Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 18243-18248 [2018-08622]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T08–0239 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T08–0239
Cincinnati, OH.
Safety Zone; Ohio River,
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: all navigable waters of the
Tennessee River at mile marker (MM) 23
within a 350-foot radius from fireworks
launch site on the Kentucky Dam
Marina break wall in Gilbertsville, KY.
(b) Effective date. This section is
effective from 6:50 p.m. through 10:10
p.m. on June 30, 2018.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
(COTP) or a designated representative.
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter
into or pass through the zone must
request permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or by
phone at 1–800–253–7465.
(3) If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels must transit at their
slowest safe speed and comply with all
lawful directions issued by the COTP or
a designated representative.
(d) Informational broadcasts. The
COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs) of
the enforcement period for the safety
zone as well as the date and time of
enforcement.
Dated: April 18, 2018.
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2018–08743 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015; FRL–9976–
45—Region 8]
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing
regional haze. The EPA is proposing to
approve source-specific revisions to the
nitrogen oxides (NOX) best available
retrofit technology (BART)
determination for Craig Station Unit 1.
This unit is owned in part and operated
by Tri-State Generation & Transmission
Association, Inc. (Tri-State). We are also
proposing to approve revisions to the
NOX reasonable progress determination
for Tri-State’s Nucla Station. The EPA is
taking this action pursuant to section
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments: Written comments
must be received on or before May 29,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2018–0015, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. The EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18243
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado,
80202–1129, (303) 312–6252,
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA taking?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and
the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012
Colorado SIP
III. Craig Unit 1—NOX BART
A. Background
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of Craig Unit 1
Amendments
IV. Nucla—NOX Reasonable Progress
A. Background
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nucla
Amendments
V. Coordination With FLMs
VI. The EPA’s Proposed Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA taking?
On December 31, 2012, the EPA
approved a regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on
May 25, 2011. The 2011 SIP revision
included NOX BART emission limits for
Craig Station Units 1 and 2 near Craig,
Colorado, and a NOX reasonable
progress emission limit for the Nucla
Station located in Montrose County.1
The State of Colorado submitted
proposed revisions to the 2011 SIP
submittal on May 26, 2017, that modify
the NOX BART determination for Craig
Unit 1 and the NOX reasonable progress
determination for Nucla. The EPA is
now proposing to approve those
revisions. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to approve the State’s
revisions to the Craig Unit 1 NOX BART
determination that would require Craig
Unit 1 to meet an annual NOX emission
limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by
December 31, 2019. The SIP revision
would also require the unit to either (1)
convert to natural gas by August 31,
2023, and if converting to natural gas,
1 77
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
26APP1
18244
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
comply with a NOX emission limit of
0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
beginning August 31, 2021, or (2) shut
down by December 31, 2025. The EPA
is also proposing to approve the State’s
revisions to the Nucla NOX reasonable
progress determination that would
require the source to meet an annual
NOX emission limit of 952 tpy by
January 1, 2020, and shut down on or
before December 31, 2022.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
In section 169A of the CAA, added by
the 1977 Amendments to the Act,
Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas.
This section establishes ‘‘as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and
the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.’’ 2
On December 2, 1980, the EPA
promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas
that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a
single source or small group of sources.3
These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility
impairment. The EPA deferred action on
regional haze, which emanates from a
variety of sources, until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.4
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to
2 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as
mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national
parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and
all international parks that were in existence on
August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance
with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list
of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979).
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply
only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility
of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section,
we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
3 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
4 Regional haze means visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from
numerous anthropogenic sources located over a
wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are
not limited to, major and minor stationary sources,
mobile sources, and area sources. 40 CFR 51.301.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
address regional haze on July 1, 1999.5
The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised
the existing visibility regulations to
integrate provisions addressing regional
haze and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA’s
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300–51.309. The EPA revised
the RHR on January 10, 2017.6
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.7 Regional haze SIPs must
assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. A
state must submit its SIP and SIP
revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the
EPA and citizens under the CAA; that
is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs the
EPA to require states to evaluate the use
of retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to include
in their SIPs such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best
Available Retrofit Technology’’ as
determined by the states. Under the
RHR, states are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such ‘‘BART–
eligible’’ sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published
the Guidelines for BART Determinations
under the Regional Haze Rule (the
‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which sources should be
subject to the BART requirements and
in setting appropriate emission limits
for each covered source.8 The process of
establishing BART emission limitations
follows three steps: first, identify the
sources that meet the definition of
‘‘BART-eligible source’’ set forth in 40
CFR 51.301; 9 second, determine which
5 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at
40 CFR part 51, subpart P).
6 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
7 CAA sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B, 42 U.S.C.
7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a).
8 70 FR 39104; 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
9 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of these sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subject to
BART’’); and third, for each source
subject to BART, identify the best
available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7)
of the CAA requires that states consider
five factors in making BART
determinations: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States must
address all visibility-impairing
pollutants emitted by a source in the
BART determination process. The most
significant visibility-impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
NOX, and particulate matter (PM).
A SIP addressing regional haze must
include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for
each source subject to BART. In lieu of
requiring source-specific BART
controls, states have the flexibility to
adopt alternative measures, as long as
the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the
alternative must be ‘‘better than
BART’’).10 Once a state has made a
BART determination, the BART controls
must be installed and operated as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than 5 years after the date of the EPA’s
approval of the final SIP.11 In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting for the BART emission
limitations.12
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements,
each regional haze SIP must contain
measures as necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. As part of
determining what measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress,
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in
operation before August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
10 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
11 CAA section 169A(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(4);
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
12 CAA section 110(a), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a); 40 CFR
part 51, subpart K.
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the SIP must first identify
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment that are to be considered in
developing the long-term strategy for
addressing visibility impairment.13
States must then consider the four
statutory reasonable progress factors in
selecting control measures for inclusion
in the long-term strategy—the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful
life of potentially affected sources.14
Finally, the SIP must establish
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for
each Class I area within the State for the
plan implementation period (or
‘‘planning period’’), based on the
measures included in the long-term
strategy.15 If an RPG provides for a
slower rate of improvement in visibility
than the rate needed to attain the
national goal by 2064, the SIP must
demonstrate, based on the four
reasonable progress factors, why the rate
to attain the national goal by 2064 is not
reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.16
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP
revision.17 States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days before holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions and 5-year progress reports,
and on the implementation of other
programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in
Class I areas.
13 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1);
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
15 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
16 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
17 40 CFR 51.308(i).
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the
2012 Colorado SIP
On December 31, 2012, the EPA
approved a regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on
May 25, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the
National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA) and Wild Earth
Guardians (Guardians) filed petitions for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit of the EPA’s final
approval of the Colorado regional haze
SIP.18 Among other things, Guardians
and NPCA challenged the NOX BART
limit for Craig Unit 1. Tri-State and the
State of Colorado joined the litigation as
intervenors. After the court consolidated
the cases for review, and after several
months of court-supervised mediation,
the parties reached a settlement under
which Craig Unit 1 would be subject to
a 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOX limit, consistent
with the installation of selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) controls, by
August 31, 2021.19 The settlement
further required that the EPA ask the
Tenth Circuit to vacate the previous
approval of the Colorado SIP revision
relating to Craig Unit 1 and remand the
rule to the agency for further action. The
court granted the EPA’s request on
December 22, 2014, and signed an order
ending the litigation on August 15,
2015.
In accordance with the terms of the
2014 settlement, Colorado submitted a
SIP revision to the EPA in 2015 to revise
the Craig Unit 1 NOX BART
determination, emission limit, and
associated compliance deadline.
Specifically, Colorado determined that
NOX BART for Craig Unit 1 was an
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, which
was based on the capabilities of SCR,
and established an associated
compliance date of August 31, 2021.
In 2017, Colorado submitted a
regional haze SIP revision to the EPA
reassessing the NOX limit for the Craig
Unit 1. The revisions were developed
after discussions in 2016 between TriState, Guardians, NPCA, the State of
Colorado, and the EPA, and require one
of two possible NOX BART compliance
paths for Craig Unit 1 to either (1) shut
down by December 31, 2025, or (2)
convert to natural-gas firing by August
31, 2023. If Craig Unit 1 is converted to
natural-gas firing, the NOX emission
limit will be 0.07 lb/MMBtu after
August 31, 2021 (30-day rolling
average). If Craig Unit 1 is shut down,
the NOX emission limit will be 0.28 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) until
14 CAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
18 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13–9520
(10th Cir.) and National Parks Conservation
Association v. EPA, No. 13–9525 (10th Cir.).
19 79 FR 47636 (August 14, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18245
December 31, 2025. Colorado withdrew
the 2015 SIP revision when it submitted
the 2017 SIP revision that is the subject
of this proposed action.
III. Craig Unit 1—NOX BART
A. Background
The 2011 regional haze SIP for
Colorado established a NOX BART
emission limit for Craig Units 1 and 2.
The Craig Station is located in Moffat
County, approximately 2.5 miles
southwest of the town of Craig. This
facility is a coal-fired power plant with
a total net electric generating capacity of
1264 megawatts (MW), consisting of
three units. Units 1 and 2, which are
subject to BART, are dry-bottom
pulverized coal-fired boilers, each rated
at a net capacity of 428 MW.
In the 2011 submittal, Colorado
determined that selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) was BART for both
Unit 1 and Unit 2, based on the costeffectiveness and visibility
improvement associated with this level
of control. Colorado determined that
SCR, a more stringent control
technology, was not BART because its
costs were too high. Colorado also
determined that SNCR could achieve an
emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu (30day rolling average) at both Unit 1 and
Unit 2. Nevertheless, as a BART
alternative, Colorado ultimately adopted
a more stringent emission limit for Unit
2 (0.08 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling
average, based on SCR) and a slightly
less stringent limit for Unit 1 (0.28 lb/
MMBtu, 30-day rolling average, based
on SNCR). The EPA approved
Colorado’s BART alternative and NOX
BART emission limits into the SIP on
December 31, 2012.20
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
On May 26, 2017, Colorado submitted
a SIP revision containing amendments
to the Colorado Code of Regulations,
Regulation Number 3, Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission
Notice Requirements, Part F, Regional
Haze Limits—Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) and Reasonable
Progress (RP), Section VI, Regional Haze
Determinations. In assessing BART for
Craig Unit 1, Colorado determined that,
under either a 20- or 30-year remaining
useful life, NOX BART would be an
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu based
on the installation of SCR.21 Colorado
20 77
FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
limit, consistent with the 2014 settlement,
was contained in the 2015 SIP submission. As
noted previously, the State withdrew that
submission when it submitted the 2017 SIP
revision, but the State’s justification for the 0.07 lb/
21 This
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
Continued
26APP1
18246
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
then reassessed NOX BART for Craig
Unit 1 under the two compliance paths
associated with the 2016 settlement
discussions: A shutdown in 2025 or a
conversion to natural gas in 2023.22
After completing this reassessment,
Colorado established the following
amendments:
• Craig Unit 1 will either (1) close on
or before December 31, 2025; or (2)
cease burning coal no later than August
31, 2021, with the option to convert
Unit 1 to natural-gas firing by August
31, 2023;
• In the case of a conversion to
natural-gas firing, a 30-day rolling
average NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) will be
effective after August 31, 2021;
• The owner/operator of Craig Unit 1
will notify the State in writing on or
before February 28, 2021, whether Unit
1 will cease operation or convert to
natural gas;
• For both scenarios, Craig Unit 1 will
be subject to an interim NOX emission
limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average), effective January 1, 2017 (first
compliance date January 31, 2017), until
December 31, 2025 if closing or August
31, 2021 if converting to natural gas;
and
• Craig Unit 1 will be subject to an
annual NOX emission limit of 4,065 tpy
effective December 31, 2019, which will
be calculated on a calendar year basis
beginning in 2020.
The amendments also excepted Craig
Unit 1 from complying with the original
SIP effective date of January 30, 2013,
and associated compliance date 5 years
later. The Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission adopted the revisions on
December 15, 2016 (effective February
14, 2017).
1. Shutdown
For the shutdown compliance path,
the State considered two amortization
periods to reflect the remaining useful
life based on two possible projected
compliance dates and the shutdown
date of December 31, 2025. The first
scenario used an amortization period of
4 years and 4 months, calculated as the
difference between a projected
compliance date of August 31, 2021,
(which would have been required under
the State’s BART determination made in
conjunction with the 2014 settlement)
and the December 31, 2025 shutdown
date. The associated emissions
reductions, annualized cost, and costeffectiveness values for SNCR and SCR
using the amortization period is shown
in Table 1.
TABLE 1—CRAIG STATION UNIT 1 NOX COST COMPARISON
[4 years, 4 months of operation]
Emissions
reduction
(tpy)
Control technology
SNCR ...........................................................................................................................................
SCR .............................................................................................................................................
The second scenario used an
amortization period of 8 years, to reflect
the difference between the December 31,
2025 shutdown date and the December
31, 2017 compliance date that the 2012
SIP revision approval established.23 The
associated emissions reductions,
annualized costs, and cost-effectiveness
779
4,048
Annualized
cost
($)
6,172,522
64,106,699
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton)
7,928
15,835
values for SNCR and SCR using the
amortization period of 8 years is shown
in Table 2.
TABLE 2—CRAIG STATION UNIT 1 NOX COST COMPARISON
[8 years of operation]
Emissions
reduction
(tpy)
Control technology
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
SNCR ...........................................................................................................................................
SCR .............................................................................................................................................
Under both amortization scenarios,
the remaining useful life of Craig Unit
1 is shorter than the 20-year
amortization period used in the 2012
BART determination, which increases
the annualized costs and costeffectiveness values of the control
technologies.24 Based on this
assessment, the State determined that
neither SNCR or SCR is cost-effective
when the remaining useful life is
shortened to either 4 years and 4
months or 8 years, depending on the
scenario selected, as a result of the
shutdown of Craig Unit 1 on December
31, 2025.
MMBtu NOX BART limit is retained in the 2017
SIP.
22 Colorado used the term ‘‘reassessment,’’ and we
interpret the term to mean that the state reassessed
its previous BART determination under the
differing future factual scenarios to see whether
those facts were outcome determinative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
779
4,048
Annualized
cost
($)
4,755,842
41,476,535
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton)
6,109
10,245
firing by August 31, 2023. A 30-day
rolling average NOX emission limit of no
more than 0.07 lb/MMBtu will apply
after August 31, 2021.
2. Natural Gas Conversion
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of Craig Unit
1 Amendments
For the natural gas conversion
compliance path, Craig Unit 1 will cease
to burn coal by August 31, 2021, with
the option to convert to natural-gas
We are proposing to approve
Colorado’s BART reassessment for two
possible compliance scenarios for Craig
23 The operation period begins in calendar year
2018 (December 31, 2017). The effective date of the
EPA’s approval of Colorado’s regional haze SIP was
January 30, 2013. As noted previously, the Tenth
Circuit vacated the EPA’s approval of the Craig
portions of this SIP on December 22, 2014.
24 The EPA finalized revisions to the Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual (Chapters 1 and 2),
https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysisair-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-andguidance-air-pollution, in May 2016; these revisions
change the amortization period for SCR from 20
years to 30 years. The amortization period for SNCR
remains at 20 years.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Unit 1: (1) Shutdown or (2) conversion
to natural gas.
As a threshold matter, we agree with
the State’s assessment that an emission
limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu would be NOX
BART for Craig Unit 1 under either a 20or 30-year remaining useful life. But we
also agree with the State that it is
appropriate to reassess the NOX BART
limit under the shutdown and natural
gas conversion scenarios, either of
which would considerably shorten the
remaining useful life of the existing
coal-fired boiler.
While the RHR does not require states
to consider source retirements or fuel
switching (e.g., from coal to gas) as
BART options, states are free to do so.25
In other states, we have approved stateadopted requirements for the shutdown
of a source or for switching fuels, which
have usually been negotiated between
the source operator and the state. We
also have approved BART
determinations that took into account
the resulting shorter remaining useful
life of the affected source.
We agree with Colorado’s BART
reassessment for both the shutdown and
natural gas conversion scenarios.
Specifically, we acknowledge and agree
with the assumptions used to calculate
the two different amortization periods
for the shutdown scenario. In past SIP
actions, the EPA has measured
amortization periods from the projected
compliance date to the date of
retirement. In this instance, the
compliance date for SCR is August 31,
2021, which would have been required
under the State’s BART determination
made in conjunction with the 2014
settlement, resulting in an amortization
period of four years and four months as
reflected in Colorado’s first amortization
period scenario (Table 1). For SNCR, the
projected compliance date would be
earlier, thus resulting in a longer
amortization period, albeit one shorter
than 8 years; the 8-year amortization
period is therefore a conservative
approach that understates the
annualized costs of both SCR and SNCR.
When considering the shortened
remaining useful life under either
amortization scenario associated with
Craig Unit 1 shutting down by
December 31, 2025, the EPA finds
Colorado’s determination reasonable
that neither SNCR or SCR is cost
effective. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve Colorado’s NOX BART
reassessment that if Craig Unit 1 shuts
down by December 31, 2025, neither
SNCR or SCR would be BART due to the
high cost-effectiveness values associated
with a shortened remaining useful life.
25 40
CFR part 51, appendix Y.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
We are also proposing to approve the
alternative compliance path that allows
Craig Unit 1 to convert to natural-gas
firing by August 31, 2023, and cease
burning coal by August 31, 2021, with
an associated NOX BART emission limit
of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) on that date, because this
emission limit is equivalent to the one
that the State found would be BART
under a 20- or 30-year remaining useful
life scenario. Accordingly, natural-gas
firing is another means by which NOX
BART can be met for Craig Unit 1.
Finally, we are proposing to approve
Colorado’s requirement that an annual
NOX limit of 4,065 tpy will be effective
on December 31, 2019, for Craig Unit 1
because this additional measure would
strengthen the SIP as there currently is
no regional haze annual NOX limit for
Unit 1.
IV. Nucla—NOX Reasonable Progress
A. Background
The Tri-State Nucla Station is located
in Montrose County approximately 3
miles southeast of the town of Nucla,
Colorado. The Nucla facility consists of
one coal-fired steam-driven electric
generating unit, Unit 4, with a rated
electric generating capacity of 110 MW
(gross).
In 2006, Tri-State installed a smallscale SNCR system on Unit 4 that injects
anhydrous ammonia to achieve NOX
reductions. The SNCR system is used
when NOX emissions approach 0.4 lb/
MMBtu; rates above this result in mass
emissions that approach the annual
permitted NOX limit of 1,987.9 tpy (12month rolling average). Although
Colorado, in its 2011 submittal,
determined that full-scale SNCR and
SCR were technically feasible for
reducing NOX emissions at Nucla Unit
4, the State determined that neither
control technology was necessary for
reasonable progress based on the
uncertainty of the control efficiency for
SNCR and what Colorado determined
would likely be excessive costs
associated with SCR. Instead, Colorado
determined that Nucla Unit 4 should
meet an emission limit of 0.5 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average) as expeditiously
as practicable, but in no event later than
December 31, 2017, based on
consideration of the four reasonable
progress factors. The EPA approved this
emission limit into the SIP on December
31, 2012, as meeting the relevant
regional haze requirements.
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
The May 26, 2017 submittal includes
the following amendments to the
Colorado Code of Regulations,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18247
Regulation Number 3, Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission
Notice Requirements, Part F, Regional
Haze Limits—Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) and Reasonable
Progress (RP), Section VI, Regional Haze
Determinations, related to Nucla:
• Nucla will close on or before
December 31, 2022; and
• Nucla will be subject to an annual
NOX emission limit of 952 tpy effective
January 1, 2020, on a calendar year basis
beginning in 2020.
The amendments also removed
Nucla’s original compliance date of
December 31, 2017, and the requirement
for a proposed compliance schedule
from Nucla due within 60 days after the
EPA’s approval of the reasonable
progress portion of Colorado’s regional
haze SIP. The current NOX emission
limit of 0.5 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) is not amended.
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of Nucla
Amendments
Because the amendments, requiring
Nucla to shut down on or before
December 31, 2022, and meet an annual
NOX limit of 952 tpy by January 1, 2020,
do not alter the previously approved 0.5
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
emission limit requirement, the closure
of Nucla achieves greater NOX emission
reductions than the relevant portions of
the 2012 SIP, (which did not previously
include any shutdown date). We
therefore propose to approve Colorado’s
revision related to Nucla.
V. Coordination With FLMs
Class I areas in Colorado are managed
by either the U.S. Forest Service (FS) or
the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). As
described in section II.D of this
proposed rule, the Regional Haze Rule
grants the FLMs a special role in the
review of regional haze SIPs. Under 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2), Colorado was
obligated to provide the FS and the NPS
with an opportunity for consultation in
development of the State’s proposed SIP
revisions. Colorado provided the FS and
the NPS with access to the proposed
revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part
F on January 12, 2017.26 The FLMs did
not provide any comments on the
proposed revisions.
VI. The EPA’s Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve SIP amendments to Regulation
Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown in
Table 3, submitted by the State of
Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing
the NOX BART and reasonable progress
26 Email between Colorado and NPS, January
2017.
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
18248
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
TABLE 3—LIST OF COLORADO AMEND- implications as specified in Executive
MENTS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
APPROVE
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
Amended Sections in May 26, 2017
safety risks subject to Executive Order
Submittal Proposed for Approval
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table);
VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2 (table); VI.B.3;
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E.
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
VII. Incorporation by Reference
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
application of those requirements would
text that includes incorporation by
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
reference. In accordance with
and
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
• Does not provide the EPA with the
proposing to incorporate by reference
discretionary authority to address, as
the amendments described in section
appropriate, disproportionate human
VI. The EPA has made, and will
health or environmental effects, using
continue to make, these materials
practicable and legally permissible
generally available through
methods, under Executive Order 12898
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Region 8 Office (please contact the
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
apply on any Indian reservation land or
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
in any other area where the EPA or an
preamble for more information).
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Reviews
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
substantial direct costs on tribal
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Act and applicable federal regulations.
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
Environmental protection, Air
provided that they meet the criteria of
pollution control, Incorporation by
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
meeting federal requirements and does
Sulfur oxides.
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
that reason, this proposed action:
Dated: April 16, 2018.
• Is not a significant regulatory action
Debra Thomas,
subject to review by the Office of
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
Management and Budget under
[FR Doc. 2018–08622 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am]
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
AGENCY
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
40 CFR Part 52
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406; FRL–9976–
56—Region 8]
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Approval and Promulgation of Air
• Is certified as not having a
Quality Implementation Plans; North
significant economic impact on a
Dakota; Regional Haze State
substantial number of small entities
Implementation Plan
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
• Does not contain any unfunded
Agency (EPA).
mandate or significantly or uniquely
ACTION: Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements for Craig Unit 1 and
Nucla, respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
certain portions of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to
address regional haze submitted by the
Governor of North Dakota on March 3,
2010, along with SIP Supplement No. 1
submitted on July 27, 2010, SIP
Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28,
2011 and SIP Supplement No. 2
submitted on January 2, 2013
(collectively, ‘‘the Regional Haze SIP’’).
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the nitrogen oxides (NOX) Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for Coal Creek Station
included in SIP Supplement No. 2. Coal
Creek Station is owned and operated by
Great River Energy (GRE) and is located
near Underwood, North Dakota. This
Regional Haze SIP was submitted to
address the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) and our
rules that require states to develop and
implement air quality protection plans
to reduce visibility impairment in
mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before May 29, 2018.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2010–0406 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to the
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information,
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18243-18248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08622]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015; FRL-9976-45--Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The EPA is
proposing to approve source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides
(NOX) best available retrofit technology (BART)
determination for Craig Station Unit 1. This unit is owned in part and
operated by Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-
State). We are also proposing to approve revisions to the
NOX reasonable progress determination for Tri-State's Nucla
Station. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before May 29,
2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0015, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA taking?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Colorado SIP
III. Craig Unit 1--NOX BART
A. Background
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
C. The EPA's Evaluation of Craig Unit 1 Amendments
IV. Nucla--NOX Reasonable Progress
A. Background
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
C. The EPA's Evaluation of Nucla Amendments
V. Coordination With FLMs
VI. The EPA's Proposed Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA taking?
On December 31, 2012, the EPA approved a regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on May 25, 2011. The 2011 SIP
revision included NOX BART emission limits for Craig Station
Units 1 and 2 near Craig, Colorado, and a NOX reasonable
progress emission limit for the Nucla Station located in Montrose
County.\1\ The State of Colorado submitted proposed revisions to the
2011 SIP submittal on May 26, 2017, that modify the NOX BART
determination for Craig Unit 1 and the NOX reasonable
progress determination for Nucla. The EPA is now proposing to approve
those revisions. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the
State's revisions to the Craig Unit 1 NOX BART determination
that would require Craig Unit 1 to meet an annual NOX
emission limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by December 31, 2019. The
SIP revision would also require the unit to either (1) convert to
natural gas by August 31, 2023, and if converting to natural gas,
[[Page 18244]]
comply with a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) beginning August 31, 2021, or (2) shut down by
December 31, 2025. The EPA is also proposing to approve the State's
revisions to the Nucla NOX reasonable progress determination
that would require the source to meet an annual NOX emission
limit of 952 tpy by January 1, 2020, and shut down on or before
December 31, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the CAA, added by the 1977 Amendments to the
Act, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the
nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section establishes
``as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of
any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \2\ On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a
single source or small group of sources.\3\ These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. The
EPA deferred action on regional haze, which emanates from a variety of
sources, until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres,
and all international parks that were in existence on August 7,
1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C.
7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\3\ 45 FR 80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
\4\ Regional haze means visibility impairment that is caused by
the emission of air pollutants from numerous anthropogenic sources
located over a wide geographic area. Such sources include, but are
not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources,
and area sources. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999.\5\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze
and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class
I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300-51.309. The EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
\6\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\7\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA;
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ CAA sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a),
7491, and 7492(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs the EPA to require states to
evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility
impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A)
requires states to include in their SIPs such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the
states. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (the ``BART Guidelines'')
to assist states in determining which sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in setting appropriate emission limits for each
covered source.\8\ The process of establishing BART emission
limitations follows three steps: first, identify the sources that meet
the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301;
\9\ second, determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this
description is ``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject
to BART, identify the best available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(7) of the CAA requires that states
consider five factors in making BART determinations: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to
result from the use of such technology. States must address all
visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART
determination process. The most significant visibility-impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and
particulate matter (PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 70 FR 39104; 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
\9\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation before August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or
more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific BART
emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to
BART. In lieu of requiring source-specific BART controls, states have
the flexibility to adopt alternative measures, as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the alternative must be ``better
than BART'').\10\ Once a state has made a BART determination, the BART
controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years after the date of the EPA's
approval of the final SIP.\11\ In addition to what is required by the
RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART emission limitations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
\11\ CAA section 169A(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(4); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv).
\12\ CAA section 110(a), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a); 40 CFR part 51,
subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, each regional haze SIP must
contain measures as necessary to make reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. As part of determining what measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress,
[[Page 18245]]
the SIP must first identify anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment that are to be considered in developing the long-term
strategy for addressing visibility impairment.\13\ States must then
consider the four statutory reasonable progress factors in selecting
control measures for inclusion in the long-term strategy--the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful
life of potentially affected sources.\14\ Finally, the SIP must
establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area within
the State for the plan implementation period (or ``planning period''),
based on the measures included in the long-term strategy.\15\ If an RPG
provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate
needed to attain the national goal by 2064, the SIP must demonstrate,
based on the four reasonable progress factors, why the rate to attain
the national goal by 2064 is not reasonable and the RPG is
reasonable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
\14\ CAA section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
\15\ 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\16\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP revision.\17\ States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days before
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions and 5-year progress reports, and on the implementation
of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2012 Colorado SIP
On December 31, 2012, the EPA approved a regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on May 25, 2011. On February 25,
2013, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and Wild Earth
Guardians (Guardians) filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of the EPA's final approval of the
Colorado regional haze SIP.\18\ Among other things, Guardians and NPCA
challenged the NOX BART limit for Craig Unit 1. Tri-State
and the State of Colorado joined the litigation as intervenors. After
the court consolidated the cases for review, and after several months
of court-supervised mediation, the parties reached a settlement under
which Craig Unit 1 would be subject to a 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOX
limit, consistent with the installation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) controls, by August 31, 2021.\19\ The settlement
further required that the EPA ask the Tenth Circuit to vacate the
previous approval of the Colorado SIP revision relating to Craig Unit 1
and remand the rule to the agency for further action. The court granted
the EPA's request on December 22, 2014, and signed an order ending the
litigation on August 15, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13-9520 (10th Cir.) and
National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, No. 13-9525 (10th
Cir.).
\19\ 79 FR 47636 (August 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the terms of the 2014 settlement, Colorado
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA in 2015 to revise the Craig Unit 1
NOX BART determination, emission limit, and associated
compliance deadline. Specifically, Colorado determined that
NOX BART for Craig Unit 1 was an emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu, which was based on the capabilities of SCR, and established an
associated compliance date of August 31, 2021.
In 2017, Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP revision to the EPA
reassessing the NOX limit for the Craig Unit 1. The
revisions were developed after discussions in 2016 between Tri-State,
Guardians, NPCA, the State of Colorado, and the EPA, and require one of
two possible NOX BART compliance paths for Craig Unit 1 to
either (1) shut down by December 31, 2025, or (2) convert to natural-
gas firing by August 31, 2023. If Craig Unit 1 is converted to natural-
gas firing, the NOX emission limit will be 0.07 lb/MMBtu
after August 31, 2021 (30-day rolling average). If Craig Unit 1 is shut
down, the NOX emission limit will be 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) until December 31, 2025. Colorado withdrew the 2015
SIP revision when it submitted the 2017 SIP revision that is the
subject of this proposed action.
III. Craig Unit 1--NOX BART
A. Background
The 2011 regional haze SIP for Colorado established a
NOX BART emission limit for Craig Units 1 and 2. The Craig
Station is located in Moffat County, approximately 2.5 miles southwest
of the town of Craig. This facility is a coal-fired power plant with a
total net electric generating capacity of 1264 megawatts (MW),
consisting of three units. Units 1 and 2, which are subject to BART,
are dry-bottom pulverized coal-fired boilers, each rated at a net
capacity of 428 MW.
In the 2011 submittal, Colorado determined that selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) was BART for both Unit 1 and Unit 2, based
on the cost-effectiveness and visibility improvement associated with
this level of control. Colorado determined that SCR, a more stringent
control technology, was not BART because its costs were too high.
Colorado also determined that SNCR could achieve an emission limit of
0.27 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) at both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Nevertheless, as a BART alternative, Colorado ultimately adopted a more
stringent emission limit for Unit 2 (0.08 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling
average, based on SCR) and a slightly less stringent limit for Unit 1
(0.28 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average, based on SNCR). The EPA
approved Colorado's BART alternative and NOX BART emission
limits into the SIP on December 31, 2012.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
On May 26, 2017, Colorado submitted a SIP revision containing
amendments to the Colorado Code of Regulations, Regulation Number 3,
Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice
Requirements, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP), Section VI, Regional
Haze Determinations. In assessing BART for Craig Unit 1, Colorado
determined that, under either a 20- or 30-year remaining useful life,
NOX BART would be an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu based
on the installation of SCR.\21\ Colorado
[[Page 18246]]
then reassessed NOX BART for Craig Unit 1 under the two
compliance paths associated with the 2016 settlement discussions: A
shutdown in 2025 or a conversion to natural gas in 2023.\22\ After
completing this reassessment, Colorado established the following
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This limit, consistent with the 2014 settlement, was
contained in the 2015 SIP submission. As noted previously, the State
withdrew that submission when it submitted the 2017 SIP revision,
but the State's justification for the 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOX
BART limit is retained in the 2017 SIP.
\22\ Colorado used the term ``reassessment,'' and we interpret
the term to mean that the state reassessed its previous BART
determination under the differing future factual scenarios to see
whether those facts were outcome determinative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Unit 1 will either (1) close on or before December
31, 2025; or (2) cease burning coal no later than August 31, 2021, with
the option to convert Unit 1 to natural-gas firing by August 31, 2023;
In the case of a conversion to natural-gas firing, a 30-
day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-
day rolling average) will be effective after August 31, 2021;
The owner/operator of Craig Unit 1 will notify the State
in writing on or before February 28, 2021, whether Unit 1 will cease
operation or convert to natural gas;
For both scenarios, Craig Unit 1 will be subject to an
interim NOX emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average), effective January 1, 2017 (first compliance date January 31,
2017), until December 31, 2025 if closing or August 31, 2021 if
converting to natural gas; and
Craig Unit 1 will be subject to an annual NOX
emission limit of 4,065 tpy effective December 31, 2019, which will be
calculated on a calendar year basis beginning in 2020.
The amendments also excepted Craig Unit 1 from complying with the
original SIP effective date of January 30, 2013, and associated
compliance date 5 years later. The Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission adopted the revisions on December 15, 2016 (effective
February 14, 2017).
1. Shutdown
For the shutdown compliance path, the State considered two
amortization periods to reflect the remaining useful life based on two
possible projected compliance dates and the shutdown date of December
31, 2025. The first scenario used an amortization period of 4 years and
4 months, calculated as the difference between a projected compliance
date of August 31, 2021, (which would have been required under the
State's BART determination made in conjunction with the 2014
settlement) and the December 31, 2025 shutdown date. The associated
emissions reductions, annualized cost, and cost-effectiveness values
for SNCR and SCR using the amortization period is shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Craig Station Unit 1 NOX Cost Comparison
[4 years, 4 months of operation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Cost
Control technology reduction Annualized effectiveness
(tpy) cost ($) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNCR............................................................ 779 6,172,522 7,928
SCR............................................................. 4,048 64,106,699 15,835
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second scenario used an amortization period of 8 years, to
reflect the difference between the December 31, 2025 shutdown date and
the December 31, 2017 compliance date that the 2012 SIP revision
approval established.\23\ The associated emissions reductions,
annualized costs, and cost-effectiveness values for SNCR and SCR using
the amortization period of 8 years is shown in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The operation period begins in calendar year 2018 (December
31, 2017). The effective date of the EPA's approval of Colorado's
regional haze SIP was January 30, 2013. As noted previously, the
Tenth Circuit vacated the EPA's approval of the Craig portions of
this SIP on December 22, 2014.
Table 2--Craig Station Unit 1 NOX Cost Comparison
[8 years of operation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Cost
Control technology reduction Annualized effectiveness
(tpy) cost ($) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNCR............................................................ 779 4,755,842 6,109
SCR............................................................. 4,048 41,476,535 10,245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under both amortization scenarios, the remaining useful life of
Craig Unit 1 is shorter than the 20-year amortization period used in
the 2012 BART determination, which increases the annualized costs and
cost-effectiveness values of the control technologies.\24\ Based on
this assessment, the State determined that neither SNCR or SCR is cost-
effective when the remaining useful life is shortened to either 4 years
and 4 months or 8 years, depending on the scenario selected, as a
result of the shutdown of Craig Unit 1 on December 31, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The EPA finalized revisions to the Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual (Chapters 1 and 2), https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution, in May 2016; these revisions change the amortization
period for SCR from 20 years to 30 years. The amortization period
for SNCR remains at 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Natural Gas Conversion
For the natural gas conversion compliance path, Craig Unit 1 will
cease to burn coal by August 31, 2021, with the option to convert to
natural-gas firing by August 31, 2023. A 30-day rolling average
NOX emission limit of no more than 0.07 lb/MMBtu will apply
after August 31, 2021.
C. The EPA's Evaluation of Craig Unit 1 Amendments
We are proposing to approve Colorado's BART reassessment for two
possible compliance scenarios for Craig
[[Page 18247]]
Unit 1: (1) Shutdown or (2) conversion to natural gas.
As a threshold matter, we agree with the State's assessment that an
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu would be NOX BART for Craig
Unit 1 under either a 20- or 30-year remaining useful life. But we also
agree with the State that it is appropriate to reassess the
NOX BART limit under the shutdown and natural gas conversion
scenarios, either of which would considerably shorten the remaining
useful life of the existing coal-fired boiler.
While the RHR does not require states to consider source
retirements or fuel switching (e.g., from coal to gas) as BART options,
states are free to do so.\25\ In other states, we have approved state-
adopted requirements for the shutdown of a source or for switching
fuels, which have usually been negotiated between the source operator
and the state. We also have approved BART determinations that took into
account the resulting shorter remaining useful life of the affected
source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with Colorado's BART reassessment for both the shutdown
and natural gas conversion scenarios. Specifically, we acknowledge and
agree with the assumptions used to calculate the two different
amortization periods for the shutdown scenario. In past SIP actions,
the EPA has measured amortization periods from the projected compliance
date to the date of retirement. In this instance, the compliance date
for SCR is August 31, 2021, which would have been required under the
State's BART determination made in conjunction with the 2014
settlement, resulting in an amortization period of four years and four
months as reflected in Colorado's first amortization period scenario
(Table 1). For SNCR, the projected compliance date would be earlier,
thus resulting in a longer amortization period, albeit one shorter than
8 years; the 8-year amortization period is therefore a conservative
approach that understates the annualized costs of both SCR and SNCR.
When considering the shortened remaining useful life under either
amortization scenario associated with Craig Unit 1 shutting down by
December 31, 2025, the EPA finds Colorado's determination reasonable
that neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective. Therefore, we are proposing
to approve Colorado's NOX BART reassessment that if Craig
Unit 1 shuts down by December 31, 2025, neither SNCR or SCR would be
BART due to the high cost-effectiveness values associated with a
shortened remaining useful life. We are also proposing to approve the
alternative compliance path that allows Craig Unit 1 to convert to
natural-gas firing by August 31, 2023, and cease burning coal by August
31, 2021, with an associated NOX BART emission limit of 0.07
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) on that date, because this emission
limit is equivalent to the one that the State found would be BART under
a 20- or 30-year remaining useful life scenario. Accordingly, natural-
gas firing is another means by which NOX BART can be met for
Craig Unit 1. Finally, we are proposing to approve Colorado's
requirement that an annual NOX limit of 4,065 tpy will be
effective on December 31, 2019, for Craig Unit 1 because this
additional measure would strengthen the SIP as there currently is no
regional haze annual NOX limit for Unit 1.
IV. Nucla--NOX Reasonable Progress
A. Background
The Tri-State Nucla Station is located in Montrose County
approximately 3 miles southeast of the town of Nucla, Colorado. The
Nucla facility consists of one coal-fired steam-driven electric
generating unit, Unit 4, with a rated electric generating capacity of
110 MW (gross).
In 2006, Tri-State installed a small-scale SNCR system on Unit 4
that injects anhydrous ammonia to achieve NOX reductions.
The SNCR system is used when NOX emissions approach 0.4 lb/
MMBtu; rates above this result in mass emissions that approach the
annual permitted NOX limit of 1,987.9 tpy (12-month rolling
average). Although Colorado, in its 2011 submittal, determined that
full-scale SNCR and SCR were technically feasible for reducing
NOX emissions at Nucla Unit 4, the State determined that
neither control technology was necessary for reasonable progress based
on the uncertainty of the control efficiency for SNCR and what Colorado
determined would likely be excessive costs associated with SCR.
Instead, Colorado determined that Nucla Unit 4 should meet an emission
limit of 0.5 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than December 31, 2017, based on
consideration of the four reasonable progress factors. The EPA approved
this emission limit into the SIP on December 31, 2012, as meeting the
relevant regional haze requirements.
B. May 26, 2017 Submittal
The May 26, 2017 submittal includes the following amendments to the
Colorado Code of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements, Part F,
Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and
Reasonable Progress (RP), Section VI, Regional Haze Determinations,
related to Nucla:
Nucla will close on or before December 31, 2022; and
Nucla will be subject to an annual NOX emission
limit of 952 tpy effective January 1, 2020, on a calendar year basis
beginning in 2020.
The amendments also removed Nucla's original compliance date of
December 31, 2017, and the requirement for a proposed compliance
schedule from Nucla due within 60 days after the EPA's approval of the
reasonable progress portion of Colorado's regional haze SIP. The
current NOX emission limit of 0.5 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) is not amended.
C. The EPA's Evaluation of Nucla Amendments
Because the amendments, requiring Nucla to shut down on or before
December 31, 2022, and meet an annual NOX limit of 952 tpy
by January 1, 2020, do not alter the previously approved 0.5 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average) emission limit requirement, the closure of
Nucla achieves greater NOX emission reductions than the
relevant portions of the 2012 SIP, (which did not previously include
any shutdown date). We therefore propose to approve Colorado's revision
related to Nucla.
V. Coordination With FLMs
Class I areas in Colorado are managed by either the U.S. Forest
Service (FS) or the U.S. National Park Service (NPS). As described in
section II.D of this proposed rule, the Regional Haze Rule grants the
FLMs a special role in the review of regional haze SIPs. Under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2), Colorado was obligated to provide the FS and the NPS with
an opportunity for consultation in development of the State's proposed
SIP revisions. Colorado provided the FS and the NPS with access to the
proposed revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F on January 12,
2017.\26\ The FLMs did not provide any comments on the proposed
revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Email between Colorado and NPS, January 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. The EPA's Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve SIP amendments to
Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown in Table 3, submitted by
the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, addressing the NOX
BART and reasonable progress
[[Page 18248]]
requirements for Craig Unit 1 and Nucla, respectively.
Table 3--List of Colorado Amendments That EPA Is Proposing To Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Sections in May 26, 2017 Submittal Proposed for Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table); VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2
(table); VI.B.3; VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the amendments described in section VI. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 16, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-08622 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
