Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 31332-31334 [2018-14387]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31332
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015; FRL–9980–
13—Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Colorado on
May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze.
The revisions include source-specific
revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX)
best available retrofit technology
(BART) determination for Craig Station
Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable
progress determination for the Nucla
Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and
Nucla Station are owned in part and
operated by Tri-State Generation &
Transmission Association, Inc. (TriState). The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on August
6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6252,
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. Background
In our notice of proposed rulemaking
published on April 26, 2018 (83 FR
18243), the EPA proposed to approve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Jul 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
revisions to Colorado Code of
Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part
F, Section VI, submitted by the State of
Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this
rulemaking, we are taking final action to
approve Colorado’s modification of the
NOX BART determination for Craig Unit
1 and the NOX reasonable progress
determination for Nucla. Specifically,
the EPA is approving the revised Craig
Unit 1 NOX BART determination, which
requires Craig Unit 1 to meet an annual
NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per
year (tpy) by December 31, 2019. The
SIP revision also requires the unit to
either (1) convert to natural gas by
August 31, 2023, and if converting to
natural gas, comply with a NOX
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30day rolling average) beginning August
31, 2021, or (2) shut down by December
31, 2025. The EPA is also approving the
State’s revised Nucla NOX reasonable
progress determination, which requires
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. The Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission adopted
the revisions on December 15, 2016
(effective February 14, 2017). The
reasons for our approval are provided in
detail in the proposed rule.
II. Response to Comments
We received five comments during
the public comment period. After
reviewing the comments, the EPA has
determined that four of the comments
are outside the scope of our proposed
action or fail to identify any material
issue necessitating a response. The
remaining comment, submitted by TriState, raised concerns with the proposed
rule regarding the amortization period
and remaining useful life of Craig Unit
1.
Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that
it is important that accurately
representative periods of time be used
in calculating the cost effectiveness of
emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State
asserts that amortization period
calculations of eight years are incorrect.
Instead, an amortization period of four
years for SNCR and two years for SCR
should be used, as these represent the
periods of time following possible EPA
approval of the Colorado SIP and
complete installation of the respective
technology until the closure date on or
before December 31, 2025. The
commenter also appreciates Colorado’s
acknowledgement of differing
methodologies to calculate the
amortization period and recognizes that
a shorter amortization period would not
alter Colorado’s conclusion, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA’s concurrence, that neither SCR or
SNCR is cost-effective.
Response: We agree with Tri-State
that it is important to accurately
represent the amortization period used
to calculate the cost effectiveness of
emission control technologies. In past
actions we have measured the
amortization period as the time period
from the projected compliance date to
the date of retirement. In this case, there
are multiple dates that could potentially
be used, given the EPA’s 2012 approval
of Colorado’s initial BART
determination for Craig Unit 1, the
revised BART determination associated
with the 2014 settlement, and the
updated analysis contained in the 2017
SIP submission. We agree with Colorado
that it is appropriate to use a
compliance date of August 31, 2021, as
the start of the amortization period, as
this is the date by which, as the State
was conducting the BART analysis, SCR
would have had to be installed and
operational. Furthermore, August 31,
2021, is the date on which, under the
natural gas conversion scenario, Craig
Unit 1 must comply with an emission
limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors the
BART determination and compliance
date in the 2014 settlement. We also
agree with Colorado’s decision to
include a second scenario that
conservatively estimates the
amortization period based on the
compliance dates associated with the
State’s original BART determinations.
However, we disagree with the
commenter that it is appropriate to reset
the compliance dates based on the 2017
SIP submission, as this ignores the
State’s existing BART determinations
and requirements that were in place at
the time of the analysis. Finally, we
appreciate the commenter’s bringing to
our attention Colorado’s
acknowledgement of Tri-State’s
alternative amortization period
calculation, and we generally agree
there may be differing methodologies for
calculating the amortization period.
However, and as Tri-State recognizes, a
shorter amortization period would not
alter Colorado’s determination that
neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for
Craig Unit 1.
Comment: Second, Tri-State notes
that the natural gas conversion scenario
would not shorten the remaining useful
life of Craig Unit 1. Specifically, TriState argues that determining BART
while taking into consideration the
remaining useful life of the source does
not include incorporating the type of
fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks
a basis to determine that the natural gas
conversion scenario would shorten the
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
‘‘remaining useful life of the existing
coal-fired boiler.’’ 1
Response: We thank the commenter
for bringing this distinction to our
attention and agree with the
commenter’s perspective that converting
Craig Unit 1 to natural gas does not in
itself shorten the remaining useful life
of the source. Our intent was to agree
with Colorado’s assertion that it is
appropriate to reassess the NOX BART
limit under the remaining period that
Craig Unit 1 will be burning coal.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
III. Final Action
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
For the reasons expressed in the
this action:
proposed rule, the EPA is approving
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part
action’’ subject to review by the Office
F, Section VI, shown in Table 1
of Management and Budget under
submitted by the State of Colorado on
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
May 26, 2017, addressing the NOX
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
BART and reasonable progress
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
requirements for Craig Unit 1 and
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
Nucla, respectively.
action because SIP approvals are
TABLE 1—LIST OF COLORADO AMEND- exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
MENTS THAT THE EPA IS APPROVcollection burden under the provisions
ING
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Amended sections in May 26, 2017 submittal
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table);
substantial number of small entities
VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2 (table); VI.B.3;
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
IV. Incorporation by Reference
mandate or significantly or uniquely
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
affect small governments, described in
regulatory text that includes
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104–4);
incorporation by reference. In
• Does not have Federalism
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
implications as specified in Executive
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
incorporation by reference of the
Colorado Code of Regulations described 1999);
• Is not an economically significant
in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR
regulatory action based on health or
part 52. The EPA has made, and will
safety risks subject to Executive Order
continue to make, these materials
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
generally available through
• Is not a significant regulatory action
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
Region 8 Office (please contact the
28355, May 22, 2001);
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
• Is not subject to requirements of
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
section 12(d) of the National
preamble for more information).
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Therefore, these materials have been
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
approved by the EPA for inclusion in
application of those requirements would
the SIP, have been incorporated by
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
reference by the EPA into that plan, are
• Does not provide EPA with the
fully federally enforceable under
discretionary authority to address, as
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
appropriate, disproportionate human
the effective date of the final rulemaking health or environmental effects, using
of the EPA’s approval, and will be
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
incorporated by reference in the next
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
update to the SIP compilation.2
In addition, the SIP is not approved to
1 81 FR 18247 (April 26, 2018).
apply on any Indian reservation land or
2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
in any other area where EPA or an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Jul 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31333
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).
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House
of Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. This action
is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 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 September 4,
2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action 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,
Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 28, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G—Colorado
2. Section 52.320 paragraph (c) is
amended by revising table entry for VI.
under the centered heading ‘‘5 CCR
1001–05, Regulation Number 3, Part F,
Regional Haze Limits—Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) and
Reasonable Progress (RP).’’
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 52.320
*
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
*
Identification of plan.
*
05JYR1
*
*
31334
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(c) * * *
State effective
date
Title
*
*
*
EPA effective
date
Final rule citation/date
*
*
Comments
*
*
5 CCR 1001–05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits—Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable
Progress (RP)
VI. Regional Haze Determinations ............................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–14387 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0223; FRL–9980–
48—Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; California; Eastern
Kern Air Pollution Control District;
Reclassification
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is granting a request by the State of
California to reclassify the Eastern Kern
County (‘‘Eastern Kern’’) nonattainment
area from ‘‘Moderate’’ to ‘‘Serious’’ for
the 2008 ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). In
connection with the reclassification, the
EPA is establishing a deadline of no
later than 12 months from the effective
date of reclassification for submittal of
revisions to the Eastern Kern portion of
the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to meet certain additional
requirements for Serious ozone
nonattainment areas. The EPA has
already received SIP revision submittals
addressing most of the additional SIP
requirements.
DATES: This rule is effective on August
6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0223. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Jul 03, 2018
2/14/2017
Jkt 244001
8/6/2018
[Insert Federal Register
citation], 7/5/2018.
*
*
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22235), the
EPA proposed to grant a request by the
State of California to reclassify the
Eastern Kern nonattainment area from
Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Our May 14, 2018 proposed
rule provides: Background information
concerning the Clean Air Act (CAA); the
EPA’s promulgation of the NAAQS; SIPs
to implement, maintain, and enforce the
NAAQS within each state; ozone and its
precursors (volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX));
the 2008 ozone NAAQS; area
designations, classifications and
reclassifications for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS; and SIP revisions required to
address CAA ozone nonattainment area
plan requirements based on
classification.
Our proposed rule also describes the
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB)
request for reclassification of the Eastern
Kern 2008 ozone nonattainment area
from Moderate to Serious, our
evaluation of the request, and the basis
for our proposed approval of the
request. Lastly, our proposed rule
describes the SIP revisions that CARB
has already submitted to the EPA for the
Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
and finds that all the SIP elements that
apply to Eastern Kern as a Serious ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS have been addressed except for
new source review (NSR) and
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for major sources of NOX.
Today, we are taking final action to
grant CARB’s reclassification request for
the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment
area and to establish a 12-month
deadline (from the effective date of this
final rule) for submittal of the two
remaining SIP elements for this area.
Please see our May 14, 2018 proposed
rule for further detail concerning these
topics.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received four comments
that were submitted anonymously. The
commenters raised issues that are
outside of the scope of this rulemaking,
including foreign policy, wildfire
suppression, dams, wind turbines, air
quality in China and India, water
quality in China, and climate change.
The comment letters are available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
III. EPA Action
Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3)
and 40 CFR 51.1103(b), the EPA is
granting a request by the State of
California to reclassify the Eastern Kern
nonattainment area from Moderate to
Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In
connection with the reclassification, the
EPA is establishing a deadline of no
later than 12 months from the effective
date of reclassification for submittal of
the two remaining SIP elements (i.e.,
NSR and RACT for major sources of
NOX) for Serious ozone nonattainment
areas that have not already been
submitted for the Eastern Kern ozone
nonattainment area.1
1 Upon the effective date of reclassification, we
note that certain regulatory changes would occur
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31332-31334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14387]
[[Page 31332]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015; FRL-9980-13--Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado
on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The revisions include
source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) best
available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Craig Station
Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable progress determination for
the Nucla Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and Nucla Station are
owned in part and operated by Tri-State Generation & Transmission
Association, Inc. (Tri-State). The EPA is taking this action pursuant
to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 26, 2018
(83 FR 18243), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Colorado Code
of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, submitted by
the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this rulemaking, we are
taking final action to approve Colorado's modification of the
NOX BART determination for Craig Unit 1 and the
NOX reasonable progress determination for Nucla.
Specifically, the EPA is approving the revised Craig Unit 1
NOX BART determination, which requires Craig Unit 1 to meet
an annual NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by
December 31, 2019. The SIP revision also requires the unit to either
(1) convert to natural gas by August 31, 2023, and if converting to
natural gas, 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 approving the State's
revised Nucla NOX reasonable progress determination, which
requires 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. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the revisions
on December 15, 2016 (effective February 14, 2017). The reasons for our
approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.
II. Response to Comments
We received five comments during the public comment period. After
reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that four of the
comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to
identify any material issue necessitating a response. The remaining
comment, submitted by Tri-State, raised concerns with the proposed rule
regarding the amortization period and remaining useful life of Craig
Unit 1.
Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that it is important that
accurately representative periods of time be used in calculating the
cost effectiveness of emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State
asserts that amortization period calculations of eight years are
incorrect. Instead, an amortization period of four years for SNCR and
two years for SCR should be used, as these represent the periods of
time following possible EPA approval of the Colorado SIP and complete
installation of the respective technology until the closure date on or
before December 31, 2025. The commenter also appreciates Colorado's
acknowledgement of differing methodologies to calculate the
amortization period and recognizes that a shorter amortization period
would not alter Colorado's conclusion, and the EPA's concurrence, that
neither SCR or SNCR is cost-effective.
Response: We agree with Tri-State that it is important to
accurately represent the amortization period used to calculate the cost
effectiveness of emission control technologies. In past actions we have
measured the amortization period as the time period from the projected
compliance date to the date of retirement. In this case, there are
multiple dates that could potentially be used, given the EPA's 2012
approval of Colorado's initial BART determination for Craig Unit 1, the
revised BART determination associated with the 2014 settlement, and the
updated analysis contained in the 2017 SIP submission. We agree with
Colorado that it is appropriate to use a compliance date of August 31,
2021, as the start of the amortization period, as this is the date by
which, as the State was conducting the BART analysis, SCR would have
had to be installed and operational. Furthermore, August 31, 2021, is
the date on which, under the natural gas conversion scenario, Craig
Unit 1 must comply with an emission limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors
the BART determination and compliance date in the 2014 settlement. We
also agree with Colorado's decision to include a second scenario that
conservatively estimates the amortization period based on the
compliance dates associated with the State's original BART
determinations. However, we disagree with the commenter that it is
appropriate to reset the compliance dates based on the 2017 SIP
submission, as this ignores the State's existing BART determinations
and requirements that were in place at the time of the analysis.
Finally, we appreciate the commenter's bringing to our attention
Colorado's acknowledgement of Tri-State's alternative amortization
period calculation, and we generally agree there may be differing
methodologies for calculating the amortization period. However, and as
Tri-State recognizes, a shorter amortization period would not alter
Colorado's determination that neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for
Craig Unit 1.
Comment: Second, Tri-State notes that the natural gas conversion
scenario would not shorten the remaining useful life of Craig Unit 1.
Specifically, Tri-State argues that determining BART while taking into
consideration the remaining useful life of the source does not include
incorporating the type of fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks a
basis to determine that the natural gas conversion scenario would
shorten the
[[Page 31333]]
``remaining useful life of the existing coal-fired boiler.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 81 FR 18247 (April 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We thank the commenter for bringing this distinction to
our attention and agree with the commenter's perspective that
converting Craig Unit 1 to natural gas does not in itself shorten the
remaining useful life of the source. Our intent was to agree with
Colorado's assertion that it is appropriate to reassess the
NOX BART limit under the remaining period that Craig Unit 1
will be burning coal.
III. Final Action
For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is
approving revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown
in Table 1 submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017,
addressing the NOX BART and reasonable progress requirements
for Craig Unit 1 and Nucla, respectively.
Table 1--List of Colorado Amendments That the EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended sections in May 26, 2017 submittal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Colorado Code of Regulations described in the amendments set forth to
40 CFR part 52. 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). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 CAA; and
Does not provide 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 approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where 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).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 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 September 4, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 28, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.320 paragraph (c) is amended by revising table entry for
VI. under the centered heading ``5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3,
Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
and Reasonable Progress (RP).''
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
[[Page 31334]]
(c) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA effective
Title effective date date Final rule citation/date Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regional Haze Determinations.... 2/14/2017 8/6/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/5/ ........................................
2018.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-14387 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
