorado that were reviewed and deemed approvable into the Colorado SIP (Code of Federal Regulations part 52, subpart G). On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations. These revisions are commonly referred to as ‘‘NSR Reform’’ regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions included provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future actual methodology, plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution control projects (PCPs). On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations. On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the December 2002 NSR Reform revisions. Although the Court upheld most of EPA’s rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ standard for when a source must keep certain project related records. Colorado’s July 11, 2005 submittal and October 25, 2005 supplemental submittal request approval for its regulations to implement the NSR Reform provisions that were not vacated or remanded by the June 24, 2005, court decision. A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP does this action address? EPA is approving those revisions adopted by Colorado on April 16, 2004 to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements) that incorporate EPA’s December 30, 2002 NSR Reforms (with the exceptions noted in the table below). EPA is also approving revisions Colorado made to Regulation No. 3 prior to the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking that incorporate the revisions EPA made to the federal NSR rules on July 21, 1992 (with the exceptions noted in the table below). These revisions are referred to as the WEPCO rule (for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company court ruling) and added definitions and provisions that have been incorporated into the April 16, 2004 version of Regulation No. 3. In addition to incorporating the NSR Reforms into the April 16, 2004 Regulation No. 3 revision, Colorado also restructured Regulation No. 3, including adding a new Part D titled Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The new Part D contains most of the NSR/PSD definitions, provisions, and sections that were revised or newly created by the NSR Reform rule. In addition, numerous Regulation No. 3 Part A and Part B NSR/ PSD definitions, provisions, and sections not revised by the NSR Reform rule, but already approved into the SIP, have been moved into the new Part D. EPA is approving the revisions to Regulation No. 3 creating the new Part D with the exceptions noted in the table below. The revisions adopted by Colorado on April 16, 2004 have structured Regulation No. 3 as follows: Part A now contains general provisions applicable to reporting and permitting, Part B addresses construction permits; Part C (not a part of the SIP) includes the operating permit program; and Part D deals with the Nonattainment NSR and PSD programs for major stationary sources. Minor sources will only be subject to Parts A and B; major sources (as defined for the Operating Permit program) are governed by Parts A, B and C. Major stationary sources must comply with Parts A, B, C and D. In particular, this reorganization separated Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision A–I.B.1 ................................ These other changes are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below. Part D Changes. Colorado created Regulation No. 3 Part D in order to make Colorado’s air quality program consistent with the EPA NSR Reform rules. The references to NSR requirements in Part D include both the nonattainment NSR and PSD programs. EPA is approving the new Part D except for the specific provisions noted in the table below. The following table specifies provisions of Regulation No. 3 that Colorado revised/renumbered or newly added in order to incorporate EPA’s NSR Reform and WEPCO rules and to create a separate NSR/PSD major stationary source part (Part D). In addition, some of the provisions that were proposed for approval in the notice of proposed rulemaking that EPA published on December 7, 2005 are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below. Provision description EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 D–II.A.1 ...................... Actual emissions definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(21), 51.165(a)(1)(xii). Note the reference in this definition to ‘‘I.B.1.a’’ should be to ‘‘II.A.1.a.’’ and Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of Regulation No. 3. EPA is approving this definition. See footnote 1. A–I.B.7 ................................ D–II.A.3 ...................... Air Quality Related Value definition. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.8 ................................ A–I.B.7 ....................... Allowable Emissions definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(16), 51.165(a)(1)(xi). A–I.B.10 .............................. D–II.A.5 ...................... Baseline Area definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(15) ...................... Colorado added ‘‘enforceable as a practical matter’’ and moved ‘‘future compliance date’’ phrase to this definition. EPA is approving this definition. See footnotes 1 and 2. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.11 .............................. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) the major stationary source NSR provisions from the construction permit requirements applicable to all sources. Part A Changes. EPA is approving changes Colorado made to Part A where the NSR Reform rule added or changed specific language used in this Part (as specified in the table below). In addition, EPA is approving changes Colorado made in Part A that moved the provisions applying to major NSR to Part D (as specified in the table below). EPA is not taking action, in this document, on any other revisions, renumberings, additions, or deletions to Part A made by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. These other changes are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below. Part B Changes. EPA is approving only the NSR Reform rule conforming changes Colorado made in Part B, which moved the provisions applying to major NSR to Part D (as specified in the table below). In this document, EPA is not taking action on any other revisions, renumberings, additions, or deletions to Part B made by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. D–II.A.6 ...................... Baseline Concentration definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(13) ...................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.12 .............................. D–II.A.8 ...................... Best Available Control Technology definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(12), 51.165(a)(1)(xl). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Partially Approved * * * With respect to the renumbering and the modification of the provision to the extent that the term ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ replaces ‘‘air pollutant regulated under the Federal Act’’ but no other modification of the provision. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision A–I.B.15 .............................. D–II.A.12 .................... A–I.B.21 .............................. EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) Complete definition (for PSD/NSR purposes). Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(22) ...................... D–II.A.16 .................... Federal Land Manager definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(24), 51.165(a)(1)(xlii). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Note the reference in II.A.12.a.(vii) of this definition to ‘‘III.G.4. of Part B’’ is not in the current codified SIP. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.31 .............................. D–II.A.19 .................... Innovative Control Technology definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(19) ...................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.32 .............................. D–II.A.21 .................... Lowest Achievable Emission Rate definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(52), 51.165(a)(1)(xiii). EPA is approving the language change. See footnote 1. A–I.B.33 .............................. D–II.A.24 .................... Major Source Baseline Date definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(14)(i) ................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.34 .............................. D–II.A.26 .................... Minor Source Baseline Date definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(14)(ii) .................. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.35.b ........................... D–II.A.23. (except II.A.23.d(iii), (viii), (x), (xi), and (e)— see below). Major Modification definition. Yes, except as noted below. 51.166(b)(2), 51.165(a)(1)(v). EPA is approving portions of D–II.23 not acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP. Note that the provision in II.A.23.e that references ‘‘section II.A.2’’ should reference ‘‘II.A.31’’ and Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of Regulation 3. See Footnotes 1 and 2. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d.(iii) ........... Use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit (part of Major Mod definition). Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(d), 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(4)(iv). EPA is approving this definition. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) D–II.A.23.d(viii) .......... Addition replacement or use of a PCP * * * (part of Major Modification definition). No .............................. 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(h), 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8). EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d(x) ............ The installation or operation of a permanent clean coal technology demonstration project that constitutes repowering * * * (part of Major Modification definition). Yes, as noted ............ 51.166(b)(2)(j) ..................... EPA is approving this definition as clarified. See footnote 3. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21455 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Partially approved * * * Only approved renumbering. NSR NFR will approve the language change. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Partially Approved * * * With respect to the renumbering and the modification of the provision to the extent that the term ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ replaces ‘‘air pollutant regulated under the Federal Act’’ but no other modification of the provision. EPA is approving the renumbering of all of II.23 (except sections D– II.A.23.d.(viii), (x), and (xi)), and, in II.A.23, prior to subsection II.A.23.a, the replacement of the term ‘‘air pollutant subject to regulation under the Federal Act or the State Act’’ with the term ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Note that the provision in II.A.23.e that references ‘‘section II.A.2’’ should reference ‘‘II.A.31’’ and Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of Regulation 3. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for our action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. 21456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d(xi) ............ N/A ...................................... How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) The reactivation of a very clean coal fired electric utility steam generating unit. (part of Major Modification definition). Yes, as noted ............ 51.166(b)(2)(k) .................... EPA is approving this definition as clarified. See footnote 3. D–II.A.23.e ................. This definition shall not apply * * * for a PAL (part of Major Mod definition). Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(2)(iv), 51.165(a)(1)(v)(D). A–I.B.36 .............................. D–II.A.27. (except II.A.27.c.(iv) and II.A.27.g.(v)). Net Emissions Increase definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(3), 51.165(a)(1)(vi). N/A ...................................... D–II.A.27.c.(iv) ........... No .............................. 51.166(b)(3)(iii)(c), 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3). D–II.A.27.g.(v) ........... No .............................. 51.166(b)(3)(vi)(d), 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(5). EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. Not Taking Action on this part of the definition at this time. A–I.B.44 .............................. A–I.B.35 ..................... Net emissions increase at a clean unit (part of Net Emissions Increase definition). Net emissions increase at a clean unit and pollution control project (part of Net Emissions Increase definition). Potential to Emit definition. EPA is approving this definition. Note that the reference in this definition should be to II.A.31 not II.A.2., and Colorado will correct this reference in a future revision of Regulation 3. See footnote 1. Colorado has added additional language at II.A.27.c.(iii), and II.A.27.g.(i). EPA is approving this definition. Note that provision II.A.27.a.(i) references ‘‘I.A.4.’’ However, there is no I.A.4.and this reference will be deleted by Colorado. See footnote 1 & 2. EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. N/A ...................................... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(4), 51.165(a)(1)(iii). EPA is approving this definition. See footnote 2. A–I.B.55 .............................. D–II.A.43 .................... Secondary Emissions definition. Yes ............................ 51.166.(b)(18), 51.165(a)(1)(viii). EPA is approving the language change for this definition. See footnote 1. A–I.B.57 .............................. D–II.A.44 .................... Significant definition .. No, see comment ...... 51.166.(b)(23), 51.165(a)(1)(x). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. A–I.B.58. Major Stationary Source. D–II.A.25 .................... Major Stationary Source definition (introductory). Yes, except as noted below. 51.166(b)(1)(i), 51.165(a)(1)(iv). Approved by interstate transport NFR. D– II.A.25.b was not approved. A–I.B.58.a ........................... D–II.A.25.b ................. 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) .......... EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 4. D–II.A.25.a ................. For the purpose of determining whether a source in a nonattainment area is subject * * * (part of Major Stationary Source definition). For the purpose of determining whether a source in an attainment or unclassifiable area (part of Major Stationary Source definition). Yes, as noted ............ A–I.B.58.b ........................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a) ................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Partially approved * * * Only approved renumbering. NSR NFR will approve the language change. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Note: our approval of the 8/1/07 submission modifies this definition. Partially approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. D– II.A.25.b was not approved. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for our action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Partially Approved * * * With respect to the renumbering and the modification of the provision to the extent that the term ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ replaces ‘‘air pollutant regulated under the Federal Act’’ but no other modification of the provision. Not Taking Action on this part of the definition at this time. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision A–I.B.58.c ........................... D–II.A.25.c ................. A–I.B.58.d ........................... D–II.A.25.d ................. A–I.B.58.f ............................ D–II.A.25.e ................. A–I.B.58.e ........................... D–II.A.25.f .................. A–I.B.58.g ........................... How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 Major stationary source includes any physical change that would occur at a stationary source (part of Major Stationary Source definition). A major stationary source that is major for volatile organic compounds shall be considered major * * * (part of Major Stationary Source definition). The fugitive emissions of a stationary source shall not be included * * * (part of Major Stationary Source definition). Emissions caused by indirect air pollution sources (part of Major Stationary Source definition). Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(i)(c), 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(2). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(B). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(iii), 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Note: our approval of the 8/1/07 submission modifies this definition. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–II.A.25.g ................. A major stationary source in the Denver Metro PM10 * * * (part of Major Stationary Source definition). Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Action taken by interstate transport SIP. See next column. N/A ...................................... D–III ........................... Permit Review Procedures. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... N/A ...................................... D–III.A ........................ NA ....................................... D–III.B ........................ Major Stationary Sources must apply for CP or OP. Process PSD applications w/in 12 months. Yes ............................ B–IV.B.5 .............................. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. N/A ...................................... D–IV ........................... Public Comment Requirements. Yes ............................ 51.166(q) ............................ N/A ...................................... D–IV.A ....................... Public Notice ............. Yes ............................ 51.166(q) ............................ B–IV.C.4.—from ‘‘For sources subject to the provisions of section IV.D.3.’’ to ‘‘The newspaper notice‘‘. B–IV.C.4.f ........................... D–IV.A.1 .................... Public notice of NSR and PSD permit applications. Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(ii) and (iv) ........... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–IV.A.2 .................... Additionally, for permit applications (request comment on). Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(iii) ....................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.C.5 ............................. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) 21457 D–IV.A.3 .................... Within 15 days after prepare PA. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.C.6 ............................. D–IV.A.4 .................... Hearing request for innovative control. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.C.7 ............................. D–IV.A.5 .................... Hearing request transmitted to commission. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. The reference in this definition to ‘‘I.B.22. of Part A’’ is at A–I.B.58. in the current codified SIP. Not taking action EPA is not acting on this definition in this action. This definition was not included in Colorado’s October 25, 2005 submission of Regulation No. 3, and was therefore proposed for approval erroneously in EPA’s December 7, 2005 proposed approval. Fully approved. Fully approved. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved. Fully approved. Copied from Part B, IV.C.4. of current codified SIP. The reference in D–IV.A. to ‘‘III.C.3. of Part B’’ is at B–IV.C.3. in the current codified SIP. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. 21458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision B–IV.C.8 ............................. D–IV.A.6 .................... B–IV.C.9 ............................. EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) Commission shall hold public comment hearing. Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(v) ........................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–IV.A.7 .................... 15 days after division makes final decision on application. Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(viii) ...................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2 ............................. D–V ............................ Requirements Applicable to Non-attainment Areas. (Introductory). Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.a .......................... D–V.A ........................ Major Stationary Sources. Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.A .......... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.a.(i) through (iii) ... D–V.A.1. through 3 .... Major Stationary Sources. Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.A. Conditions 1–4. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.a.(iii)(C) 2nd par .. D–V.A.3.d .................. With respect to offsets from outside nonattainment area. Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.D .......... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.a.(iv) .................... D–V.A.4 ..................... The permit application shall include an analysis of alternative sites. Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.D .......... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.a.(v) ..................... D–V.A.5 ..................... Offsets for which emission reduction credit is taken. Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.V.A ........... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.a.(vi) .................... D–V.A.6 ..................... NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–V.A.7 ..................... The applicant will demonstrate that emissions from the proposed source will not adversely impact visibility. Applicability of Certain Nonattainment Area Requirements. Yes ............................ B–IV.D.2.b .......................... Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.b.(i) ...................... D–V.A.7.a .................. Any major stationary source in a nonattainment area. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.2.b.(ii) ..................... D–V.A.7.b .................. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–V.A.7.c .................. 51.165(a)(6) ........................ EPA is approving this provision, with the exception of the phrases ‘‘a Clean Unit or at,’’ ‘‘a reasonable possibility that’’ and ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase,’’ which EPA considers as withdrawn by the State. See footnote 1, 5, and 6. N/A ...................................... D–V.A.7.d .................. The requirements of Yes ............................ section V.A. shall apply at such time that any stationary source. The following proviYes, except as noted sions apply to in comment section. projects at existing emissions units * * * (‘‘Reasonable possibility’’ provisions in nonattainment areas) (part of Applicability of Certain Nonattainment Area Requirements). documents available Yes ............................ for review upon request (part of Applicability of Certain Nonattainment Area Requirements). 51.165(a)(5)(ii) .................... N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) 51.165(a)(7) ........................ EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. B–IV.D.2.c. (and subsections). D–V.A.8 ..................... 51.165, Appx. S.IV.B .......... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description Exemptions from Certain Nonattainment Area Requirements. PO 00000 Yes ............................ Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. The reference in D–V.A. to ‘‘III.D.1. of Part B’’ is at B–IV.D.1. in the current codified SIP. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision B–IV.D.3 ............................. D–VI ........................... B–IV.D.3.a. (and subsections not listed below). EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) Requirements Applicable to Attainment Areas. (Introductory). Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–VI.A ....................... Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications. Yes ............................ 51.166(j) ............................. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.a.(i)(C) ................. D–VI.A.1.c ................. For phased construction. Yes ............................ 51.166(j)(4) ......................... EPA is approving the language change for this definition. See footnote 1 and 2. B–IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D) ................ D–VI.A.3.d ................. In general, the continuous air monitoring data. Yes ............................ 51.166(m)(1)(iv) .................. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D) ................ D–VI.A.4 .................... Post-construction monitoring. Yes ............................ 51.166(m)(2) ....................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.b .......................... D–VI.B ....................... Applicability of Certain PSD Requirements. Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.b.(i) ...................... D–VI.B.1 .................... The requirements of section VI.A. do not apply. Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(1) and (2) ............ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.b.(ii) ..................... D–VI.B.2 .................... The requirements contained in sections VI.A.2. through VI.A.4. Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(3) and (4) ............ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.b.(iii) ..................... D–VI.B.3. (including D–VI.B.3.b., c., and d.). 51.166(i)(5) ......................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. D–VI.B.3.a.(i)–(ix) ...... The division may exempt a proposed major stationary source or major modification from the requirements of sections VI.A.3. through VI.A.5. of this Part, with respect to monitoring for a particular pollutant if: * * *. deleted Mercury, Beryllium, Vinyl chloride. Yes ............................ B–IV.D.3.b.(iii)(A)(1)–(12) ... Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(5)(i) ...................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.b.(iv) .................... D–VI.B.4 .................... The requirements of this Part D shall apply. Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(6) ......................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) D–VI.B.5 .................... The following proviYes, except as noted sions apply to in comment section. projects at existing emissions units (‘‘Reasonable possibility’’ provisions PSD) (part of Applicability of Certain PSD Requirements). 51.166(r)(6) ......................... EPA is approving this provision, with the exception of the phrases ‘‘a Clean Unit or at,’’ ‘‘a reasonable possibility that’’ and ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase,’’ which EPA considers as withdrawn by the State. See footnotes 1, 5, and 6. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21459 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. The reference in D–VI.A. to ‘‘III.D.1. of Part B’’ is at B–IV.D.1. in the current codified SIP. Partially approved * * * Only approved renumbering. NSR NFR will approve the language change. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Colorado has revised this provision to make post construction monitoring at the director’s discretion as allowed by 51.166(m)(2). Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Colorado has reworded D– VI.B.3. and deleted unnecessary language. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. 21460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision N/A ...................................... EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) D–VI.B.6 .................... documents available Yes ............................ for review upon request (part of Applicability of Certain PSD Requirements). 51.166(r)(7) ......................... EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. B–IV.D.3.b.(v) ..................... D–VI.B.7 .................... A stationary source or modification may apply. Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(9) ......................... Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.c ........................... D–VI.C ....................... Notice to EPA ............ Yes ............................ 51.166(p)(1) ........................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.3.d .......................... D–VI.D ....................... Major Stationary Sources in attainment areas affecting nonattainment area. Yes ............................ 51.165(b) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IV.D.4 ............................. D–VII .......................... Negligibly Reactive VOCs. Yes ............................ 51.100(s) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–V ..................................... D–VIII ......................... Area Classifications ... Yes, with the exception of D–VIII.B. 51.166(e) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. N/A ...................................... D–VIII.B ..................... All other areas of Colorado, * * * (part of Area Classifications). No .............................. NA ....................................... EPA considers this provision as withdrawn. See FR Notice of 3/25/98 (63 FR 14357). B–VI .................................... D–IX ........................... Redesignation ............ Yes ............................ 51.166(e) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–VII ................................... D–X ............................ Air Quality Limitations Yes, with the exception of D–X.A.5. 51.166(c) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. N/A ...................................... D–X.A.5 ..................... Increment Consumption Restriction (part of Air Quality Limitations). No .............................. NA ....................................... EPA considers this provision as withdrawn. See FR Notice of 3/25/98 (63 FR 14357). B–VIII .................................. D–XI ........................... Exclusions from Increment Consumption. Yes ............................ 51.166(f) ............................. Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–IX .................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) D–XII .......................... Innovative Control Technology. Yes ............................ 51.166(s) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. B–X ..................................... D–XIII ......................... Federal Class I Areas Yes ............................ 51.166(p) ............................ Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made The reference in D–VI.D. to ‘‘III.D.1. of Part B’’ is at B–IV.D.1. in the current codified SIP. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. EPA is approving this provision with the exception of D–VIII.B. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. EPA is approving this provision with the exception of D–X.A.5. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. Fully approved * * * Because the provision has only been renumbered and no substantive changes were made. The reference in D–XIII.C. to ‘‘III.B. of Part B’’ is at B–IV.B. in the current codified SIP. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision B–XI .................................... How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Provision description EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 D–XIV ........................ Visibility ...................... No .............................. NA ....................................... EPA previously acted on this provision in a separate action. See FR Notice of 11/2/06 (71 FR 64466). N/A ...................................... A–I.B.13 ..................... CEMS definition ......... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(43), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... A–I.B.14 ..................... CERMS definition ...... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(46), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... A–I.B.15 ..................... CPMS definition ......... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(45), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxiii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... A–I.B.33 ..................... Pollution Prevention definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(38), 51.165(a)(1)(xxvi). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... A–I.B.36 ..................... PEMS definition ......... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(44), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–I.A .......................... General Applicability (Introductory). Yes ............................ N/A ...................................... D–I.B. (except I.B.3. and second sentence of I.B.4.). Applicability Tests ...... Yes ............................ 51.166(a)(7) (iv)(a)and (b), 51.165(a)(2)(iii)(A) and (B). 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), (d), and (f), 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(C), (D), and (F). N/A ...................................... D–I.B.3 ....................... Emission tests at clean units (part of Applicability Tests). No .............................. 51.166 (a)(7)(iv)(e), 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(E). N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) 21461 D–I.B.4. second sentence. For example, for a project involves both an existing unit and a clean unit (part of Applicability Tests). No .............................. 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f) second sentence, 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(F) second sentence. EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. EPA is approving this defiNot taking action * * * Benition with the exception cause it was not a necof I.B.3. and the second essary prerequisite for sentence of I.B.4, which the action on the 8/1/07 EPA considers withdrawn. submittal, or provision The reference in D–I.B.5. to was not proposed for ap‘‘I.B.26. of Part A’’ is at proval in our Dec. 7, A–I.B.35.c. in the current 2005 notice. codified SIP. The reference in D–I.B.5. to See footnotes 1 and 6. ‘‘I.B.26. of Part A’’ is at A–I.B.35.c. in the current codified SIP. EPA considers this proviNot taking action * * * Besion as withdrawn. cause it was not a necSee footnote 6. essary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. EPA considers this lanNot taking action * * * Beguage as withdrawn. cause it was not a necSee footnote 6. essary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. EPA is not taking action on this part of provision D– I.B.4. at this time. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Only approved the language in 1.A.1. 21462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision N/A ...................................... D–I.C ......................... N/A ...................................... EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 For any major stationary source requesting, or operating under, a Plantwide Applicability Limitation. Yes ............................ 51.166 (a)(7)(v), 51.165(a)(2)(iii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. D–I.D ......................... An owner or operator undertaking a Pollution Control Project. No .............................. 51.166 (a)(7)(vi), 51.165(a)(2)(iv). EPA considers this provision as withdrawn. See footnote 6. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.2 ...................... Actuals PAL Definition Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(i), 51.165(f)(2)(i). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.4 ...................... Baseline Actual Emissions definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(47), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.7 ...................... Begin Actual Construction definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(11), 51.165(a)(1)(xv). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.9 ...................... Clean Coal Technology definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(33), 51.165(a)(1)(xxiii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.10 .................... Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(34), 51.165(a)(1)(xxiv). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.11 .................... Clean Unit definition .. No .............................. 51.166(b)(41), 51.165(a)(1)(xxix). EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.13 .................... Construction definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(8), 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) D–II.A.14 .................... Emissions Unit definition (for PSD/NSR purposes). .................................... 51.166(b)(7), 51.165(a)(1)(vii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.15 .................... Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(30), 51.165(a)(1)(xx). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision N/A ...................................... Provision description EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) D–II.A.17 .................... High Terrain definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(25) ...................... EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.18 .................... Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare definition. .................................... 51.166(b)(31)(iv), 51.165(a)(1)(xv)(D). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.20 .................... Low Terrain definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(26) ...................... EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.22 .................... Major Emissions Unit definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(iv), 51.165(f)(2)(iv). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.28 .................... Nonattainment New Source Review definition. Yes ............................ 51.165(a)(1)(xxx) ................ EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.29 .................... PAL Effective Date definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(vi), 51.165(f)(2)(vi). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.30 .................... PAL Effective Period definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(vii), 51.165(f)(2)(vii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.31 .................... PAL Major Modification definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(viii), 51.165(f)(2)(viii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.32 .................... PAL Permit definition Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(ix), 51.165(f)(2)(ix). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) D–II.A.33 .................... PAL Pollutant definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(x), 51.165(f)(2)(x). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.34 .................... Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL) definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(v), 51.165(f)(2)(v). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21463 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. 21464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision NA ....................................... D–II.A.35 .................... N/A ...................................... EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 Pollution Control Project definition. No .............................. 51.166(b)(31), 51.165(a)(1)(xxv). D–II.A.36 .................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(42), 51.165(a)(1)(xli). N/A ...................................... D–II.A.37 .................... Project definition ........ Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(51), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxix). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.38 .................... Projected Actual Yes ............................ Emissions definition. 51.166(b)(40), 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.39 .................... Reactivation of Very Clean Coal-Fired EUSGU definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(37) ...................... EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.40 .................... Regulated NSR Pollutant definition. No, see comment ...... 51.166(b)(49), 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii). N/A ...................................... D–II.A.41 .................... Replacement Unit definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(32), 51.165(a)(1)(xxi). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.42 .................... Repowering definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(36) ...................... EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.45 .................... Significant Emissions Increase definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(39), 51.165(a)(1)(xxvii). N/A ...................................... D–II.A.46 .................... Significant Emissions Unit definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(xi), 51.165(f)(2)(xi). Approved by interstate transport NFR. See next column. EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... D–II.A.47 .................... Small Emissions Unit definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(iii), 51.165(a)(1)(iii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. N/A ...................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) D–II.A.48 .................... Temporary Clean Coal Demonstration Project definition. Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(35), 51.165(a)(1)(xxii). EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Provision description PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. EPA is approving this provision. See footnote 1. E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Not taking action. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Fully approved. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Provision location in Colorado’s current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in current Colorado SIP) Provision location in Colorado’s 4/16/2004 Reg 3 revision Provision description EPA is incorporating all or part of revision or addition into the SIP Equivalent provision in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 N/A ...................................... D–XV ......................... Clean Units ................ No .............................. 51.166(t) and (u), 51.165(c) and (d). EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. N/A ...................................... D–XVI ........................ Pollution Control Projects. No .............................. 51.166(v), 51.165(e) ........... EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the State. See footnote 6. N/A ...................................... D–XVII ....................... Plantwide Applicability Limitations. Yes ............................ 51.166(w), 51.165(f) ........... EPA is approving this provision. The references in XVII.N.1.g and XVII.N.2.d. of this section to ‘‘I.B.38. of Part A’’ are at A–I.B.53. in the current codified SIP. Colorado has revised D– XVII.I.2. (application deadline) to 12 months prior to expiration instead of 6 months. Colorado has revised XVII.N.1. (Semi-Annual Report) to require submission of QA/QC data as requested, not as part of the semi-annual report specified in 51.166(w)(14)(i)(c). See footnote 1. How provision is acted on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 21465 How provision is acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s interstate transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 2005 notice. Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for the action on the 8/1/07 submittal, or provision was not proposed for approval in our Dec 7, 2005 notice. The references in XVII.N.1.g and XVII.N.2.d of this section to ‘‘I.B.38. of Part A’’ are at A– I.B.53. in the current codified SIP. Colorado has revised D– XVII.I.2. (application deadline) to 12 months prior to expiration instead of 6 months. Colorado has revised XVII.N.1. (Semi-Annual Report) to require submission of QA/QC data as requested, not as part of the semi annual report specified in 51.166(w)(14)(i)(c). Footnote 1: We are approving this new rule in Regulation No. 3 because the rule is identical or consistent with the Federal New Source Review regulations found at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 and contain no changes to the language that would affect the meaning of the rule. Footnote 2: We are approving this change of an existing Regulation No. 3 rule because the rule has only been renumbered, contains nonsubstantive changes to the rule that do not affect the meaning of the rule and/or has been modified to move a definition that has already been approved into the SIP to a specific rule section in which the definition applies. This renumbered rule and all subsections within this rule supersede and replace the prior numbered rule and subsections in Colorado’s federally approved SIP. Footnote 3: Colorado has marked this part of the definition of Major Modification as underlined, meaning that the State intends it will only be effective until EPA approves the NSR Reform revisions for incorporation into the SIP. Colorado has since clarified that they intended that this provision remain as part of the definition of Major Modification as it applies to PSD sources located in attainment areas only, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(j). If Colorado revises Regulation No. 3 to indicate this clarification prior to EPA taking final action, EPA is approving this addition to the definition of Major Modification into the SIP. Footnote 4: Colorado’s SIP submittal deletes the following language in D–II.A.25.b from what was previously in the definition of Major Stationary Source (at A– I.B.58.a.): In the Denver Metro PM10 nonattainment area, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides shall be treated as PM10 precursors, and any source which is major for these precursors is subject to the nonattainment new source review provisions. Additionally, a source causing or contributing to a violation of a NAAQS for any pollutant regulated under Section 110 of the Federal Act shall be considered major when it has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of that pollutant. The source will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation when the source exceeds the significance levels in the table under Section IV.D.3.d(ii), Part B. Such source is subject to the requirements of IV.D.3. Colorado has revised Regulation No. 3 to add this deleted language back into the definition of Major Stationary Source. As discussed in the proposal, EPA is therefore approving this part of the definition of Major Stationary Source into the SIP. Footnote 5: EPA discussed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on how it intended to implement provisions D–V.A.7 and D– VI.B.5. without the language regarding the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ that a project ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase’’ included as part of these provisions. CDPHE’s intent is that Colorado will implement the rule consistently with EPA’s policy and guidance. Additionally, CDPHE provided a letter to EPA dated Nov 28, 2005 that stated their intent is to also ‘‘request that the Commission make any revisions to Regulation No. 3 necessary to incorporate and implement federal program revisions should it be necessary for EPA to take further action on the remand of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, sections 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6).’’ Therefore, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA approves D–V.A.7.c and D–VI.B.5 with the exception of the phrases ‘‘a reasonable possibility that,’’ ‘‘a Clean Unit or at,’’ and ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase.’’ This approval is consistent with Colorado’s deletion of the phrases in subsequent submittals. Footnote 6: The Clean Unit and Pollution Control Projects provisions in the 2002 NSR Reform Rule were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 2005. Colorado has since removed references to these provisions in subsequent Reg. 3 submittals. As such, EPA considers these provisions effectively withdrawn by the State. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES II. Response to Comments Environment Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental Defense jointly commented on our December 2005 proposed action. We have carefully considered the comments, and, as part of that consideration, have obtained information from the Colorado VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) in order to assist us in deciding how to address certain comments. Below we provide summaries of, and our responses to, the significant adverse comments. Nothing in them has caused us to change our action from what we proposed. PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Comment No. 1: The commenters assert that ‘‘[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions that were not vacated by the D.C. Circuit in New York v. EPA [citation omitted] allow previouslyprohibited emissions-increases to occur.’’ Comments at 4. In their main comment letter and in attached materials, the commenters argue that E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 21466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations Colorado’s SIP revision will allow for increased air pollution, and they focus on three main aspects of Colorado’s revised Regulation 3: (1) Revisions to the method of calculating baseline actual emissions for existing sources; (2) revisions to the applicability test for existing sources; and (3) the plantwide applicability limitation (PAL) provisions. The commenters assert that approval of Colorado’s proposed SIP revision would violate section 110(l) of the CAA, because ‘‘EPA cannot make a finding that revising Colorado’s permit provisions so that they track the nonvacated provisions of the 2002 rule ‘would not interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements.’ ’’ Comments at 5. EPA Response No. 1: Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be approved under section 110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve status quo air quality. See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06– 61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008); see also, e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and final rules, upheld in Kentucky Resources, which discuss EPA’s interpretation of section 110(l)). EPA has determined that Colorado’s SIP revision will not ‘‘interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA]’’ in violation of section 110(l) of the CAA because, as explained below, the revision will result in effects on air quality that are neutral or beneficial. The Colorado SIP revision tracks the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were not vacated by the Court of Appeals in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 21–31 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Overall, EPA expects that changes in air quality as a result of implementing Colorado’s rules will be consistent with EPA’s analysis of the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules—that the effects will be somewhere between neutral and providing modest contribution to reasonable further progress when the 2002 NSR Reform Rules are compared to the pre-Reform provisions. EPA’s analysis for the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 environmental impacts of these three components of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules is informative of how Colorado’s adoption of NSR Reform (based on the federal rules) will affect emissions. See generally Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (Nov. 21, 2002) (‘‘Supplemental Analysis’’).1 EPA’s conclusion rests primarily on the national-scale analysis that EPA conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. This national analysis indicates that the non-vacated provisions of the NSR Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact. The three significant changes in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (that were not vacated by the court) were: (1) Plantwide applicability limits (PALs); (2) the 2-in-10 baseline (also known as the ten-year lookback); and (3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. EPA’s Supplemental Analysis discussed each of these three changes individually, and addresses many of the issues raised by commenters. The environmental impacts of NSR Reform in Colorado will not be substantially different from those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis. Furthermore, with limited exceptions discussed below, the commenters do not raise Coloradospecific arguments or provide Coloradospecific data to suggest that the results of the NSR Reform in Colorado will be substantially different from those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis. Where the commenters have relied on generic or national arguments against NSR Reform, we have relied on the analyses conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform rules for our response. It is worth emphasizing that, while the comments focus exclusively on how Colorado’s SIP revision may allow certain facilities to increase emissions without undergoing NSR, the NSR process does not prohibit emissions increases. Nor does it regulate facilities that simply increase their hours of operation or production rate over what has occurred in recent years, resulting in increased annual emissions. Rather, NSR regulates construction of new major sources, and of physical or operational changes at existing major sources that result in significant emissions increases, and requires the new source or modification to control its emissions using stringent technology-based standards, as well as 1 The Supplemental Analysis is available at https://epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf, and has also been added to the docket for this action. It is incorporated into these responses by reference. PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 meet other requirements. In some cases (e.g., a modification at an already wellcontrolled unit) the benefits of the NSR program may be small. See Supplemental Analysis at 5. At the same time, avoidance of an NSR permitting process does not necessarily mean that emissions increase, since facilities may be discouraged by the permitting process itself from undertaking environmentally beneficial projects. See id. at 5. Finally, the NSR program can lead to changes in source behavior that have environmental effects (including potentially beneficial effects) even for sources that do not get an NSR permit, and permitting data tell us little about these effects. See id. at 5–6. For these reasons, focusing entirely on hypothetical emissions increases that might avoid NSR misstates the overall effect of the NSR revisions that Colorado and other states have adopted. The question is not simply whether the SIP revision would theoretically allow certain sources to make emissionsincreasing changes that might be subject to NSR under the current SIP but would not be subject to NSR in the revised SIP. Rather, the question is whether the SIP revision, as a whole, would interfere with applicable CAA requirements. Since the focus of this analysis is on the SIP as a whole, and since NSR Reform is expected to lead to overall emissions reductions even though emissions at some individual sources may increase, the commenters’ arguments (arguing that certain individual sources’ emissions may increase) do not show that the SIP revision as a whole would interfere with applicable CAA requirements. That said, we respond in detail below to the commenters’ significant adverse comments regarding specific alleged emissions increases that would avoid NSR under Colorado’s SIP revision. 1. Baseline Actual Emissions. The commenters argue that revisions to Regulation No. 3’s method of calculating baseline actual emissions for existing sources will allow those sources to ‘‘inflate’’ baseline actual emissions, and thereby substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR. Specifically, the commenters argue that (1) the rule’s definition of baseline actual emissions enables facilities to choose the highest consecutive two-year period over the prior ten years, thus treating high emissions that may not have been emitted for many years as ‘‘baseline’’ emissions; (2) the regulation allows sources to select a different two-year period for each pollutant, thus creating a ‘‘baseline’’ that is higher than actual E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations emissions of the facility in any actual two-year period over the last decade; and (3) the regulation calculation ‘‘rewards’’ facilities for malfunctions, upsets and unusual emissions during start-up and shut-downs by allowing facilities to inflate the baseline with those emissions. We disagree that these changes will result in substantial emissions increases, and discuss each in turn. First, with regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded in the context of the NSR Reform regulation that ‘‘the environmental impact from the change in baseline * * * will not result in any significant change in benefits derived from the NSR program.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 13. As we explained in the Supplemental Analysis, the rule change will not alter the baseline at all for many sources. See Supplemental Analysis at 13. Furthermore, for other instances, EPA explained: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES [F]or the remaining case, where recent emissions are low compared to the past, a source cannot qualify for a significantly higher baseline emissions level if the present emissions are lower as a result of enforceable controls or other enforceable limitations that have gone into effect since that time—which is true an estimated 70 percent of the time. Indeed, such sources could face more stringent baselines under the current rule if controls are applied toward the end of the baseline period. This leaves only the case where emissions are lower as a result of decreased utilization due to decreased market demand, some kind of outage, or other circumstance. Even in this case, it is not clear that a different baseline would always result, because the source is eligible, under current rules, to request a more representative baseline than the previous two years. Id. at 13. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline change is available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F. See also 67 FR 80186, 80199–80200 (Dec. 31, 2002); New York, 413 F.3d at 21–31 (explaining why EPA’s selection of ten-year lookback period is reasonable). The commenters also provided Colorado-specific emissions data to support their hypothesis that allowing a 2-in-10 baseline calculation could lead to significant emissions increases in Colorado. EPA has evaluated this analysis and concluded that the commenters overlooked other important factors involved with the baseline calculation and oversimplified interpretation of the baseline calculation changes. The commenters also failed to present any rationale that allowing a 2in-10 baseline calculation will, in fact, cause actual emission increases in Colorado that would not occur absent the Reform rule. Applicability of NSR is VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 determined on a project-specific basis. Commenters have not explained why there should be reason to believe that more projects will actually occur, or that higher-emitting projects will actually occur, as a result of a 2-in-10 calculation, rather than the baseline calculation specified in pre-Reform NSR rules. Appendix F of the Supplemental Analysis provides a number of reasons why the majority of sources will not be affected by the change in baseline calculation. The following circumstances at particular sources would not result in a change in baseline: new sources and new units at existing sources, electric utility steam generating units, sources with recent high levels of emissions, and sources with recent emissions comparable to the past. The Supplemental Analysis explains that NSR Reform requires ‘‘use of current emission limits that account for enforceable pollution control measures that have been put into place.’’ Supplemental Analysis at F–4. While the commenters did remove electric utility steam generating units from their analysis, they did not evaluate the change in baseline calculation with respect to the other circumstances described above. In particular, they acknowledge that they did not evaluate other provisions of state and federal law that could limit pollution increases (comment 0020.21 in docket). In lieu of doing this evaluation for Colorado, the commenters cite an October 2003 report 2 that looked at the impact of nonNSR provisions in relation to the 2-in10 baseline calculation in 12 states, of which Colorado was not one. EPA has previously noted that this report is ‘‘overly simplistic and erroneous in its interpretation of NSR.’’ 73 FR 76563 (Dec. 17, 2008).3 Furthermore, it is overly simplistic to assume that sources would be able to increase their emissions by simply relying on a higher baseline calculation that a 10-year lookback may (or may not) afford, for at least four reasons. 1. As mentioned above, there are several circumstances that the commenters overlooked, such as the existing rules’ provision to select an alternate representative baseline period, and enforceable controls or other enforceable limitations, that factor into the ability to take a higher baseline by 2 Environmental Integrity Project and the Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference, Reform or Rollback? How EPA’s Changes to New Source Review Could Affect Air Pollution in 12 States, October 2003. 3 We incorporate by reference into this response a detailed critique of this report presented in EPA’s approval of Wisconsin’s NSR Reform SIP revision. See 73 FR 76560, 76563–64. PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 21467 looking back 10 years as opposed to 2 years. With respect to the existing rules’ provision allowing for a source to request an alternate representative baseline period, CDPHE has informed EPA that, even under its current NSR rules, it has approved at least four requests for a more representative baseline other than the most recent two years.4 The commenters did not take this into account when calculating the hypothetical emissions increases that might occur under the 2-in-10 baseline calculation. 2. The commenters have attempted to show that a 10-year lookback can yield a higher facility-wide baseline, but NSR applicability is determined for a particular project affecting particular emissions units. For existing emissions units, the source would likely use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test, which compares projected actual emissions to the baseline actual emissions for that emissions unit. See Regulation No. 4, Part D, section I.B.1. The project’s overall NSR applicability is determined by summing this difference across all emissions units involved in the project. See id. The possibility that an emissions unit not involved in the project (i.e. not having an emissions increase from the project) might have a high baseline actual emissions is irrelevant in this context. 3. The prospect that the ten-year lookback might allow certain sources to use a higher baseline and therefore increase emissions (as compared to a two-year-lookback) does not mean that sources will actually do so. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Jackson, 650 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘‘The two-in-ten rule, for example, might allow a business to increase average emissions, but does it? So far, we have no answer to that question, either from actual experience in adopting states or through efforts to test a model by retrodiction.’’) (emphases in original). As explained in depth in the Supplemental Analysis, EPA has concluded that any emissions increases made possible by the ten-year lookback will be balanced by emissions reductions elsewhere as part of the overall NSR Reform. 4. Any source modification that, because of the changes to the baseline calculation, would avoid major NSR would nevertheless be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the minor source permitting program in Colorado that is in place to maintain or make 4 Based on email communication from Roland C. Hea, CDPHE Permitting Section Supervisor, to EPA Region 8 dated November 18, 2011. A copy of the email has been added to the docket for this action. E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 21468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations progress towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). While it is true that Colorado’s minor source permitting program does not require Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in actual practice Colorado has a track record of progress towards attainment of the NAAQS given that it currently attains all NAAQS except ozone.5 Furthermore, within the ozone nonattainment area, the minor source permitting program in Colorado requires Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for stationary sources. The commenters’ failure to consider this RACT requirement in their analysis of the 2-in10 baseline calculation contributes to an unrealistically inflated hypothetical emissions increase due to the revised baseline calculation. With respect to the fact that a facility may select a different two-year baseline period for each pollutant, NSR applicability has long been evaluated on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and the NSR Reform rule did not change this. Whether a modification results in a net emissions increase exceeding significance thresholds is determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and BACT (or, where appropriate, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)) is determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Different pollutants may be generated by different equipment or production processes within a facility. When comparing emissions from different years, it is not unusual for a facility to have a higher level of one pollutant than another in a given year, and then the reverse relationship in a subsequent year. In many such cases, the reason is simply that the facility operates several different processes (e.g., associated with several different products or operations) with different emissions characteristics, and, due to variations in product cycles, the facility runs different processes or production lines more in some years than others. Moreover, the facility may use entirely different control technologies to control different pollutants. It is therefore not unreasonable to calculate a facility’s emissions increase and net emissions increase for a particular pollutant with respect to the baseline actual emissions for that pollutant, even if the variability of emissions of that pollutant differs from that of another pollutant emitted at the same facility. Moreover, the commenters have not provided any 5 In the case of ozone, the State has attaining data in relation to the 1997 8-hour standard and has a recently approved attainment demonstration SIP for this standard. See the response to Comment No. 3 below for more information regarding the ozone attainment status in Colorado. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 specific data suggesting that allowing a facility to select its baseline period on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, rather than requiring a facility to use a single two-year baseline period for all regulated NSR pollutants, will actually result in emissions increases in Colorado. Finally, with respect to startup, shutdown, and malfunction, Regulation No. 3, in accordance with the federal regulation, defines ‘‘Projected Actual Emissions’’ as including ‘‘emissions associated with startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.’’ See Regulation No. 3, Part D, Paragraph II.A.36.b.(ii). Thus, startup, shutdown, and malfunction are included in both the calculation of both baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions. With respect to the exclusion for ‘‘non-compliant emissions that occurred while the source was operating above any emission limitation,’’ the application of this exclusion is straightforward. The calculation of baseline actual emissions cannot include periods of time when those emissions exceed an emissions limitation. Whether enforcement action has been taken is irrelevant for purposes of calculating the baseline actual emissions. With regard to the demand growth exclusion, the commenters’ arguments have been addressed in the NSR Reform rulemaking. See 67 FR 80186, 80202–03; see also New York, 413 F.3d at 31–33. 2. Revised Applicability Test The commenters argue that the revised applicability test would allow existing sources to substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR. Specifically, the commenters object to (1) extending the actual-toprojected-actual test to all sources, and (2) excluding emissions associated with increased demand (so long as the facility could have accommodated that growth before the modification). We disagree that these changes will result in substantial emissions increases. The commenters provide no Colorado-specific information in support of these arguments, and consequently our response relies on the NSR Reform rulemaking record. With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded that ‘‘the environmental impacts of the switch to the actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, the vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change. Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 14, Appendix G; see also 67 FR 80186, 80196. Although it is impossible to predict how many and which sources will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources will achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide basis, PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of reductions of VOC from source categories where frequent operational changes are made, where these changes are time sensitive, and where there are opportunities for economical air pollution control measures. These reductions occur because of the incentives that the PAL creates to control existing and new units in order to provide room under the cap to make necessary operational changes over the life of the PAL. PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 3. Plantwide Applicability Limits The commenters argue that the PAL provisions would allow existing sources to substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR. We disagree that the PAL provisions will result in substantial emissions increases. The commenters provide no Colorado-specific information in support of these arguments, only a Colorado-specific example to illustrate the non-controversial statement that potential-to-emit can be larger than actual emissions. (comment 0020.18 in docket). Consequently, our response relies on the NSR Reform rulemaking record. The Supplemental Analysis explained that ‘‘EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as well as other benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further explained that: Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly Appendix B, provides additional details regarding EPA’s analysis of PALs and anticipated associated emissions decreases. See also 67 FR 80186, 80214– 22; New York, 413 F.3d at 36–38. Comment No. 2: EPA’s proposed approval contravenes the CAA’s General Savings Clause set forth in section 193 of the Act. EPA Response No. 2: EPA’s response to the section 193 issues raised by the commenters involves many of the same elements of the response above to the section 110(l) comments, which is also incorporated by reference here. Section 193 states (in relevant part) that ‘‘[n]o control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any area E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7515. Assuming for purposes of this discussion that section 193 does apply to the instant action,6 as discussed earlier in this notice, EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental Analysis that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions still in effect (that is, those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are expected to have at least a neutral environmental effect. EPA has no information indicating that findings associated with EPA’s Supplemental Analysis would not apply in Colorado— that is, that Colorado’s SIP revisions would not have at least a neutral (and possibly a modest beneficial) environmental effect. Therefore, even if section 193 does apply to this action, EPA does not agree with the commenters’ assertions that the SIP revisions approved in this action raise a section 193 concern. EPA is simply approving Colorado’s SIP revisions that adopt rules equivalent to the federal rules, and, as discussed earlier in this notice, the Supplemental Analysis that EPA developed to support adoption of the federal rules suggests that the effects of the revised rules will be at least neutral. The Colorado SIP will continue to operate with the full suite of NSR-related elements, including a comprehensive minor source program. Comment No. 3: EPA’s proposed approval will interfere with the ozone attainment demonstration (with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) for the Denver Metro area and interfere with the Early Action Compact (EAC). EPA Response No. 3: These comments are no longer relevant since much has changed regarding the EAC and Denver’s ozone attainment status between now and when the EPA first proposed approval of NSR Reform for Colorado. Denver failed to meet the requirements of the EAC and, as of November 2007, was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Since that time, EPA has approved a SIP revision (76 FR 47443) for the State of Colorado that includes an attainment demonstration by November 2010 for the Denver Metro Area. Ambient air monitoring data also supports the attainment demonstration, 6 Of course, section 193 does not apply at all outside the Denver Metropolitan Ozone Nonattainment Area. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 with no ozone monitors in the Denver Metro Area showing a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard using design values from 2007–2009 (82 ppb) or from 2008–2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data from 2009–2011 also shows attainment with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Comment No. 4: Colorado is preparing to make substantial revisions to its Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) program that will further undermine the ozone attainment demonstration for the Denver Metro Area. EPA Response No. 4: The comment is outside the scope of this action since EPA did not propose to take any action with respect to Colorado’s I/M program. Furthermore, many aspects of the I/M program in the Denver Metro Area/ North Front Range have changed since this comment was originally made. On September 25, 2006, the State of Colorado submitted a SIP submittal for the CAA section 175A(b) second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and Longmont areas. This SIP submittal also included revisions to Colorado’s Regulation Number 11 which included the removal of the I/M program in both carbon monoxide maintenance areas. EPA approved these second 10-year maintenance plan SIP revisions on August 17, 2007 (see 72 FR 46148). However, in our August 17, 2007 action, we drew special attention to the point that the I/M program would continue in both areas for purposes of the ozone element of the SIP: ‘‘* * * the removal of the I/M program from Denver’s revised CO maintenance plan does not mean the I/M program is eliminated. The State relies on the I/M program in the Denver’s 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and Denver’s 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore, the motor vehicle I/M program will remain intact in the Denver-metro area.’’ (72 FR 46155, August 17, 2007). We also note that we had previously approved Fort Collins’ and Greeley’s revised CO maintenance plans which also involved the removal of the Basic I/M program from the SIP for both areas (see 68 FR 43316, July 22, 2003 and 70 FR 48650, August 19, 2005, respectively). Those actions effectively eliminated Basic I/M in Larimer and Weld Counties; however, we note that those basic I/M programs had only been in place for purposes of CO emission reductions. Colorado has submitted two other SIP revisions, after our August 17, 2007 Federal Register action, that involve amendments to Regulation Number 11. Those revisions involve a low emitter index (LEI) of vehicles with respect to the Clean Screen element of Regulation PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 21469 Number 11 and to eliminate obsolete provisions for gasoline filter neck inspections and CFC (refrigerant) leak checks. The latter submittal has since been withdrawn by the State and we have not acted on the LEI submittal yet. However, we do note that since our most recent action to Federally approve revisions to Colorado’s Regulation Number 11 (see 72 FR 46148, August 17, 2007), Colorado has reinstated the I/M programs in Larimer and Weld Counties for the purpose of reducing ozone precursor emissions. These I/M programs contain State-only enforceable provisions and the re-implementation of the I/M programs began on November 1, 2010. These State-only I/M expansion provisions for Larimer and Weld Counties appear in Colorado’s Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, 5 CCR 1001–13, current as State-adopted on January 20, 2011; State-effective on March 2, 2011. We note that EPA has approved an attainment demonstration of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Denver Metro Area/North Front Range (76 FR 47443, August 5, 2011) and this attainment demonstration included ozone precursor emission reductions from the continued implementation of Colorado’s Federallyapproved I/M program. Furthermore, as stated above, ambient data shows attaining monitors using design values from 2007–2009 (82 ppb) and from 2008–2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data from 2009–2011 also shows attainment with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Comment No. 5: Title 1, Part C, Section 160 of the CAA states that air quality in national parks must be protected. It is contrary to this CAA section for EPA to approve a rule revision that would increase air pollution in Colorado’s Class I areas. Section 110(l) is proof that such a SIP revision should not be approved. EPA Response No. 5: EPA’s response to the air quality in national parks issue raised by the commenters involves many of the same elements of the response above to the section 110(l) comments, which is also incorporated by reference here. EPA’s national analysis in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules indicates that the nonvacated provisions of the NSR Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact. The primary issue raised by the commenters was the impact of nitrogen deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) which resides fully within the boundaries of Colorado. The commenters incorporate by reference a September 1, 2004 petition to the E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 21470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Department of Interior (DOI) from Colorado Trout Unlimited and Environmental Defense. The petition asks DOI to ‘‘[c]all for the EPA and the State of Colorado to fulfill their legal responsibilities to lower NOX and Ammonia to protect human health, plants and ecosystems, and scenic vistas at Rocky Mountain National Park and to fully mitigate nitrogen deposition above the identified critical load.’’ Partly in response to this petition, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the National Park Service, EPA, and the CDPHE to form the RMNP Initiative. The agencies agreed to pursue a more in-depth review of the issues related to nitrogen deposition in RMNP and a course of action to address them. As a result, the Initiative formulated the ‘‘Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Contingency Plan’’ which was endorsed by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on June 17, 2010. The plan includes goals for reducing nitrogen deposition incrementally over 5 year periods with contingencies in place should these goals not be reached. In addition to the contingency measures adopted by the multi-agency plan, it is expected that current and future ozone planning in Colorado should positively impact nitrogen deposition in RMNP. Reduction in ozone precursors (e.g. NOX) that result from the control measures adopted in Colorado’s recent federally approved ozone attainment demonstration SIP will also contribute to a reduction of nitrogen deposition in RMNP. Furthermore, Colorado is subject to the Protection of Visibility requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, including the Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) requirements, the Regional Haze requirements, and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission requirements. Each of these programs requires Colorado to achieve a variety of emissions reductions aimed at protecting visibility in national parks and other Class I areas. In particular, EPA expects that Colorado’s SIP revision submission to meet the Regional Haze requirements, including both the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls and the long-term strategy for regional haze, will provide NOX reductions that will reduce the nitrogen deposition in RMNP. III. Final Action EPA is approving portions of Colorado’s revisions to Regulation No. 3, submitted by Colorado on July 11, 2005 and October 25, 2005, that relate to the PSD and NSR construction permits program. These revisions meet the minimum program requirements of VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR Reform rulemaking. Several of the remaining revisions made by Colorado to Regulation No. 3 as adopted on April 16, 2004 by the Colorado AQCC are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 11, 2012. 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 E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: December 21, 2011. James B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart G—Colorado 2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as follows: ■ § 52.320 Identification of plan. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * * (c) * * * (122) The State of Colorado submitted revisions October 25, 2005 to Colorado’s 5 CCR 1001–5 Regulation Number 3, Part A and Colorado’s 5 CCR 1001–5 Regulation Number 3, Part D. The October 25, 2005 submittal included language changes and renumbering of Regulation Number 3. The incorporation by reference in ((i)(A) and (i)(B) reflects the renumbered sections and language changes as of the October 25, 2005 submittal. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) 5 CCR 1001–5, Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Contaminant Emission Notice Requirements, Part A, Concerning General Provisions Applicable to Reporting and Permitting, adopted April 16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004: Section I, Applicability, Sections I.B, Definitions; I.B.7, Allowable Emissions; I.B.13, Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS); I.B.14, Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring Systems (CERMS); I.B.15, Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS); I.B.33, Pollution Prevention; I.B.35, Potential to Emit; I.B.36, Predictive Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS); adopted April 16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004. (B) 5 CCR 1001–5, Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Contaminant Emission Notice Requirements, Part D, Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration, adopted April 16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004: (1) Section I, Applicability, (i) I.A., General Applicability; I.A.2; I.A.3; (ii) I.B, Applicability Tests; I.B.1; I.B.2; I.B.4 (except the final sentence beginning, ‘‘For example…’’); I.B.5; VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:37 Apr 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 (iii) I.C; (2) Section II, Definitions, (i) II.A; (ii) II.A; II.A.1, Actual Emissions; II.A.1.a (only the language that appears as plain or italicized text); II.A.1.c (only the language that appears as plain text); II.A.1.d; (iii) II.A.2, Actuals PAL; (iv) II.A.4, Baseline Actual Emissions; (v) II.A.7, Begin Actual Construction; (vi) II.A.9, Clean Coal Technology; (vii) II.A.10, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project; (viii) II.A.13, Construction; (ix) II.A.14, Emissions Unit; (x) II.A.15, Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit; (xi) II.A.17, High Terrain; (xii) II.A.18, Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare; (xiii) II.A.20, Low Terrain; (xiv) II.A.21, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER); II.A.21.b (only the language that appears as plain or italicized text); (xv) II.A.22, Major Emissions Unit; (xvi) II.A.23, Major Modification (only the language that appears as plain and italicized text); II.A.23.d.(iii); II.A.23.d(x); II.A.23.d(xi); II.A.23.e; (xvii) II.A.25, Major Stationary Source; II.A.25.b (only the language that appears as plain or italicized text); (xviii) II.A.27, Net Emissions Increase; II.A.27.a.(i) (only the language that appears as plain or italicized text); II.A.27.a.(ii); II.A.27.b; II.A.27.g.(iii) (only the language that appears as plain or italicized text); II.A.27.i; (xix) II.A.28, Nonattainment Major New Source Review (NSR) Program; (xx) II.A.29, PAL Effective Date; (xxi) II.A.30, PAL Effective Period; (xxii) II.A.31, PAL Major Modification; (xxiii) II.A.32, PAL Permit; (xxiv) II.A.33, PAL Pollutant; (xxv) II.A.34, Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL); (xxvi) II.A.36, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit; (xxvii) II.A.37, Project; (xxviii) II.A.38, Projected Actual Emissions; (xxvix) II.A.39, Reactivation of Very Clean Coal-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit; (xxx) II.A.41, Replacement Unit; (xxxi) II.A.42, Repowering; (xxxii) II.A.43, Secondary Emissions; (xxxiii) II.A.46, Significant Emissions Unit; (xxxiv) II.A.47, Small Emissions Unit; (xxxv) II.A.48, Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project; (3) Section V, Requirements Applicable to Nonattainment Areas, V.A.7.c (except for the phrases, ‘‘a Clean Unit or at’’, ‘‘a reasonable possibility PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 21471 that’’, and ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase’’); V.A.7.d; (4) Section VI, Requirements applicable to attainment and unclassifiable areas and pollutants implemented under section 110 of the Federal Act (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program), Sections VI.A.1.c (only the language that appears as plain or italicized text); VI.B.5 (except for the phrases, ‘‘a Clean Unit or at’’, ‘‘a reasonable possibility that’’, and ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase’’); VI.B.6; (5) Section XVII, Actuals PALs; adopted April 16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004. [FR Doc. 2012–8349 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket ID FEMA–2012–0003] Final Flood Elevation Determinations Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: Effective dates: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM 10APR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21453-21471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0003, FRL-9616-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Revisions to New Source Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving those revisions adopted by the State of
Colorado on April 16, 2004 to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements) that
incorporate EPA's December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. Colorado submitted the
request for approval of these rule revisions into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 11, 2005 and supplemented its request
on October 25, 2005. EPA is approving only the portions of Colorado's
revisions to Regulation Number 3 that relate to the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment new source review
(NSR) construction permit programs of the State of Colorado. Other
revisions, renumberings, additions, or deletions to Regulation No. 3
made by Colorado as part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking are
being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to Colorado's
Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19,
2011). Colorado has a federally approved NSR program for new and
modified sources impacting attainment and non-attainment areas in the
State. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2005-CO-0003. All documents in the docket are listed on
the 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 either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Jackson, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6107,
jackson.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background for This Action
A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP does this action address?
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. Background for This Action

On December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72744), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Colorado. The NPR proposed
approval of portions of Colorado's revisions to the Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements (Regulation
No. 3) that incorporate EPA's December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. The State
of Colorado submitted the formal SIP revision on July 11, 2005 followed
by a supplemental submittal on October 25, 2005. This final action
updates the federally approved SIP to reflect changes made by Colorado
that were reviewed and deemed approvable into the Colorado SIP (Code of
Federal Regulations part 52, subpart G).
On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD
and non-attainment NSR regulations. These revisions are commonly
referred to as ``NSR Reform'' regulations and became effective
nationally in areas not covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. These
regulatory revisions included provisions for baseline emissions
determinations, actual-to-future actual methodology, plantwide
applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution control
projects (PCPs). On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration
of the NSR Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the
regulations. On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the
December 2002 NSR Reform revisions. Although the Court upheld most of
EPA's rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control
Project provisions and remanded back to EPA the ``reasonable
possibility'' standard for when a source must keep certain project
related records.
Colorado's July 11, 2005 submittal and October 25, 2005
supplemental submittal request approval for its regulations to
implement the NSR Reform provisions that were not vacated or remanded
by the June 24, 2005, court decision.

A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP does this action address?

EPA is approving those revisions adopted by Colorado on April 16,
2004 to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source Permitting and Air
Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements) that incorporate EPA's December
30, 2002 NSR Reforms (with the exceptions noted in the table below).
EPA is also approving revisions Colorado made to Regulation No. 3 prior
to the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking that incorporate the revisions
EPA made to the federal NSR rules on July 21, 1992 (with the exceptions
noted in the table below). These revisions are referred to as the WEPCO
rule (for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company court ruling) and added
definitions and provisions that have been incorporated into the April
16, 2004 version of Regulation No. 3.
In addition to incorporating the NSR Reforms into the April 16,
2004 Regulation No. 3 revision, Colorado also restructured Regulation
No. 3, including adding a new Part D titled Concerning Major Stationary
Source New Source

[[Page 21454]]

Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The new Part D
contains most of the NSR/PSD definitions, provisions, and sections that
were revised or newly created by the NSR Reform rule. In addition,
numerous Regulation No. 3 Part A and Part B NSR/PSD definitions,
provisions, and sections not revised by the NSR Reform rule, but
already approved into the SIP, have been moved into the new Part D. EPA
is approving the revisions to Regulation No. 3 creating the new Part D
with the exceptions noted in the table below.
The revisions adopted by Colorado on April 16, 2004 have structured
Regulation No. 3 as follows: Part A now contains general provisions
applicable to reporting and permitting, Part B addresses construction
permits; Part C (not a part of the SIP) includes the operating permit
program; and Part D deals with the Nonattainment NSR and PSD programs
for major stationary sources. Minor sources will only be subject to
Parts A and B; major sources (as defined for the Operating Permit
program) are governed by Parts A, B and C. Major stationary sources
must comply with Parts A, B, C and D. In particular, this
reorganization separated the major stationary source NSR provisions
from the construction permit requirements applicable to all sources.
Part A Changes. EPA is approving changes Colorado made to Part A
where the NSR Reform rule added or changed specific language used in
this Part (as specified in the table below). In addition, EPA is
approving changes Colorado made in Part A that moved the provisions
applying to major NSR to Part D (as specified in the table below). EPA
is not taking action, in this document, on any other revisions,
renumberings, additions, or deletions to Part A made by Colorado as
part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. These other changes
are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to
Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR
21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below.
Part B Changes. EPA is approving only the NSR Reform rule
conforming changes Colorado made in Part B, which moved the provisions
applying to major NSR to Part D (as specified in the table below). In
this document, EPA is not taking action on any other revisions,
renumberings, additions, or deletions to Part B made by Colorado as
part of the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. These other changes
are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to
Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR
21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in the table below.
Part D Changes. Colorado created Regulation No. 3 Part D in order
to make Colorado's air quality program consistent with the EPA NSR
Reform rules. The references to NSR requirements in Part D include both
the nonattainment NSR and PSD programs. EPA is approving the new Part D
except for the specific provisions noted in the table below.
The following table specifies provisions of Regulation No. 3 that
Colorado revised/renumbered or newly added in order to incorporate
EPA's NSR Reform and WEPCO rules and to create a separate NSR/PSD major
stationary source part (Part D). In addition, some of the provisions
that were proposed for approval in the notice of proposed rulemaking
that EPA published on December 7, 2005 are being acted on by EPA in a
separate final action related to Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP
(see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) and are noted in
the table below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How provision is
acted on by EPA in
EPA is a separate final
Provision location incorporating all Equivalent How provision is action related to
Provision location in Colorado's in Colorado's 4/16/ Provision or part of provision in 40 acted on in this Colorado's
current SIP Reg 3 (NA = not in 2004 Reg 3 description revision or CFR 51.165 and 40 action (if interstate
current Colorado SIP) revision addition into the CFR 51.166 applicable see transport SIP (see
SIP footnote) proposed action at
76 FR 21835, April
19, 2011)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-I.B.1......................... D-II.A.1.......... Actual emissions Yes............... 51.166(b)(21), Note the reference Partially Approved
definition. 51.165(a)(1)(xii). in this * * * With
definition to respect to the
``I.B.1.a'' renumbering and
should be to the modification
``II.A.1.a.'' and of the provision
Colorado will to the extent
correct this that the term
reference in a ``regulated NSR
future revision pollutant''
of Regulation No. replaces ``air
3. pollutant
EPA is approving regulated under
this definition. the Federal Act''
See footnote 1.... but no other
modification of
the provision.
A-I.B.7......................... D-II.A.3.......... Air Quality Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
Related Value interstate * Because the
definition. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.8......................... A-I.B.7........... Allowable Yes............... 51.166(b)(16), Colorado added Not taking action
Emissions 51.165(a)(1)(xi). ``enforceable as * * * Because it
definition. a practical was not a
matter'' and necessary
moved ``future prerequisite for
compliance date'' the action on the
phrase to this 8/1/07 submittal,
definition. or provision was
EPA is approving not proposed for
this definition. approval in our
See footnotes 1 Dec. 7, 2005
and 2.. notice.
A-I.B.10........................ D-II.A.5.......... Baseline Area Yes............... 51.166(b)(15)..... Approved by Fully approved * *
definition. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.11........................ D-II.A.6.......... Baseline Yes............... 51.166(b)(13)..... Approved by Fully approved * *
Concentration interstate * Because the
definition. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.12........................ D-II.A.8.......... Best Available Yes............... 51.166(b)(12), Approved by Fully approved * *
Control 51.165(a)(1)(xl). interstate * Because the
Technology transport NFR. provision has
definition. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.

[[Page 21455]]

A-I.B.15........................ D-II.A.12......... Complete Yes............... 51.166(b)(22)..... Approved by Fully approved * *
definition (for interstate * Because the
PSD/NSR purposes). transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
Note the reference renumbered and no
in substantive
II.A.12.a.(vii) changes were
of this made.
definition to
``III.G.4. of
Part B'' is not
in the current
codified SIP.
A-I.B.21........................ D-II.A.16......... Federal Land Yes............... 51.166(b)(24), Approved by Fully approved * *
Manager 51.165(a)(1)(xlii interstate * Because the
definition. ). transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.31........................ D-II.A.19......... Innovative Control Yes............... 51.166(b)(19)..... Approved by Fully approved * *
Technology interstate * Because the
definition. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.32........................ D-II.A.21......... Lowest Achievable Yes............... 51.166(b)(52), EPA is approving Partially approved
Emission Rate 51.165(a)(1)(xiii the language * * * Only
definition. ). change. approved
See footnote 1.... renumbering. NSR
NFR will approve
the language
change.
A-I.B.33........................ D-II.A.24......... Major Source Yes............... 51.166(b)(14)(i).. Approved by Fully approved * *
Baseline Date interstate * Because the
definition. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.34........................ D-II.A.26......... Minor Source Yes............... 51.166(b)(14)(ii). Approved by Fully approved * *
Baseline Date interstate * Because the
definition. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
A-I.B.35.b...................... D-II.A.23. (except Major Modification Yes, except as 51.166(b)(2), EPA is approving Partially Approved
II.A.23.d(iii), definition. noted below. 51.165(a)(1)(v). portions of D- * * * With
(viii), (x), II.23 not acted respect to the
(xi), and (e)-- on by EPA in a renumbering and
see below). separate final the modification
action related to of the provision
Colorado's to the extent
Interstate that the term
Transport SIP. ``regulated NSR
Note that the pollutant''
provision in replaces ``air
II.A.23.e that pollutant
references regulated under
``section the Federal Act''
II.A.2'' should but no other
reference modification of
``II.A.31'' and the provision.
Colorado will EPA is approving
correct this the renumbering
reference in a of all of II.23
future revision (except sections
of Regulation 3. D-II.A.23.d.(viii
See Footnotes 1 ), (x), and
and 2.. (xi)), and, in
II.A.23, prior to
subsection
II.A.23.a, the
replacement of
the term ``air
pollutant subject
to regulation
under the Federal
Act or the State
Act'' with the
term ``regulated
NSR pollutant.''
Note that the
provision in
II.A.23.e that
references
``section
II.A.2'' should
reference
``II.A.31'' and
Colorado will
correct this
reference in a
future revision
of Regulation 3.
N/A............................. D-II.A.23.d.(iii). Use of an Yes............... 51.166(b)(2)(iii)( EPA is approving Not taking action
alternative fuel d), this definition. * * * Because it
at a steam 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C See footnote 1.... was not a
generating unit )(4)(iv). necessary
(part of Major prerequisite for
Mod definition). the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.23.d(viii). Addition No................ 51.166(b)(2)(iii)( EPA considers this Not taking action
replacement or h), provision * * * Because it
use of a PCP * * 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C withdrawn by the was not a
* (part of Major )(8). State. necessary
Modification See footnote 6.... prerequisite for
definition). the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.23.d(x).... The installation Yes, as noted..... 51.166(b)(2)(j)... EPA is approving Not taking action
or operation of a this definition * * * Because it
permanent clean as clarified. was not a
coal technology See footnote 3.... necessary
demonstration prerequisite for
project that our action on the
constitutes 8/1/07 submittal,
repowering * * * or provision was
(part of Major not proposed for
Modification approval in our
definition). Dec. 7, 2005
notice.

[[Page 21456]]

N/A............................. D-II.A.23.d(xi)... The reactivation Yes, as noted..... 51.166(b)(2)(k)... EPA is approving Not taking action
of a very clean this definition * * * Because it
coal fired as clarified. was not a
electric utility See footnote 3.... necessary
steam generating prerequisite for
unit. (part of our action on the
Major 8/1/07 submittal,
Modification or provision was
definition). not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.23.e....... This definition Yes............... 51.166(b)(2)(iv), EPA is approving Not taking action
shall not apply * 51.165(a)(1)(v)(D this definition. * * * Because it
* * for a PAL ). Note that the was not a
(part of Major reference in this necessary
Mod definition). definition should prerequisite for
be to II.A.31 not the action on the
II.A.2., and 8/1/07 submittal,
Colorado will or provision was
correct this not proposed for
reference in a approval in our
future revision Dec. 7, 2005
of Regulation 3. notice.
See footnote 1....
A-I.B.36........................ D-II.A.27. (except Net Emissions Yes............... 51.166(b)(3), Colorado has added Partially Approved
II.A.27.c.(iv) Increase 51.165(a)(1)(vi). additional * * * With
and definition. language at respect to the
II.A.27.g.(v)). II.A.27.c.(iii), renumbering and
and II.A.27.g.(i). the modification
EPA is approving of the provision
this definition. to the extent
Note that that the term
provision ``regulated NSR
II.A.27.a.(i) pollutant''
references replaces ``air
``I.A.4.'' pollutant
However, there is regulated under
no I.A.4.and this the Federal Act''
reference will be but no other
deleted by modification of
Colorado. the provision.
See footnote 1 &
2..
N/A............................. D-II.A.27.c.(iv).. Net emissions No................ 51.166(b)(3)(iii)( EPA considers this Not Taking Action
increase at a c), provision on this part of
clean unit (part 51.165(a)(1)(vi)( withdrawn by the the definition at
of Net Emissions C)(3). State. this time.
Increase See footnote 6....
definition).
N/A............................. D-II.A.27.g.(v)... Net emissions No................ 51.166(b)(3)(vi)(d EPA considers this Not Taking Action
increase at a ), provision on this part of
clean unit and 51.165(a)(1)(vi)( withdrawn by the the definition at
pollution control E)(5). State. this time.
project (part of See footnote 6....
Net Emissions
Increase
definition).
A-I.B.44........................ A-I.B.35.......... Potential to Emit Yes............... 51.166(b)(4), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. 51.165(a)(1)(iii). this definition. * * * Because it
See footnote 2.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
A-I.B.55........................ D-II.A.43......... Secondary Yes............... 51.166.(b)(18), EPA is approving Partially approved
Emissions 51.165(a)(1)(viii the language * * * Only
definition. ). change for this approved
definition. renumbering. NSR
See footnote 1.... NFR will approve
the language
change.
A-I.B.57........................ D-II.A.44......... Significant No, see comment... 51.166.(b)(23), Approved by Fully approved * *
definition. 51.165(a)(1)(x). interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made. Note: our
approval of the 8/
1/07 submission
modifies this
definition.
A-I.B.58. Major Stationary D-II.A.25......... Major Stationary Yes, except as 51.166(b)(1)(i), Approved by Partially approved
Source. Source definition noted below. 51.165(a)(1)(iv). interstate * * * Because the
(introductory). transport NFR. D- provision has
II.A.25.b was not only been
approved. renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made. D-II.A.25.b
was not approved.
A-I.B.58.a...................... D-II.A.25.b....... For the purpose of Yes, as noted..... 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A EPA is approving Not taking action
determining )(1). this provision. * * * Because it
whether a source See footnote 4.... was not a
in a necessary
nonattainment prerequisite for
area is subject * the action on the
* * (part of 8/1/07 submittal,
Major Stationary or provision was
Source not proposed for
definition). approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
A-I.B.58.b...................... D-II.A.25.a....... For the purpose of Yes............... 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a) Approved by Fully approved * *
determining interstate * Because the
whether a source transport NFR. provision has
in an attainment See next column. only been
or unclassifiable renumbered and no
area (part of substantive
Major Stationary changes were
Source made.
definition).

[[Page 21457]]

A-I.B.58.c...................... D-II.A.25.c....... Major stationary Yes............... 51.166(b)(1)(i)(c) Approved by Fully approved * *
source includes , interstate * Because the
any physical 51.165(a)(1)(iv)( transport NFR. provision has
change that would A)(2). See next column. only been
occur at a renumbered and no
stationary source substantive
(part of Major changes were
Stationary Source made.
definition).
A-I.B.58.d...................... D-II.A.25.d....... A major stationary Yes............... 51.166(b)(1)(ii), Approved by Fully approved * *
source that is 51.165(a)(1)(iv)( interstate * Because the
major for B). transport NFR. provision has
volatile organic See next column. only been
compounds shall renumbered and no
be considered substantive
major * * * (part changes were
of Major made. Note: our
Stationary Source approval of the 8/
definition). 1/07 submission
modifies this
definition.
A-I.B.58.f...................... D-II.A.25.e....... The fugitive Yes............... 51.166(b)(1)(iii), Approved by Fully approved * *
emissions of a 51.165(a)(1)(iv)( interstate * Because the
stationary source C). transport NFR. provision has
shall not be See next column. only been
included * * * renumbered and no
(part of Major substantive
Stationary Source changes were
definition). made.
A-I.B.58.e...................... D-II.A.25.f....... Emissions caused Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
by indirect air interstate * Because the
pollution sources transport NFR. provision has
(part of Major See next column. only been
Stationary Source renumbered and no
definition). substantive
changes were
made.
The reference in
this definition
to ``I.B.22. of
Part A'' is at A-
I.B.58. in the
current codified
SIP.
A-I.B.58.g...................... D-II.A.25.g....... A major stationary Yes............... NA................ Action taken by Not taking action
source in the interstate EPA is not acting
Denver Metro PM10 transport SIP. on this
* * * (part of See next column. definition in
Major Stationary this action. This
Source definition was
definition). not included in
Colorado's
October 25, 2005
submission of
Regulation No. 3,
and was therefore
proposed for
approval
erroneously in
EPA's December 7,
2005 proposed
approval.
N/A............................. D-III............. Permit Review Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved.
Procedures. interstate
transport NFR.
See next column.
N/A............................. D-III.A........... Major Stationary Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved.
Sources must interstate
apply for CP or transport NFR.
OP. See next column.
B-IV.B.5........................ D-III.B........... Process PSD Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
applications w/in interstate * Because the
12 months. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
N/A............................. D-IV.............. Public Comment Yes............... 51.166(q)......... Approved by Fully approved.
Requirements. interstate
transport NFR.
See next column.
N/A............................. D-IV.A............ Public Notice..... Yes............... 51.166(q)......... Approved by Fully approved.
interstate Copied from Part
transport NFR. B, IV.C.4. of
See next column. current codified
SIP.
The reference in D-
IV.A. to
``III.C.3. of
Part B'' is at B-
IV.C.3. in the
current codified
SIP.
B-IV.C.4.--from ``For sources D-IV.A.1.......... Public notice of Yes............... 51.166(q)(ii) and Approved by Fully approved * *
subject to the provisions of NSR and PSD (iv). interstate * Because the
section IV.D.3.'' to ``The permit transport NFR. provision has
newspaper notice``. applications. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.C.4.f...................... D-IV.A.2.......... Additionally, for Yes............... 51.166(q)(iii).... Approved by Fully approved * *
permit interstate * Because the
applications transport NFR. provision has
(request comment See next column. only been
on). renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.C.5........................ D-IV.A.3.......... Within 15 days Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
after prepare PA. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.C.6........................ D-IV.A.4.......... Hearing request Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
for innovative interstate * Because the
control. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.C.7........................ D-IV.A.5.......... Hearing request Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
transmitted to interstate * Because the
commission. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.

[[Page 21458]]

B-IV.C.8........................ D-IV.A.6.......... Commission shall Yes............... 51.166(q)(v)...... Approved by Fully approved * *
hold public interstate * Because the
comment hearing. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.C.9........................ D-IV.A.7.......... 15 days after Yes............... 51.166(q)(viii)... Approved by Fully approved * *
division makes interstate * Because the
final decision on transport NFR. provision has
application. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2........................ D-V............... Requirements Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
Applicable to Non- interstate * Because the
attainment Areas. transport NFR. provision has
(Introductory).... See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.a...................... D-V.A............. Major Stationary Yes............... 51.165, Appx. Approved by Fully approved * *
Sources. S.IV.A. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
The reference in D-
V.A. to
``III.D.1. of
Part B'' is at B-
IV.D.1. in the
current codified
SIP.
B-IV.D.2.a.(i) through (iii).... D-V.A.1. through 3 Major Stationary Yes............... 51.165, Appx. Approved by Fully approved * *
Sources. S.IV.A. interstate * Because the
Conditions 1-4. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.a.(iii)(C) 2nd par..... D-V.A.3.d......... With respect to Yes............... 51.165, Appx. Approved by Fully approved * *
offsets from S.IV.D. interstate * Because the
outside transport NFR. provision has
nonattainment See next column. only been
area. renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.a.(iv)................. D-V.A.4........... The permit Yes............... 51.165, Appx. Approved by Fully approved * *
application shall S.IV.D. interstate * Because the
include an transport NFR. provision has
analysis of See next column. only been
alternative sites. renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.a.(v).................. D-V.A.5........... Offsets for which Yes............... 51.165, Appx. Approved by Fully approved * *
emission S.V.A. interstate * Because the
reduction credit transport NFR. provision has
is taken. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.a.(vi)................. D-V.A.6........... The applicant will Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
demonstrate that interstate * Because the
emissions from transport NFR. provision has
the proposed See next column. only been
source will not renumbered and no
adversely impact substantive
visibility. changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.b...................... D-V.A.7........... Applicability of Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
Certain interstate * Because the
Nonattainment transport NFR. provision has
Area Requirements. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.b.(i).................. D-V.A.7.a......... Any major Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
stationary source interstate * Because the
in a transport NFR. provision has
nonattainment See next column. only been
area. renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.2.b.(ii)................. D-V.A.7.b......... The requirements Yes............... 51.165(a)(5)(ii).. Approved by Fully approved * *
of section V.A. interstate * Because the
shall apply at transport NFR. provision has
such time that See next column. only been
any stationary renumbered and no
source. substantive
changes were
made.
N/A............................. D-V.A.7.c......... The following Yes, except as 51.165(a)(6)...... EPA is approving Not taking action
provisions apply noted in comment this provision, * * * Because it
to projects at section. with the was not a
existing exception of the necessary
emissions units * phrases ``a Clean prerequisite for
* * (``Reasonable Unit or at,'' ``a the action on the
possibility'' reasonable 8/1/07 submittal,
provisions in possibility or provision was
nonattainment that'' and ``may not proposed for
areas) (part of result in a approval in our
Applicability of significant Dec. 7, 2005
Certain emissions notice.
Nonattainment increase,'' which
Area EPA considers as
Requirements). withdrawn by the
State.
See footnote 1, 5,
and 6..
N/A............................. D-V.A.7.d......... documents Yes............... 51.165(a)(7)...... EPA is approving Not taking action
available for this provision. * * * Because it
review upon See footnote 1.... was not a
request (part of necessary
Applicability of prerequisite for
Certain the action on the
Nonattainment 8/1/07 submittal,
Area or provision was
Requirements). not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
B-IV.D.2.c. (and subsections)... D-V.A.8........... Exemptions from Yes............... 51.165, Appx. Approved by Fully approved * *
Certain S.IV.B. interstate * Because the
Nonattainment transport NFR. provision has
Area Requirements. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.

[[Page 21459]]

B-IV.D.3........................ D-VI.............. Requirements Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
Applicable to interstate * Because the
Attainment Areas. transport NFR. provision has
(Introductory).... See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.a. (and subsections not D-VI.A............ Major Stationary Yes............... 51.166(j)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
listed below). Sources and Major interstate * Because the
Modifications. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
The reference in D-
VI.A. to
``III.D.1. of
Part B'' is at B-
IV.D.1. in the
current codified
SIP.
B-IV.D.3.a.(i)(C)............... D-VI.A.1.c........ For phased Yes............... 51.166(j)(4)...... EPA is approving Partially approved
construction. the language * * * Only
change for this approved
definition. renumbering. NSR
See footnote 1 and NFR will approve
2.. the language
change.
B-IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D)............. D-VI.A.3.d........ In general, the Yes............... 51.166(m)(1)(iv).. Approved by Fully approved * *
continuous air interstate * Because the
monitoring data. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D)............. D-VI.A.4.......... Post-construction Yes............... 51.166(m)(2)...... Approved by Fully approved * *
monitoring. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
Colorado has
revised this
provision to make
post construction
monitoring at the
director's
discretion as
allowed by
51.166(m)(2).
B-IV.D.3.b...................... D-VI.B............ Applicability of Yes............... NA................ Approved by Fully approved * *
Certain PSD interstate * Because the
Requirements. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.b.(i).................. D-VI.B.1.......... The requirements Yes............... 51.166(i)(1) and Approved by Fully approved * *
of section VI.A. (2). interstate * Because the
do not apply. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.b.(ii)................. D-VI.B.2.......... The requirements Yes............... 51.166(i)(3) and Approved by Fully approved * *
contained in (4). interstate * Because the
sections VI.A.2. transport NFR. provision has
through VI.A.4. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.b.(iii)................ D-VI.B.3. The division may Yes............... 51.166(i)(5)...... Approved by Fully approved * *
(including D- exempt a proposed interstate * Because the
VI.B.3.b., c., major stationary transport NFR. provision has
and d.). source or major See next column. only been
modification from renumbered and no
the requirements substantive
of sections changes were
VI.A.3. through made.
VI.A.5. of this Colorado has
Part, with reworded D-
respect to VI.B.3. and
monitoring for a deleted
particular unnecessary
pollutant if: * * language.
*.
B-IV.D.3.b.(iii)(A)(1)-(12)..... D-VI.B.3.a.(i)-(ix deleted Mercury, Yes............... 51.166(i)(5)(i)... Approved by Fully approved * *
). Beryllium, Vinyl interstate * Because the
chloride. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.b.(iv)................. D-VI.B.4.......... The requirements Yes............... 51.166(i)(6)...... Approved by Fully approved * *
of this Part D interstate * Because the
shall apply. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
N/A............................. D-VI.B.5.......... The following Yes, except as 51.166(r)(6)...... EPA is approving Not taking action
provisions apply noted in comment this provision, * * * Because it
to projects at section. with the was not a
existing exception of the necessary
emissions units phrases ``a Clean prerequisite for
(``Reasonable Unit or at,'' ``a the action on the
possibility'' reasonable 8/1/07 submittal,
provisions PSD) possibility or provision was
(part of that'' and ``may not proposed for
Applicability of result in a approval in our
Certain PSD significant Dec. 7, 2005
Requirements). emissions notice.
increase,'' which
EPA considers as
withdrawn by the
State.
See footnotes 1,
5, and 6..

[[Page 21460]]

N/A............................. D-VI.B.6.......... documents Yes............... 51.166(r)(7)...... EPA is approving Not taking action
available for this provision. * * * Because it
review upon See footnote 1.... was not a
request (part of necessary
Applicability of prerequisite for
Certain PSD the action on the
Requirements). 8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
B-IV.D.3.b.(v).................. D-VI.B.7.......... A stationary Yes............... 51.166(i)(9)...... Approved by Fully approved * *
source or interstate * Because the
modification may transport NFR. provision has
apply. See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.c...................... D-VI.C............ Notice to EPA..... Yes............... 51.166(p)(1)...... Approved by Fully approved * *
interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IV.D.3.d...................... D-VI.D............ Major Stationary Yes............... 51.165(b)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Sources in interstate * Because the
attainment areas transport NFR. provision has
affecting See next column. only been
nonattainment renumbered and no
area. substantive
changes were made
The reference in D-
VI.D. to
``III.D.1. of
Part B'' is at B-
IV.D.1. in the
current codified
SIP.
B-IV.D.4........................ D-VII............. Negligibly Yes............... 51.100(s)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Reactive VOCs. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-V............................. D-VIII............ Area Yes, with the 51.166(e)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Classifications. exception of D- interstate * Because the
VIII.B. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
EPA is approving
this provision
with the
exception of D-
VIII.B.
N/A............................. D-VIII.B.......... All other areas of No................ NA................ EPA considers this Not taking action
Colorado, * * * provision as * * * Because it
(part of Area withdrawn. was not a
Classifications). See FR Notice of 3/ necessary
25/98 (63 FR prerequisite for
14357). the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
B-VI............................ D-IX.............. Redesignation..... Yes............... 51.166(e)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-VII........................... D-X............... Air Quality Yes, with the 51.166(c)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Limitations. exception of D- interstate * Because the
X.A.5. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
EPA is approving
this provision
with the
exception of D-
X.A.5.
N/A............................. D-X.A.5........... Increment No................ NA................ EPA considers this Not taking action
Consumption provision as * * * Because it
Restriction (part withdrawn. was not a
of Air Quality See FR Notice of 3/ necessary
Limitations). 25/98 (63 FR prerequisite for
14357). the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
B-VIII.......................... D-XI.............. Exclusions from Yes............... 51.166(f)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Increment interstate * Because the
Consumption. transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-IX............................ D-XII............. Innovative Control Yes............... 51.166(s)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Technology. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
B-X............................. D-XIII............ Federal Class I Yes............... 51.166(p)......... Approved by Fully approved * *
Areas. interstate * Because the
transport NFR. provision has
See next column. only been
renumbered and no
substantive
changes were
made.
The reference in D-
XIII.C. to
``III.B. of Part
B'' is at B-IV.B.
in the current
codified SIP.

[[Page 21461]]

B-XI............................ D-XIV............. Visibility........ No................ NA................ EPA previously Not taking action
acted on this * * * Because it
provision in a was not a
separate action. necessary
See FR Notice of prerequisite for
11/2/06 (71 FR the action on the
64466). 8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. A-I.B.13.......... CEMS definition... Yes............... 51.166(b)(43), EPA is approving Not taking action
51.165(a)(1)(xxxi this provision. * * * Because it
v). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. A-I.B.14.......... CERMS definition.. Yes............... 51.166(b)(46), EPA is approving Not taking action
51.165(a)(1)(xxxi this provision. * * * Because it
v). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. A-I.B.15.......... CPMS definition... Yes............... 51.166(b)(45), EPA is approving Not taking action
51.165(a)(1)(xxxi this provision. * * * Because it
ii). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. A-I.B.33.......... Pollution Yes............... 51.166(b)(38), EPA is approving Not taking action
Prevention 51.165(a)(1)(xxvi this provision. * * * Because it
definition. ). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. A-I.B.36.......... PEMS definition... Yes............... 51.166(b)(44), EPA is approving Not taking action
51.165(a)(1)(xxxi this provision. * * * Because it
i). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-I.A............. General Yes............... 51.166(a)(7) EPA is approving Only approved the
Applicability (iv)(a)and (b), this provision. language in
(Introductory). 51.165(a)(2)(iii) See footnote 1.... 1.A.1.
(A) and (B).
N/A............................. D-I.B. (except Applicability Yes............... 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c EPA is approving Not taking action
I.B.3. and second Tests. ), (d), and (f), this definition * * * Because it
sentence of 51.165(a)(2)(ii)( with the was not a
I.B.4.). C), (D), and (F). exception of necessary
I.B.3. and the prerequisite for
second sentence the action on the
of I.B.4, which 8/1/07 submittal,
EPA considers or provision was
withdrawn. not proposed for
The reference in D- approval in our
I.B.5. to Dec. 7, 2005
``I.B.26. of Part notice.
A'' is at A- The reference in D-
I.B.35.c. in the I.B.5. to
current codified ``I.B.26. of Part
SIP. A'' is at A-
See footnotes 1 I.B.35.c. in the
and 6.. current codified
SIP.
N/A............................. D-I.B.3........... Emission tests at No................ 51.166 EPA considers this Not taking action
clean units (part (a)(7)(iv)(e), provision as * * * Because it
of Applicability 51.165(a)(2)(ii)( withdrawn. was not a
Tests). E). See footnote 6.... necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-I.B.4. second For example, for a No................ 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f EPA considers this Not taking action
sentence. project involves ) second language as * * * Because it
both an existing sentence, withdrawn. was not a
unit and a clean 51.165(a)(2)(ii)( See footnote 6.... necessary
unit (part of F) second prerequisite for
Applicability sentence. the action on the
Tests). 8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
EPA is not taking
action on this
part of provision
D-I.B.4. at this
time.

[[Page 21462]]

N/A............................. D-I.C............. For any major Yes............... 51.166 (a)(7)(v), EPA is approving Not taking action
stationary source 51.165(a)(2)(iii). this provision. * * * Because it
requesting, or See footnote 1.... was not a
operating under, necessary
a Plantwide prerequisite for
Applicability the action on the
Limitation. 8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-I.D............. An owner or No................ 51.166 (a)(7)(vi), EPA considers this Not taking action
operator 51.165(a)(2)(iv). provision as * * * Because it
undertaking a withdrawn. was not a
Pollution Control See footnote 6.... necessary
Project. prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.2.......... Actuals PAL Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(i), EPA is approving Not taking action
Definition. 51.165(f)(2)(i). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.4.......... Baseline Actual Yes............... 51.166(b)(47), EPA is approving Not taking action
Emissions 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv this provision. * * * Because it
definition. ). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.7.......... Begin Actual Yes............... 51.166(b)(11), EPA is approving Not taking action
Construction 51.165(a)(1)(xv). this provision. * * * Because it
definition. See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.9.......... Clean Coal Yes............... 51.166(b)(33), EPA is approving Not taking action
Technology 51.165(a)(1)(xxii this provision. * * * Because it
definition. i). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.10......... Clean Coal Yes............... 51.166(b)(34), EPA is approving Not taking action
Technology 51.165(a)(1)(xxiv this provision. * * * Because it
Demonstration ). See footnote 1.... was not a
Project necessary
definition. prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.11......... Clean Unit No................ 51.166(b)(41), EPA considers this Not taking action
definition. 51.165(a)(1)(xxix provision * * * Because it
). withdrawn by the was not a
State. necessary
See footnote 6.... prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.13......... Construction Yes............... 51.166(b)(8), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. 51.165(a)(1)(xxvi this provision. * * * Because it
ii). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.14......... Emissions Unit .................. 51.166(b)(7), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition (for 51.165(a)(1)(vii). this provision. * * * Because it
PSD/NSR purposes). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.15......... Electric Utility Yes............... 51.166(b)(30), EPA is approving Not taking action
Steam Generating 51.165(a)(1)(xx). this provision. * * * Because it
Unit definition. See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.

[[Page 21463]]

N/A............................. D-II.A.17......... High Terrain Yes............... 51.166(b)(25)..... EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.18......... Hydrocarbon .................. 51.166(b)(31)(iv), EPA is approving Not taking action
Combustion Flare 51.165(a)(1)(xv)( this provision. * * * Because it
definition. D). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.20......... Low Terrain Yes............... 51.166(b)(26)..... EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.22......... Major Emissions Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(iv), EPA is approving Not taking action
Unit definition. 51.165(f)(2)(iv). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.28......... Nonattainment New Yes............... 51.165(a)(1)(xxx). EPA is approving Not taking action
Source Review this provision. * * * Because it
definition. See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.29......... PAL Effective Date Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(vi), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. 51.165(f)(2)(vi). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.30......... PAL Effective Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(vii), EPA is approving Not taking action
Period definition. 51.165(f)(2)(vii). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.31......... PAL Major Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(viii) EPA is approving Not taking action
Modification , this provision. * * * Because it
definition. 51.165(f)(2)(viii See footnote 1.... was not a
). necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.32......... PAL Permit Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(ix), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. 51.165(f)(2)(ix). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.33......... PAL Pollutant Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(x), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. 51.165(f)(2)(x). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.34......... Plantwide Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(v), EPA is approving Not taking action
Applicability 51.165(f)(2)(v). this provision. * * * Because it
Limitation (PAL) See footnote 1.... was not a
definition. necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.

[[Page 21464]]

NA.............................. D-II.A.35......... Pollution Control No................ 51.166(b)(31), EPA considers this Not taking action.
Project 51.165(a)(1)(xxv). provision
definition. withdrawn by the
State.
See footnote 6....
N/A............................. D-II.A.36......... Prevention of Yes............... 51.166(b)(42), EPA is approving Not taking action
Significant 51.165(a)(1)(xli). this provision. * * * Because it
Deterioration See footnote 1.... was not a
Permit definition. necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.37......... Project definition Yes............... 51.166(b)(51), EPA is approving Not taking action
51.165(a)(1)(xxxi this provision. * * * Because it
x). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.38......... Projected Actual Yes............... 51.166(b)(40), EPA is approving Not taking action
Emissions 51.165(a)(1)(xxvi this provision. * * * Because it
definition. ii). See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.39......... Reactivation of Yes............... 51.166(b)(37)..... EPA is approving Not taking action
Very Clean Coal- this provision. * * * Because it
Fired EUSGU See footnote 1.... was not a
definition. necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.40......... Regulated NSR No, see comment... 51.166(b)(49), Approved by Fully approved.
Pollutant 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv interstate
definition. ii). transport NFR.
See next column.
N/A............................. D-II.A.41......... Replacement Unit Yes............... 51.166(b)(32), EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. 51.165(a)(1)(xxi). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.42......... Repowering Yes............... 51.166(b)(36)..... EPA is approving Not taking action
definition. this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.45......... Significant Yes............... 51.166(b)(39), Approved by Fully approved.
Emissions 51.165(a)(1)(xxvi interstate
Increase i). transport NFR.
definition. See next column.
N/A............................. D-II.A.46......... Significant Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(xi), EPA is approving Not taking action
Emissions Unit 51.165(f)(2)(xi). this provision. * * * Because it
definition. See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.47......... Small Emissions Yes............... 51.166(w)(2)(iii), EPA is approving Not taking action
Unit definition. 51.165(a)(1)(iii). this provision. * * * Because it
See footnote 1.... was not a
necessary
prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-II.A.48......... Temporary Clean Yes............... 51.166(b)(35), EPA is approving Not taking action
Coal 51.165(a)(1)(xxii this provision. * * * Because it
Demonstration ). See footnote 1.... was not a
Project necessary
definition. prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.

[[Page 21465]]

N/A............................. D-XV.............. Clean Units....... No................ 51.166(t) and (u), EPA considers this Not taking action
51.165(c) and (d). provision * * * Because it
withdrawn by the was not a
State. necessary
See footnote 6.... prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-XVI............. Pollution Control No................ 51.166(v), EPA considers this Not taking action
Projects. 51.165(e). provision * * * Because it
withdrawn by the was not a
State. necessary
See footnote 6.... prerequisite for
the action on the
8/1/07 submittal,
or provision was
not proposed for
approval in our
Dec. 7, 2005
notice.
N/A............................. D-XVII............ Plantwide Yes............... 51.166(w), EPA is approving Not taking action
Applicability 51.165(f). this provision. * * * Because it
Limitations. The references in was not a
XVII.N.1.g and necessary
XVII.N.2.d. of prerequisite for
this section to the action on the
``I.B.38. of Part 8/1/07 submittal,
A'' are at A- or provision was
I.B.53. in the not proposed for
current codified approval in our
SIP. Dec 7, 2005
Colorado has notice.
revised D- The references in
XVII.I.2. XVII.N.1.g and
(application XVII.N.2.d of
deadline) to 12 this section to
months prior to ``I.B.38. of Part
expiration A'' are at A-
instead of 6 I.B.53. in the
months. current codified
Colorado has SIP.
revised XVII.N.1. Colorado has
(Semi-Annual revised D-
Report) to XVII.I.2.
require (application
submission of QA/ deadline) to 12
QC data as months prior to
requested, not as expiration
part of the semi- instead of 6
annual report months.
specified in Colorado has
51.166(w)(14)(i)( revised XVII.N.1.
c). (Semi-Annual
See footnote 1.... Report) to
require
submission of QA/
QC data as
requested, not as
part of the semi
annual report
specified in
51.166(w)(14)(i)(
c).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote 1: We are approving this new rule in Regulation No. 3 because the rule is identical or consistent with the Federal New Source Review
regulations found at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 and contain no changes to the language that would affect the meaning of the rule.
Footnote 2: We are approving this change of an existing Regulation No. 3 rule because the rule has only been renumbered, contains nonsubstantive changes
to the rule that do not affect the meaning of the rule and/or has been modified to move a definition that has already been approved into the SIP to a
specific rule section in which the definition applies. This renumbered rule and all subsections within this rule supersede and replace the prior
numbered rule and subsections in Colorado's federally approved SIP.
Footnote 3: Colorado has marked this part of the definition of Major Modification as underlined, meaning that the State intends it will only be
effective until EPA approves the NSR Reform revisions for incorporation into the SIP. Colorado has since clarified that they intended that this
provision remain as part of the definition of Major Modification as it applies to PSD sources located in attainment areas only, consistent with 40 CFR
51.166(b)(2)(j). If Colorado revises Regulation No. 3 to indicate this clarification prior to EPA taking final action, EPA is approving this addition
to the definition of Major Modification into the SIP.
Footnote 4: Colorado's SIP submittal deletes the following language in D-II.A.25.b from what was previously in the definition of Major Stationary Source
(at A-I.B.58.a.):
In the Denver Metro PM10 nonattainment area, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides shall be treated as PM10 precursors, and any source which is major for
these precursors is subject to the nonattainment new source review provisions. Additionally, a source causing or contributing to a violation of a
NAAQS for any pollutant regulated under Section 110 of the Federal Act shall be considered major when it has the potential to emit 100 tons per year
or more of that pollutant. The source will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation when the source exceeds the significance levels in the
table under Section IV.D.3.d(ii), Part B. Such source is subject to the requirements of IV.D.3.
Colorado has revised Regulation No. 3 to add this deleted language back into the definition of Major Stationary Source. As discussed in the proposal,
EPA is therefore approving this part of the definition of Major Stationary Source into the SIP.
Footnote 5: EPA discussed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on how it intended to implement provisions D-V.A.7 and D-
VI.B.5. without the language regarding the ``reasonable possibility'' that a project ``may result in a significant emissions increase'' included as
part of these provisions. CDPHE's intent is that Colorado will implement the rule consistently with EPA's policy and guidance. Additionally, CDPHE
provided a letter to EPA dated Nov 28, 2005 that stated their intent is to also ``request that the Commission make any revisions to Regulation No. 3
necessary to incorporate and implement federal program revisions should it be necessary for EPA to take further action on the remand of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40, sections 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6).'' Therefore, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA approves D-
V.A.7.c and D-VI.B.5 with the exception of the phrases ``a reasonable possibility that,'' ``a Clean Unit or at,'' and ``may result in a significant
emissions increase.'' This approval is consistent with Colorado's deletion of the phrases in subsequent submittals.
Footnote 6: The Clean Unit and Pollution Control Projects provisions in the 2002 NSR Reform Rule were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 2005. Colorado has since removed references to these provisions in subsequent Reg. 3 submittals. As such,
EPA considers these provisions effectively withdrawn by the State.

II. Response to Comments

Environment Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental
Defense jointly commented on our December 2005 proposed action. We have
carefully considered the comments, and, as part of that consideration,
have obtained information from the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) in order to assist us in deciding how to
address certain comments. Below we provide summaries of, and our
responses to, the significant adverse comments. Nothing in them has
caused us to change our action from what we proposed.
Comment No. 1: The commenters assert that ``[t]he 2002 NSR Reform
Rule provisions that were not vacated by the D.C. Circuit in New York
v. EPA [citation omitted] allow previously-prohibited emissions-
increases to occur.'' Comments at 4. In their main comment letter and
in attached materials, the commenters argue that

[[Page 21466]]

Colorado's SIP revision will allow for increased air pollution, and
they focus on three main aspects of Colorado's revised Regulation 3:
(1) Revisions to the method of calculating baseline actual emissions
for existing sources; (2) revisions to the applicability test for
existing sources; and (3) the plantwide applicability limitation (PAL)
provisions. The commenters assert that approval of Colorado's proposed
SIP revision would violate section 110(l) of the CAA, because ``EPA
cannot make a finding that revising Colorado's permit provisions so
that they track the non-vacated provisions of the 2002 rule `would not
interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements.' ''
Comments at 5.
EPA Response No. 1: Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ``[t]he
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full attainment
or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may be
approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be approved under section
110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve status quo air quality.
See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir.
2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008); see also,
e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and
final rules, upheld in Kentucky Resources, which discuss EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l)).
EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP revision will not
``interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement
of [the CAA]'' in violation of section 110(l) of the CAA because, as
explained below, the revision will result in effects on air quality
that are neutral or beneficial. The Colorado SIP revision tracks the
Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were not vacated by the Court of
Appeals in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 21-31 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). Overall, EPA expects that changes in air quality as a result
of implementing Colorado's rules will be consistent with EPA's analysis
of the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules--that the effects will be
somewhere between neutral and providing modest contribution to
reasonable further progress when the 2002 NSR Reform Rules are compared
to the pre-Reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the environmental
impacts of these three components of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules is
informative of how Colorado's adoption of NSR Reform (based on the
federal rules) will affect emissions. See generally Supplemental
Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement
Rules (Nov. 21, 2002) (``Supplemental Analysis'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Supplemental Analysis is available at https://epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf, and has also been added to the
docket for this action. It is incorporated into these responses by
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's conclusion rests primarily on the national-scale analysis
that EPA conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. This
national analysis indicates that the non-vacated provisions of the NSR
Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact. The three
significant changes in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (that were not vacated
by the court) were: (1) Plantwide applicability limits (PALs); (2) the
2-in-10 baseline (also known as the ten-year lookback); and (3) the
actual-to-projected actual emission test. EPA's Supplemental Analysis
discussed each of these three changes individually, and addresses many
of the issues raised by commenters.
The environmental impacts of NSR Reform in Colorado will not be
substantially different from those discussed in the Supplemental
Analysis. Furthermore, with limited exceptions discussed below, the
commenters do not raise Colorado-specific arguments or provide
Colorado-specific data to suggest that the results of the NSR Reform in
Colorado will be substantially different from those discussed in the
Supplemental Analysis. Where the commenters have relied on generic or
national arguments against NSR Reform, we have relied on the analyses
conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform rules for our response.
It is worth emphasizing that, while the comments focus exclusively
on how Colorado's SIP revision may allow certain facilities to increase
emissions without undergoing NSR, the NSR process does not prohibit
emissions increases. Nor does it regulate facilities that simply
increase their hours of operation or production rate over what has
occurred in recent years, resulting in increased annual emissions.
Rather, NSR regulates construction of new major sources, and of
physical or operational changes at existing major sources that result
in significant emissions increases, and requires the new source or
modification to control its emissions using stringent technology-based
standards, as well as meet other requirements. In some cases (e.g., a
modification at an already well-controlled unit) the benefits of the
NSR program may be small. See Supplemental Analysis at 5. At the same
time, avoidance of an NSR permitting process does not necessarily mean
that emissions increase, since facilities may be discouraged by the
permitting process itself from undertaking environmentally beneficial
projects. See id. at 5. Finally, the NSR program can lead to changes in
source behavior that have environmental effects (including potentially
beneficial effects) even for sources that do not get an NSR permit, and
permitting data tell us little about these effects. See id. at 5-6.
For these reasons, focusing entirely on hypothetical emissions
increases that might avoid NSR misstates the overall effect of the NSR
revisions that Colorado and other states have adopted. The question is
not simply whether the SIP revision would theoretically allow certain
sources to make emissions-increasing changes that might be subject to
NSR under the current SIP but would not be subject to NSR in the
revised SIP. Rather, the question is whether the SIP revision, as a
whole, would interfere with applicable CAA requirements. Since the
focus of this analysis is on the SIP as a whole, and since NSR Reform
is expected to lead to overall emissions reductions even though
emissions at some individual sources may increase, the commenters'
arguments (arguing that certain individual sources' emissions may
increase) do not show that the SIP revision as a whole would interfere
with applicable CAA requirements. That said, we respond in detail below
to the commenters' significant adverse comments regarding specific
alleged emissions increases that would avoid NSR under Colorado's SIP
revision.

1. Baseline Actual Emissions.

The commenters argue that revisions to Regulation No. 3's method of
calculating baseline actual emissions for existing sources will allow
those sources to ``inflate'' baseline actual emissions, and thereby
substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR. Specifically,
the commenters argue that (1) the rule's definition of baseline actual
emissions enables facilities to choose the highest consecutive two-year
period over the prior ten years, thus treating high emissions that may
not have been emitted for many years as ``baseline'' emissions; (2) the
regulation allows sources to select a different two-year period for
each pollutant, thus creating a ``baseline'' that is higher than actual

[[Page 21467]]

emissions of the facility in any actual two-year period over the last
decade; and (3) the regulation calculation ``rewards'' facilities for
malfunctions, upsets and unusual emissions during start-up and shut-
downs by allowing facilities to inflate the baseline with those
emissions. We disagree that these changes will result in substantial
emissions increases, and discuss each in turn.
First, with regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded in the
context of the NSR Reform regulation that ``the environmental impact
from the change in baseline * * * will not result in any significant
change in benefits derived from the NSR program.'' Supplemental
Analysis at 13. As we explained in the Supplemental Analysis, the rule
change will not alter the baseline at all for many sources. See
Supplemental Analysis at 13. Furthermore, for other instances, EPA
explained:

[F]or the remaining case, where recent emissions are low
compared to the past, a source cannot qualify for a significantly
higher baseline emissions level if the present emissions are lower
as a result of enforceable controls or other enforceable limitations
that have gone into effect since that time--which is true an
estimated 70 percent of the time. Indeed, such sources could face
more stringent baselines under the current rule if controls are
applied toward the end of the baseline period. This leaves only the
case where emissions are lower as a result of decreased utilization
due to decreased market demand, some kind of outage, or other
circumstance. Even in this case, it is not clear that a different
baseline would always result, because the source is eligible, under
current rules, to request a more representative baseline than the
previous two years.

Id. at 13. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline change
is available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F. See also 67 FR
80186, 80199-80200 (Dec. 31, 2002); New York, 413 F.3d at 21-31
(explaining why EPA's selection of ten-year lookback period is
reasonable).
The commenters also provided Colorado-specific emissions data to
support their hypothesis that allowing a 2-in-10 baseline calculation
could lead to significant emissions increases in Colorado. EPA has
evaluated this analysis and concluded that the commenters overlooked
other important factors involved with the baseline calculation and
oversimplified interpretation of the baseline calculation changes. The
commenters also failed to present any rationale that allowing a 2-in-10
baseline calculation will, in fact, cause actual emission increases in
Colorado that would not occur absent the Reform rule. Applicability of
NSR is determined on a project-specific basis. Commenters have not
explained why there should be reason to believe that more projects will
actually occur, or that higher-emitting projects will actually occur,
as a result of a 2-in-10 calculation, rather than the baseline
calculation specified in pre-Reform NSR rules. Appendix F of the
Supplemental Analysis provides a number of reasons why the majority of
sources will not be affected by the change in baseline calculation. The
following circumstances at particular sources would not result in a
change in baseline: new sources and new units at existing sources,
electric utility steam generating units, sources with recent high
levels of emissions, and sources with recent emissions comparable to
the past. The Supplemental Analysis explains that NSR Reform requires
``use of current emission limits that account for enforceable pollution
control measures that have been put into place.'' Supplemental Analysis
at F-4. While the commenters did remove electric utility steam
generating units from their analysis, they did not evaluate the change
in baseline calculation with respect to the other circumstances
described above. In particular, they acknowledge that they did not
evaluate other provisions of state and federal law that could limit
pollution increases (comment 0020.21 in docket). In lieu of doing this
evaluation for Colorado, the commenters cite an October 2003 report \2\
that looked at the impact of non-NSR provisions in relation to the 2-
in-10 baseline calculation in 12 states, of which Colorado was not one.
EPA has previously noted that this report is ``overly simplistic and
erroneous in its interpretation of NSR.'' 73 FR 76563 (Dec. 17,
2008).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Environmental Integrity Project and the Council of State
Governments/Eastern Regional Conference, Reform or Rollback? How
EPA's Changes to New Source Review Could Affect Air Pollution in 12
States, October 2003.
\3\ We incorporate by reference into this response a detailed
critique of this report presented in EPA's approval of Wisconsin's
NSR Reform SIP revision. See 73 FR 76560, 76563-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, it is overly simplistic to assume that sources would
be able to increase their emissions by simply relying on a higher
baseline calculation that a 10-year lookback may (or may not) afford,
for at least four reasons.
1. As mentioned above, there are several circumstances that the
commenters overlooked, such as the existing rules' provision to select
an alternate representative baseline period, and enforceable controls
or other enforceable limitations, that factor into the ability to take
a higher baseline by looking back 10 years as opposed to 2 years. With
respect to the existing rules' provision allowing for a source to
request an alternate representative baseline period, CDPHE has informed
EPA that, even under its current NSR rules, it has approved at least
four requests for a more representative baseline other than the most
recent two years.\4\ The commenters did not take this into account when
calculating the hypothetical emissions increases that might occur under
the 2-in-10 baseline calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Based on email communication from Roland C. Hea, CDPHE
Permitting Section Supervisor, to EPA Region 8 dated November 18,
2011. A copy of the email has been added to the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The commenters have attempted to show that a 10-year lookback
can yield a higher facility-wide baseline, but NSR applicability is
determined for a particular project affecting particular emissions
units. For existing emissions units, the source would likely use the
actual-to-projected-actual applicability test, which compares projected
actual emissions to the baseline actual emissions for that emissions
unit. See Regulation No. 4, Part D, section I.B.1. The project's
overall NSR applicability is determined by summing this difference
across all emissions units involved in the project. See id. The
possibility that an emissions unit not involved in the project (i.e.
not having an emissions increase from the project) might have a high
baseline actual emissions is irrelevant in this context.
3. The prospect that the ten-year lookback might allow certain
sources to use a higher baseline and therefore increase emissions (as
compared to a two-year-lookback) does not mean that sources will
actually do so. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Jackson, 650
F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2011) (``The two-in-ten rule, for example,
might allow a business to increase average emissions, but does it? So
far, we have no answer to that question, either from actual experience
in adopting states or through efforts to test a model by
retrodiction.'') (emphases in original). As explained in depth in the
Supplemental Analysis, EPA has concluded that any emissions increases
made possible by the ten-year lookback will be balanced by emissions
reductions elsewhere as part of the overall NSR Reform.
4. Any source modification that, because of the changes to the
baseline calculation, would avoid major NSR would nevertheless be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the minor source permitting
program in Colorado that is in place to maintain or make

[[Page 21468]]

progress towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). While it is true that Colorado's minor source
permitting program does not require Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), in actual practice Colorado has a track record of progress
towards attainment of the NAAQS given that it currently attains all
NAAQS except ozone.\5\ Furthermore, within the ozone nonattainment
area, the minor source permitting program in Colorado requires
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for stationary sources.
The commenters' failure to consider this RACT requirement in their
analysis of the 2-in-10 baseline calculation contributes to an
unrealistically inflated hypothetical emissions increase due to the
revised baseline calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ In the case of ozone, the State has attaining data in
relation to the 1997 8-hour standard and has a recently approved
attainment demonstration SIP for this standard. See the response to
Comment No. 3 below for more information regarding the ozone
attainment status in Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to the fact that a facility may select a different
two-year baseline period for each pollutant, NSR applicability has long
been evaluated on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and the NSR Reform
rule did not change this. Whether a modification results in a net
emissions increase exceeding significance thresholds is determined on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and BACT (or, where appropriate, Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)) is determined on a pollutant-by-
pollutant basis. Different pollutants may be generated by different
equipment or production processes within a facility. When comparing
emissions from different years, it is not unusual for a facility to
have a higher level of one pollutant than another in a given year, and
then the reverse relationship in a subsequent year. In many such cases,
the reason is simply that the facility operates several different
processes (e.g., associated with several different products or
operations) with different emissions characteristics, and, due to
variations in product cycles, the facility runs different processes or
production lines more in some years than others. Moreover, the facility
may use entirely different control technologies to control different
pollutants. It is therefore not unreasonable to calculate a facility's
emissions increase and net emissions increase for a particular
pollutant with respect to the baseline actual emissions for that
pollutant, even if the variability of emissions of that pollutant
differs from that of another pollutant emitted at the same facility.
Moreover, the commenters have not provided any specific data suggesting
that allowing a facility to select its baseline period on a pollutant-
by-pollutant basis, rather than requiring a facility to use a single
two-year baseline period for all regulated NSR pollutants, will
actually result in emissions increases in Colorado.
Finally, with respect to startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
Regulation No. 3, in accordance with the federal regulation, defines
``Projected Actual Emissions'' as including ``emissions associated with
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.'' See Regulation No. 3, Part D,
Paragraph II.A.36.b.(ii). Thus, startup, shutdown, and malfunction are
included in both the calculation of both baseline actual emissions and
projected actual emissions. With respect to the exclusion for ``non-
compliant emissions that occurred while the source was operating above
any emission limitation,'' the application of this exclusion is
straightforward. The calculation of baseline actual emissions cannot
include periods of time when those emissions exceed an emissions
limitation. Whether enforcement action has been taken is irrelevant for
purposes of calculating the baseline actual emissions.

2. Revised Applicability Test

The commenters argue that the revised applicability test would
allow existing sources to substantially increase emissions without
undergoing NSR. Specifically, the commenters object to (1) extending
the actual-to-projected-actual test to all sources, and (2) excluding
emissions associated with increased demand (so long as the facility
could have accommodated that growth before the modification).
We disagree that these changes will result in substantial emissions
increases. The commenters provide no Colorado-specific information in
support of these arguments, and consequently our response relies on the
NSR Reform rulemaking record.
With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded
that ``the environmental impacts of the switch to the actual-to-
projected actual test are likely to be environmentally beneficial.
However, as with the change to the baseline, the vast majority of
sources, including new sources, new units, electric utility steam
generating units, and units that actually increase emissions as a
result of a change, will be unaffected by this change. Thus, the
overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be environmentally
beneficial, but only to a small extent.'' Supplemental Analysis at 14,
Appendix G; see also 67 FR 80186, 80196.
With regard to the demand growth exclusion, the commenters'
arguments have been addressed in the NSR Reform rulemaking. See 67 FR
80186, 80202-03; see also New York, 413 F.3d at 31-33.

3. Plantwide Applicability Limits

The commenters argue that the PAL provisions would allow existing
sources to substantially increase emissions without undergoing NSR.
We disagree that the PAL provisions will result in substantial
emissions increases. The commenters provide no Colorado-specific
information in support of these arguments, only a Colorado-specific
example to illustrate the non-controversial statement that potential-
to-emit can be larger than actual emissions. (comment 0020.18 in
docket). Consequently, our response relies on the NSR Reform rulemaking
record.
The Supplemental Analysis explained that ``EPA expects that the
adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net environmental benefit.
Our experience to date is that the emissions caps found in PAL-type
permits result in real emissions reductions, as well as other
benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further explained that:

Although it is impossible to predict how many and which sources
will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources will
achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide basis,
PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of reductions
of VOC from source categories where frequent operational changes are
made, where these changes are time sensitive, and where there are
opportunities for economical air pollution control measures. These
reductions occur because of the incentives that the PAL creates to
control existing and new units in order to provide room under the
cap to make necessary operational changes over the life of the PAL.

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly
Appendix B, provides additional details regarding EPA's analysis of
PALs and anticipated associated emissions decreases. See also 67 FR
80186, 80214-22; New York, 413 F.3d at 36-38.
Comment No. 2: EPA's proposed approval contravenes the CAA's
General Savings Clause set forth in section 193 of the Act.
EPA Response No. 2: EPA's response to the section 193 issues raised
by the commenters involves many of the same elements of the response
above to the section 110(l) comments, which is also incorporated by
reference here. Section 193 states (in relevant part) that ``[n]o
control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any area

[[Page 21469]]

which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified
after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.'' 42
U.S.C. 7515.
Assuming for purposes of this discussion that section 193 does
apply to the instant action,\6\ as discussed earlier in this notice,
EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental
Analysis that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions
still in effect (that is, those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are
expected to have at least a neutral environmental effect. EPA has no
information indicating that findings associated with EPA's Supplemental
Analysis would not apply in Colorado--that is, that Colorado's SIP
revisions would not have at least a neutral (and possibly a modest
beneficial) environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Of course, section 193 does not apply at all outside the
Denver Metropolitan Ozone Nonattainment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, even if section 193 does apply to this action, EPA does
not agree with the commenters' assertions that the SIP revisions
approved in this action raise a section 193 concern. EPA is simply
approving Colorado's SIP revisions that adopt rules equivalent to the
federal rules, and, as discussed earlier in this notice, the
Supplemental Analysis that EPA developed to support adoption of the
federal rules suggests that the effects of the revised rules will be at
least neutral. The Colorado SIP will continue to operate with the full
suite of NSR-related elements, including a comprehensive minor source
program.
Comment No. 3: EPA's proposed approval will interfere with the
ozone attainment demonstration (with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard) for the Denver Metro area and interfere with the Early Action
Compact (EAC).
EPA Response No. 3: These comments are no longer relevant since
much has changed regarding the EAC and Denver's ozone attainment status
between now and when the EPA first proposed approval of NSR Reform for
Colorado.
Denver failed to meet the requirements of the EAC and, as of
November 2007, was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Since that time, EPA has approved a SIP revision (76 FR
47443) for the State of Colorado that includes an attainment
demonstration by November 2010 for the Denver Metro Area. Ambient air
monitoring data also supports the attainment demonstration, with no
ozone monitors in the Denver Metro Area showing a violation of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard using design values from 2007-2009 (82 ppb) or
from 2008-2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data from 2009-2011 also shows
attainment with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Comment No. 4: Colorado is preparing to make substantial revisions
to its Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) program that will further
undermine the ozone attainment demonstration for the Denver Metro Area.
EPA Response No. 4: The comment is outside the scope of this action
since EPA did not propose to take any action with respect to Colorado's
I/M program. Furthermore, many aspects of the I/M program in the Denver
Metro Area/North Front Range have changed since this comment was
originally made. On September 25, 2006, the State of Colorado submitted
a SIP submittal for the CAA section 175A(b) second 10-year carbon
monoxide (CO) maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and
Longmont areas. This SIP submittal also included revisions to
Colorado's Regulation Number 11 which included the removal of the I/M
program in both carbon monoxide maintenance areas. EPA approved these
second 10-year maintenance plan SIP revisions on August 17, 2007 (see
72 FR 46148). However, in our August 17, 2007 action, we drew special
attention to the point that the I/M program would continue in both
areas for purposes of the ozone element of the SIP: ``* * * the removal
of the I/M program from Denver's revised CO maintenance plan does not
mean the I/M program is eliminated. The State relies on the I/M program
in the Denver's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan and Denver's 8-hour ozone
Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore, the motor vehicle I/M program
will remain intact in the Denver-metro area.'' (72 FR 46155, August 17,
2007). We also note that we had previously approved Fort Collins' and
Greeley's revised CO maintenance plans which also involved the removal
of the Basic I/M program from the SIP for both areas (see 68 FR 43316,
July 22, 2003 and 70 FR 48650, August 19, 2005, respectively). Those
actions effectively eliminated Basic I/M in Larimer and Weld Counties;
however, we note that those basic I/M programs had only been in place
for purposes of CO emission reductions.
Colorado has submitted two other SIP revisions, after our August
17, 2007 Federal Register action, that involve amendments to Regulation
Number 11. Those revisions involve a low emitter index (LEI) of
vehicles with respect to the Clean Screen element of Regulation Number
11 and to eliminate obsolete provisions for gasoline filter neck
inspections and CFC (refrigerant) leak checks. The latter submittal has
since been withdrawn by the State and we have not acted on the LEI
submittal yet. However, we do note that since our most recent action to
Federally approve revisions to Colorado's Regulation Number 11 (see 72
FR 46148, August 17, 2007), Colorado has reinstated the I/M programs in
Larimer and Weld Counties for the purpose of reducing ozone precursor
emissions. These I/M programs contain State-only enforceable provisions
and the re-implementation of the I/M programs began on November 1,
2010. These State-only I/M expansion provisions for Larimer and Weld
Counties appear in Colorado's Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection Program, 5 CCR 1001-13, current as State-adopted
on January 20, 2011; State-effective on March 2, 2011. We note that EPA
has approved an attainment demonstration of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the Denver Metro Area/North Front Range (76 FR 47443, August 5,
2011) and this attainment demonstration included ozone precursor
emission reductions from the continued implementation of Colorado's
Federally-approved I/M program. Furthermore, as stated above, ambient
data shows attaining monitors using design values from 2007-2009 (82
ppb) and from 2008-2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data from 2009-2011 also
shows attainment with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Comment No. 5: Title 1, Part C, Section 160 of the CAA states that
air quality in national parks must be protected. It is contrary to this
CAA section for EPA to approve a rule revision that would increase air
pollution in Colorado's Class I areas. Section 110(l) is proof that
such a SIP revision should not be approved.
EPA Response No. 5: EPA's response to the air quality in national
parks issue raised by the commenters involves many of the same elements
of the response above to the section 110(l) comments, which is also
incorporated by reference here. EPA's national analysis in support of
the 2002 NSR Reform Rules indicates that the non-vacated provisions of
the NSR Reform Rules will have a neutral or beneficial impact.
The primary issue raised by the commenters was the impact of
nitrogen deposition in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) which
resides fully within the boundaries of Colorado. The commenters
incorporate by reference a September 1, 2004 petition to the

[[Page 21470]]

Department of Interior (DOI) from Colorado Trout Unlimited and
Environmental Defense. The petition asks DOI to ``[c]all for the EPA
and the State of Colorado to fulfill their legal responsibilities to
lower NOX and Ammonia to protect human health, plants and
ecosystems, and scenic vistas at Rocky Mountain National Park and to
fully mitigate nitrogen deposition above the identified critical
load.'' Partly in response to this petition, a Memorandum of
Understanding was signed by the National Park Service, EPA, and the
CDPHE to form the RMNP Initiative. The agencies agreed to pursue a more
in-depth review of the issues related to nitrogen deposition in RMNP
and a course of action to address them. As a result, the Initiative
formulated the ``Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Contingency Plan'' which
was endorsed by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on
June 17, 2010. The plan includes goals for reducing nitrogen deposition
incrementally over 5 year periods with contingencies in place should
these goals not be reached.
In addition to the contingency measures adopted by the multi-agency
plan, it is expected that current and future ozone planning in Colorado
should positively impact nitrogen deposition in RMNP. Reduction in
ozone precursors (e.g. NOX) that result from the control
measures adopted in Colorado's recent federally approved ozone
attainment demonstration SIP will also contribute to a reduction of
nitrogen deposition in RMNP.
Furthermore, Colorado is subject to the Protection of Visibility
requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, including the Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) requirements, the Regional
Haze requirements, and the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
requirements. Each of these programs requires Colorado to achieve a
variety of emissions reductions aimed at protecting visibility in
national parks and other Class I areas. In particular, EPA expects that
Colorado's SIP revision submission to meet the Regional Haze
requirements, including both the Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) controls and the long-term strategy for regional haze, will
provide NOX reductions that will reduce the nitrogen
deposition in RMNP.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving portions of Colorado's revisions to Regulation No.
3, submitted by Colorado on July 11, 2005 and October 25, 2005, that
relate to the PSD and NSR construction permits program. These revisions
meet the minimum program requirements of the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR
Reform rulemaking. Several of the remaining revisions made by Colorado
to Regulation No. 3 as adopted on April 16, 2004 by the Colorado AQCC
are being acted on by EPA in a separate final action related to
Colorado's Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR
21835, April 19, 2011).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 11, 2012. 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

[[Page 21471]]

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 21, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(122) The State of Colorado submitted revisions October 25, 2005 to
Colorado's 5 CCR 1001-5 Regulation Number 3, Part A and Colorado's 5
CCR 1001-5 Regulation Number 3, Part D. The October 25, 2005 submittal
included language changes and renumbering of Regulation Number 3. The
incorporation by reference in ((i)(A) and (i)(B) reflects the
renumbered sections and language changes as of the October 25, 2005
submittal.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 5 CCR 1001-5, Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and
Air Contaminant Emission Notice Requirements, Part A, Concerning
General Provisions Applicable to Reporting and Permitting, adopted
April 16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004:
Section I, Applicability, Sections I.B, Definitions; I.B.7,
Allowable Emissions; I.B.13, Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
(CEMS); I.B.14, Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring Systems (CERMS);
I.B.15, Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS); I.B.33,
Pollution Prevention; I.B.35, Potential to Emit; I.B.36, Predictive
Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS); adopted April 16, 2004 and
effective June 30, 2004.
(B) 5 CCR 1001-5, Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and
Air Contaminant Emission Notice Requirements, Part D, Concerning Major
Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, adopted April 16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004:
(1) Section I, Applicability,
(i) I.A., General Applicability; I.A.2; I.A.3;
(ii) I.B, Applicability Tests; I.B.1; I.B.2; I.B.4 (except the
final sentence beginning, ``For example[hellip]''); I.B.5;
(iii) I.C;
(2) Section II, Definitions,
(i) II.A;
(ii) II.A; II.A.1, Actual Emissions; II.A.1.a (only the language
that appears as plain or italicized text); II.A.1.c (only the language
that appears as plain text); II.A.1.d;
(iii) II.A.2, Actuals PAL;
(iv) II.A.4, Baseline Actual Emissions;
(v) II.A.7, Begin Actual Construction;
(vi) II.A.9, Clean Coal Technology;
(vii) II.A.10, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project;
(viii) II.A.13, Construction;
(ix) II.A.14, Emissions Unit;
(x) II.A.15, Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit;
(xi) II.A.17, High Terrain;
(xii) II.A.18, Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare;
(xiii) II.A.20, Low Terrain;
(xiv) II.A.21, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER); II.A.21.b
(only the language that appears as plain or italicized text);
(xv) II.A.22, Major Emissions Unit;
(xvi) II.A.23, Major Modification (only the language that appears
as plain and italicized text); II.A.23.d.(iii); II.A.23.d(x);
II.A.23.d(xi); II.A.23.e;
(xvii) II.A.25, Major Stationary Source; II.A.25.b (only the
language that appears as plain or italicized text);
(xviii) II.A.27, Net Emissions Increase; II.A.27.a.(i) (only the
language that appears as plain or italicized text); II.A.27.a.(ii);
II.A.27.b; II.A.27.g.(iii) (only the language that appears as plain or
italicized text); II.A.27.i;
(xix) II.A.28, Nonattainment Major New Source Review (NSR) Program;
(xx) II.A.29, PAL Effective Date;
(xxi) II.A.30, PAL Effective Period;
(xxii) II.A.31, PAL Major Modification;
(xxiii) II.A.32, PAL Permit;
(xxiv) II.A.33, PAL Pollutant;
(xxv) II.A.34, Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL);
(xxvi) II.A.36, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Permit;
(xxvii) II.A.37, Project;
(xxviii) II.A.38, Projected Actual Emissions;
(xxvix) II.A.39, Reactivation of Very Clean Coal-fired Electric
Utility Steam Generating Unit;
(xxx) II.A.41, Replacement Unit;
(xxxi) II.A.42, Repowering;
(xxxii) II.A.43, Secondary Emissions;
(xxxiii) II.A.46, Significant Emissions Unit;
(xxxiv) II.A.47, Small Emissions Unit;
(xxxv) II.A.48, Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration
Project;
(3) Section V, Requirements Applicable to Nonattainment Areas,
V.A.7.c (except for the phrases, ``a Clean Unit or at'', ``a reasonable
possibility that'', and ``may result in a significant emissions
increase''); V.A.7.d;
(4) Section VI, Requirements applicable to attainment and
unclassifiable areas and pollutants implemented under section 110 of
the Federal Act (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program),
Sections VI.A.1.c (only the language that appears as plain or
italicized text); VI.B.5 (except for the phrases, ``a Clean Unit or
at'', ``a reasonable possibility that'', and ``may result in a
significant emissions increase''); VI.B.6;
(5) Section XVII, Actuals PALs; adopted April 16, 2004 and
effective June 30, 2004.

[FR Doc. 2012-8349 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.