Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21453 

of CAA Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

relevant to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The State’s 1997 Ozone 

Infrastructure SIP is approved with 

respect to the requirements of the 

following elements of section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2012–8350 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003, FRL– 

9616–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Colorado; Revisions to New Source 

Review Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving those 

revisions adopted by the State of 

Colorado on April 16, 2004 to 

Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source 

Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission 

Notice Requirements) that incorporate 

EPA’s December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. 

Colorado submitted the request for 

approval of these rule revisions into the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) on July 

11, 2005 and supplemented its request 

on October 25, 2005. EPA is approving 

only the portions of Colorado’s revisions 

to Regulation Number 3 that relate to 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and non-attainment 

new source review (NSR) construction 

permit programs of the State of 

Colorado. Other revisions, 

renumberings, additions, or deletions to 

Regulation No. 3 made by Colorado as 

part of the April 16, 2004 final 

rulemaking are being acted on by EPA 

in a separate final action related to 

Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP (see 

proposed action at 76 FR 21835, April 

19, 2011). Colorado has a federally 

approved NSR program for new and 

modified sources impacting attainment 

and non-attainment areas in the State. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective May 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2005–CO–0003. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Jackson, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6107, 

jackson.scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for This Action 

A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP does 

this action address? 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Colorado 

mean the State of Colorado, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

I. Background for This Action 

On December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72744), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Colorado. The NPR proposed approval 

of portions of Colorado’s revisions to the 

Stationary Source Permitting and Air 

Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements 

(Regulation No. 3) that incorporate 

EPA’s December 31, 2002 NSR Reforms. 

The State of Colorado submitted the 

formal SIP revision on July 11, 2005 

followed by a supplemental submittal 

on October 25, 2005. This final action 

updates the federally approved SIP to 

reflect changes made by Colorado that 

were reviewed and deemed approvable 

into the Colorado SIP (Code of Federal 

Regulations part 52, subpart G). 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published revisions to the federal PSD 

and non-attainment NSR regulations. 

These revisions are commonly referred 

to as ‘‘NSR Reform’’ regulations and 

became effective nationally in areas not 

covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. 

These regulatory revisions included 

provisions for baseline emissions 

determinations, actual-to-future actual 

methodology, plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution 

control projects (PCPs). On November 7, 

2003, EPA published a reconsideration 

of the NSR Reform regulations that 

clarified two provisions in the 

regulations. On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit issued its 

ruling on challenges to the December 

2002 NSR Reform revisions. Although 

the Court upheld most of EPA’s rules, it 

vacated both the Clean Unit and the 

Pollution Control Project provisions and 

remanded back to EPA the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ standard for when a source 

must keep certain project related 

records. 

Colorado’s July 11, 2005 submittal 

and October 25, 2005 supplemental 

submittal request approval for its 

regulations to implement the NSR 

Reform provisions that were not vacated 

or remanded by the June 24, 2005, court 

decision. 

A. What revisions to the Colorado SIP 

does this action address? 

EPA is approving those revisions 

adopted by Colorado on April 16, 2004 

to Regulation No. 3 (Stationary Source 

Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission 

Notice Requirements) that incorporate 

EPA’s December 30, 2002 NSR Reforms 

(with the exceptions noted in the table 

below). EPA is also approving revisions 

Colorado made to Regulation No. 3 prior 

to the April 16, 2004 final rulemaking 

that incorporate the revisions EPA made 

to the federal NSR rules on July 21, 1992 

(with the exceptions noted in the table 

below). These revisions are referred to 

as the WEPCO rule (for the Wisconsin 

Electric Power Company court ruling) 

and added definitions and provisions 

that have been incorporated into the 

April 16, 2004 version of Regulation No. 

3. 

In addition to incorporating the NSR 

Reforms into the April 16, 2004 

Regulation No. 3 revision, Colorado also 

restructured Regulation No. 3, including 

adding a new Part D titled Concerning 

Major Stationary Source New Source 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. The new Part D contains 

most of the NSR/PSD definitions, 

provisions, and sections that were 

revised or newly created by the NSR 

Reform rule. In addition, numerous 

Regulation No. 3 Part A and Part B NSR/ 

PSD definitions, provisions, and 

sections not revised by the NSR Reform 

rule, but already approved into the SIP, 

have been moved into the new Part D. 

EPA is approving the revisions to 

Regulation No. 3 creating the new Part 

D with the exceptions noted in the table 

below. 

The revisions adopted by Colorado on 

April 16, 2004 have structured 

Regulation No. 3 as follows: Part A now 

contains general provisions applicable 

to reporting and permitting, Part B 

addresses construction permits; Part C 

(not a part of the SIP) includes the 

operating permit program; and Part D 

deals with the Nonattainment NSR and 

PSD programs for major stationary 

sources. Minor sources will only be 

subject to Parts A and B; major sources 

(as defined for the Operating Permit 

program) are governed by Parts A, B and 

C. Major stationary sources must 

comply with Parts A, B, C and D. In 

particular, this reorganization separated 

the major stationary source NSR 

provisions from the construction permit 

requirements applicable to all sources. 

Part A Changes. EPA is approving 

changes Colorado made to Part A where 

the NSR Reform rule added or changed 

specific language used in this Part (as 

specified in the table below). In 

addition, EPA is approving changes 

Colorado made in Part A that moved the 

provisions applying to major NSR to 

Part D (as specified in the table below). 

EPA is not taking action, in this 

document, on any other revisions, 

renumberings, additions, or deletions to 

Part A made by Colorado as part of the 

April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. 

These other changes are being acted on 

by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP 

(see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, 

April 19, 2011) and are noted in the 

table below. 

Part B Changes. EPA is approving 

only the NSR Reform rule conforming 

changes Colorado made in Part B, which 

moved the provisions applying to major 

NSR to Part D (as specified in the table 

below). In this document, EPA is not 

taking action on any other revisions, 

renumberings, additions, or deletions to 

Part B made by Colorado as part of the 

April 16, 2004 final rulemaking action. 

These other changes are being acted on 

by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s Interstate Transport SIP 

(see proposed action at 76 FR 21835, 

April 19, 2011) and are noted in the 

table below. 

Part D Changes. Colorado created 

Regulation No. 3 Part D in order to make 

Colorado’s air quality program 

consistent with the EPA NSR Reform 

rules. The references to NSR 

requirements in Part D include both the 

nonattainment NSR and PSD programs. 

EPA is approving the new Part D except 

for the specific provisions noted in the 

table below. 

The following table specifies 

provisions of Regulation No. 3 that 

Colorado revised/renumbered or newly 

added in order to incorporate EPA’s 

NSR Reform and WEPCO rules and to 

create a separate NSR/PSD major 

stationary source part (Part D). In 

addition, some of the provisions that 

were proposed for approval in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking that EPA 

published on December 7, 2005 are 

being acted on by EPA in a separate 

final action related to Colorado’s 

Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed 

action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011) 

and are noted in the table below. 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

A–I.B.1 ................................ D–II.A.1 ...................... Actual emissions definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(21), 

51.165(a)(1)(xii).

Note the reference in this 

definition to ‘‘I.B.1.a’’ 

should be to ‘‘II.A.1.a.’’ 

and Colorado will correct 

this reference in a future 

revision of Regulation 

No. 3.

EPA is approving this definition.

See footnote 1. 

Partially Approved * * * 

With respect to the renumbering and the modification of the provision to 

the extent that the term 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ replaces ‘‘air pollutant regulated under the 

Federal Act’’ but no other 

modification of the provision. 

A–I.B.7 ................................ D–II.A.3 ...................... Air Quality Related 

Value definition.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.8 ................................ A–I.B.7 ....................... Allowable Emissions 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(16), 

51.165(a)(1)(xi).

Colorado added ‘‘enforceable as a practical matter’’ and moved ‘‘future 

compliance date’’ phrase 

to this definition.

EPA is approving this definition.

See footnotes 1 and 2. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

A–I.B.10 .............................. D–II.A.5 ...................... Baseline Area definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(15) ...................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.11 .............................. D–II.A.6 ...................... Baseline Concentration definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(13) ...................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.12 .............................. D–II.A.8 ...................... Best Available Control 

Technology definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(12), 

51.165(a)(1)(xl).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21455 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

A–I.B.15 .............................. D–II.A.12 .................... Complete definition 

(for PSD/NSR purposes).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(22) ...................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Note the reference in 

II.A.12.a.(vii) of this definition to ‘‘III.G.4. of Part 

B’’ is not in the current 

codified SIP.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.21 .............................. D–II.A.16 .................... Federal Land Manager definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(24), 

51.165(a)(1)(xlii).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.31 .............................. D–II.A.19 .................... Innovative Control 

Technology definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(19) ...................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.32 .............................. D–II.A.21 .................... Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(52), 

51.165(a)(1)(xiii).

EPA is approving the language change.

See footnote 1. 

Partially approved * * * 

Only approved renumbering. NSR NFR will approve the language 

change. 

A–I.B.33 .............................. D–II.A.24 .................... Major Source Baseline Date definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(14)(i) ................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.34 .............................. D–II.A.26 .................... Minor Source Baseline Date definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(14)(ii) .................. Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.35.b ........................... D–II.A.23. (except 

II.A.23.d(iii), (viii), 

(x), (xi), and (e)— 

see below).

Major Modification 

definition.

Yes, except as noted 

below.

51.166(b)(2), 

51.165(a)(1)(v).

EPA is approving portions 

of D–II.23 not acted on 

by EPA in a separate 

final action related to 

Colorado’s Interstate 

Transport SIP.

Note that the provision in 

II.A.23.e that references 

‘‘section II.A.2’’ should 

reference ‘‘II.A.31’’ and 

Colorado will correct this 

reference in a future revision of Regulation 3.

See Footnotes 1 and 2. 

Partially Approved * * * 

With respect to the renumbering and the modification of the provision to 

the extent that the term 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ replaces ‘‘air pollutant regulated under the 

Federal Act’’ but no other 

modification of the provision. 

EPA is approving the renumbering of all of II.23 

(except sections D– 

II.A.23.d.(viii), (x), and 

(xi)), and, in II.A.23, prior 

to subsection II.A.23.a, 

the replacement of the 

term ‘‘air pollutant subject 

to regulation under the 

Federal Act or the State 

Act’’ with the term ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ 

Note that the provision in 

II.A.23.e that references 

‘‘section II.A.2’’ should 

reference ‘‘II.A.31’’ and 

Colorado will correct this 

reference in a future revision of Regulation 3. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d.(iii) ........... Use of an alternative 

fuel at a steam generating unit (part of 

Major Mod definition).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(d), 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(4)(iv).

EPA is approving this definition.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d(viii) .......... Addition replacement 

or use of a PCP 

* * * (part of Major 

Modification definition).

No .............................. 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(h), 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8).

EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d(x) ............ The installation or operation of a permanent clean coal 

technology demonstration project 

that constitutes 

repowering * * * 

(part of Major Modification definition).

Yes, as noted ............ 51.166(b)(2)(j) ..................... EPA is approving this definition as clarified.

See footnote 3. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

our action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.d(xi) ............ The reactivation of a 

very clean coal fired 

electric utility steam 

generating unit. 

(part of Major Modification definition).

Yes, as noted ............ 51.166(b)(2)(k) .................... EPA is approving this definition as clarified.

See footnote 3. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

our action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.23.e ................. This definition shall 

not apply * * * for 

a PAL (part of 

Major Mod definition).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(2)(iv), 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(D).

EPA is approving this definition.

Note that the reference in 

this definition should be 

to II.A.31 not II.A.2., and 

Colorado will correct this 

reference in a future revision of Regulation 3.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

A–I.B.36 .............................. D–II.A.27. (except 

II.A.27.c.(iv) and 

II.A.27.g.(v)).

Net Emissions Increase definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(3), 

51.165(a)(1)(vi).

Colorado has added additional language at 

II.A.27.c.(iii), and 

II.A.27.g.(i).

EPA is approving this definition.

Note that provision 

II.A.27.a.(i) references 

‘‘I.A.4.’’ However, there is 

no I.A.4.and this reference will be deleted by 

Colorado.

See footnote 1 & 2. 

Partially Approved * * * 

With respect to the renumbering and the modification of the provision to 

the extent that the term 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ replaces ‘‘air pollutant regulated under the 

Federal Act’’ but no other 

modification of the provision. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.27.c.(iv) ........... Net emissions increase at a clean 

unit (part of Net 

Emissions Increase 

definition).

No .............................. 51.166(b)(3)(iii)(c), 

51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3).

EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not Taking Action on this 

part of the definition at 

this time. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.27.g.(v) ........... Net emissions increase at a clean 

unit and pollution 

control project (part 

of Net Emissions 

Increase definition).

No .............................. 51.166(b)(3)(vi)(d), 

51.165(a)(1)(vi)(E)(5).

EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not Taking Action on this 

part of the definition at 

this time. 

A–I.B.44 .............................. A–I.B.35 ..................... Potential to Emit definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(4), 

51.165(a)(1)(iii).

EPA is approving this definition.

See footnote 2. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

A–I.B.55 .............................. D–II.A.43 .................... Secondary Emissions 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166.(b)(18), 

51.165(a)(1)(viii).

EPA is approving the language change for this 

definition.

See footnote 1. 

Partially approved * * * 

Only approved renumbering. NSR NFR will approve the language 

change. 

A–I.B.57 .............................. D–II.A.44 .................... Significant definition .. No, see comment ...... 51.166.(b)(23),

51.165(a)(1)(x).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

Note: our approval of the 

8/1/07 submission modifies this definition. 

A–I.B.58. Major Stationary 

Source.

D–II.A.25 .................... Major Stationary 

Source definition 

(introductory).

Yes, except as noted 

below.

51.166(b)(1)(i), 

51.165(a)(1)(iv).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. D– 

II.A.25.b was not approved.

Partially approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. D– 

II.A.25.b was not approved. 

A–I.B.58.a ........................... D–II.A.25.b ................. For the purpose of 

determining whether a source in a 

nonattainment area 

is subject * * * 

(part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes, as noted ............ 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) .......... EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 4. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

A–I.B.58.b ........................... D–II.A.25.a ................. For the purpose of 

determining whether a source in an 

attainment or 

unclassifiable area 

(part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a) ................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21457 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

A–I.B.58.c ........................... D–II.A.25.c ................. Major stationary 

source includes any 

physical change 

that would occur at 

a stationary source 

(part of Major Stationary Source definition).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(i)(c), 

51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(2).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.58.d ........................... D–II.A.25.d ................. A major stationary 

source that is major 

for volatile organic 

compounds shall be 

considered major 

* * * (part of Major 

Stationary Source 

definition).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(ii), 

51.165(a)(1)(iv)(B).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

Note: our approval of the 

8/1/07 submission modifies this definition. 

A–I.B.58.f ............................ D–II.A.25.e ................. The fugitive emissions 

of a stationary 

source shall not be 

included * * * (part 

of Major Stationary 

Source definition).

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(1)(iii), 

51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

A–I.B.58.e ........................... D–II.A.25.f .................. Emissions caused by 

indirect air pollution 

sources (part of 

Major Stationary 

Source definition).

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

The reference in this definition to ‘‘I.B.22. of Part A’’ 

is at A–I.B.58. in the current codified SIP. 

A–I.B.58.g ........................... D–II.A.25.g ................. A major stationary 

source in the Denver Metro PM10

* * * (part of Major 

Stationary Source 

definition).

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Action taken by interstate 

transport SIP. See next 

column.

Not taking action EPA is 

not acting on this definition in this action. This 

definition was not included in Colorado’s October 25, 2005 submission of Regulation No. 3, 

and was therefore proposed for approval erroneously in EPA’s December 7, 2005 proposed approval. 

N/A ...................................... D–III ........................... Permit Review Procedures.Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved. 

N/A ...................................... D–III.A ........................ Major Stationary 

Sources must apply 

for CP or OP.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved. 

B–IV.B.5 .............................. D–III.B ........................ Process PSD applications w/in 12 

months.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

N/A ...................................... D–IV ........................... Public Comment Requirements.Yes ............................ 51.166(q) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved. 

N/A ...................................... D–IV.A ....................... Public Notice ............. Yes ............................ 51.166(q) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved. 

Copied from Part B, IV.C.4. 

of current codified SIP. 

The reference in D–IV.A. to 

‘‘III.C.3. of Part B’’ is at 

B–IV.C.3. in the current 

codified SIP. 

B–IV.C.4.—from ‘‘For 

sources subject to the 

provisions of section 

IV.D.3.’’ to ‘‘The newspaper notice‘‘.

D–IV.A.1 .................... Public notice of NSR 

and PSD permit applications.

Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(ii) and (iv) ........... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.C.4.f ........................... D–IV.A.2 .................... Additionally, for permit 

applications (request comment on).

Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(iii) ....................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.C.5 ............................. D–IV.A.3 .................... Within 15 days after 

prepare PA.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.C.6 ............................. D–IV.A.4 .................... Hearing request for 

innovative control.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.C.7 ............................. D–IV.A.5 .................... Hearing request transmitted to commission.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

B–IV.C.8 ............................. D–IV.A.6 .................... Commission shall 

hold public comment hearing.

Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(v) ........................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.C.9 ............................. D–IV.A.7 .................... 15 days after division 

makes final decision on application.

Yes ............................ 51.166(q)(viii) ...................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2 ............................. D–V ............................ Requirements Applicable to Non-attainment Areas.

(Introductory). 

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.a .......................... D–V.A ........................ Major Stationary 

Sources.

Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.A .......... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

The reference in D–V.A. to 

‘‘III.D.1. of Part B’’ is at 

B–IV.D.1. in the current 

codified SIP. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(i) through (iii) ... D–V.A.1. through 3 .... Major Stationary 

Sources.

Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.A. Conditions 1–4.Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(iii)(C) 2nd par .. D–V.A.3.d .................. With respect to offsets 

from outside nonattainment area.

Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.D .......... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(iv) .................... D–V.A.4 ..................... The permit application 

shall include an 

analysis of alternative sites.

Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.D .......... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(v) ..................... D–V.A.5 ..................... Offsets for which 

emission reduction 

credit is taken.

Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.V.A ........... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.a.(vi) .................... D–V.A.6 ..................... The applicant will 

demonstrate that 

emissions from the 

proposed source 

will not adversely 

impact visibility.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.b .......................... D–V.A.7 ..................... Applicability of Certain 

Nonattainment Area 

Requirements.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.b.(i) ...................... D–V.A.7.a .................. Any major stationary 

source in a nonattainment area.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.2.b.(ii) ..................... D–V.A.7.b .................. The requirements of 

section V.A. shall 

apply at such time 

that any stationary 

source.

Yes ............................ 51.165(a)(5)(ii) .................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

N/A ...................................... D–V.A.7.c .................. The following provisions apply to 

projects at existing 

emissions units 

* * * (‘‘Reasonable 

possibility’’ provisions in nonattainment areas) (part of 

Applicability of Certain Nonattainment 

Area Requirements).

Yes, except as noted 

in comment section.

51.165(a)(6) ........................ EPA is approving this provision, with the exception 

of the phrases ‘‘a Clean 

Unit or at,’’ ‘‘a reasonable 

possibility that’’ and ‘‘may 

result in a significant 

emissions increase,’’ 

which EPA considers as 

withdrawn by the State.

See footnote 1, 5, and 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–V.A.7.d .................. documents available 

for review upon request (part of Applicability of Certain 

Nonattainment Area 

Requirements).

Yes ............................ 51.165(a)(7) ........................ EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

B–IV.D.2.c. (and subsections).D–V.A.8 ..................... Exemptions from Certain Nonattainment 

Area Requirements.

Yes ............................ 51.165, Appx. S.IV.B .......... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21459 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

B–IV.D.3 ............................. D–VI ........................... Requirements Applicable to Attainment 

Areas.

(Introductory). 

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.a. (and subsections not listed below).D–VI.A ....................... Major Stationary 

Sources and Major 

Modifications.

Yes ............................ 51.166(j) ............................. Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

The reference in D–VI.A. to 

‘‘III.D.1. of Part B’’ is at 

B–IV.D.1. in the current 

codified SIP. 

B–IV.D.3.a.(i)(C) ................. D–VI.A.1.c ................. For phased construction.Yes ............................ 51.166(j)(4) ......................... EPA is approving the language change for this 

definition.

See footnote 1 and 2. 

Partially approved * * * 

Only approved renumbering. NSR NFR will approve the language 

change. 

B–IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D) ................ D–VI.A.3.d ................. In general, the continuous air monitoring 

data.

Yes ............................ 51.166(m)(1)(iv) .................. Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.a.(iii)(D) ................ D–VI.A.4 .................... Post-construction 

monitoring.

Yes ............................ 51.166(m)(2) ....................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

Colorado has revised this 

provision to make post 

construction monitoring at 

the director’s discretion 

as allowed by 

51.166(m)(2). 

B–IV.D.3.b .......................... D–VI.B ....................... Applicability of Certain 

PSD Requirements.

Yes ............................ NA ....................................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(i) ...................... D–VI.B.1 .................... The requirements of 

section VI.A. do not 

apply.

Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(1) and (2) ............ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(ii) ..................... D–VI.B.2 .................... The requirements 

contained in sections VI.A.2. 

through VI.A.4.

Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(3) and (4) ............ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(iii) ..................... D–VI.B.3. (including 

D–VI.B.3.b., c., and 

d.).

The division may exempt a proposed 

major stationary 

source or major 

modification from 

the requirements of 

sections VI.A.3. 

through VI.A.5. of 

this Part, with respect to monitoring 

for a particular pollutant if: * * *.

Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(5) ......................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

Colorado has reworded D– 

VI.B.3. and deleted unnecessary language. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(iii)(A)(1)–(12) ... D–VI.B.3.a.(i)–(ix) ...... deleted Mercury, Beryllium, Vinyl chloride.

Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(5)(i) ...................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(iv) .................... D–VI.B.4 .................... The requirements of 

this Part D shall 

apply.

Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(6) ......................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

N/A ...................................... D–VI.B.5 .................... The following provisions apply to 

projects at existing 

emissions units 

(‘‘Reasonable possibility’’ provisions 

PSD) (part of Applicability of Certain 

PSD Requirements).

Yes, except as noted 

in comment section.

51.166(r)(6) ......................... EPA is approving this provision, with the exception 

of the phrases ‘‘a Clean 

Unit or at,’’ ‘‘a reasonable 

possibility that’’ and ‘‘may 

result in a significant 

emissions increase,’’ 

which EPA considers as 

withdrawn by the State.

See footnotes 1, 5, and 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

N/A ...................................... D–VI.B.6 .................... documents available 

for review upon request (part of Applicability of Certain 

PSD Requirements).

Yes ............................ 51.166(r)(7) ......................... EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

B–IV.D.3.b.(v) ..................... D–VI.B.7 .................... A stationary source or 

modification may 

apply.

Yes ............................ 51.166(i)(9) ......................... Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.c ........................... D–VI.C ....................... Notice to EPA ............ Yes ............................ 51.166(p)(1) ........................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IV.D.3.d .......................... D–VI.D ....................... Major Stationary 

Sources in attainment areas affecting nonattainment 

area.

Yes ............................ 51.165(b) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made 

The reference in D–VI.D. to 

‘‘III.D.1. of Part B’’ is at 

B–IV.D.1. in the current 

codified SIP. 

B–IV.D.4 ............................. D–VII .......................... Negligibly Reactive 

VOCs.

Yes ............................ 51.100(s) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–V ..................................... D–VIII ......................... Area Classifications ... Yes, with the exception of D–VIII.B.51.166(e) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

EPA is approving this provision with the exception of 

D–VIII.B. 

N/A ...................................... D–VIII.B ..................... All other areas of Colorado, * * * (part of 

Area Classifications).

No .............................. NA ....................................... EPA considers this provision as withdrawn.

See FR Notice of 3/25/98 

(63 FR 14357).

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

B–VI .................................... D–IX ........................... Redesignation ............ Yes ............................ 51.166(e) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–VII ................................... D–X ............................ Air Quality Limitations Yes, with the exception of D–X.A.5.51.166(c) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

EPA is approving this provision with the exception of 

D–X.A.5. 

N/A ...................................... D–X.A.5 ..................... Increment Consumption Restriction (part 

of Air Quality Limitations).

No .............................. NA ....................................... EPA considers this provision as withdrawn.

See FR Notice of 3/25/98 

(63 FR 14357).

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

B–VIII .................................. D–XI ........................... Exclusions from Increment Consumption.Yes ............................ 51.166(f) ............................. Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–IX .................................... D–XII .......................... Innovative Control 

Technology.

Yes ............................ 51.166(s) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

B–X ..................................... D–XIII ......................... Federal Class I Areas Yes ............................ 51.166(p) ............................ Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved * * * Because the provision has 

only been renumbered 

and no substantive 

changes were made. 

The reference in D–XIII.C. 

to ‘‘III.B. of Part B’’ is at 

B–IV.B. in the current 

codified SIP. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21461 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

B–XI .................................... D–XIV ........................ Visibility ...................... No .............................. NA ....................................... EPA previously acted on 

this provision in a separate action.

See FR Notice of 11/2/06 

(71 FR 64466).

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... A–I.B.13 ..................... CEMS definition ......... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(43), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... A–I.B.14 ..................... CERMS definition ...... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(46), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxiv).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... A–I.B.15 ..................... CPMS definition ......... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(45), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxiii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... A–I.B.33 ..................... Pollution Prevention 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(38), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxvi).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... A–I.B.36 ..................... PEMS definition ......... Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(44), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–I.A .......................... General Applicability 

(Introductory).

Yes ............................ 51.166(a)(7) (iv)(a)and (b), 

51.165(a)(2)(iii)(A) and 

(B).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Only approved the language in 1.A.1. 

N/A ...................................... D–I.B. (except I.B.3. 

and second sentence of I.B.4.).

Applicability Tests ...... Yes ............................ 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(c), (d), and 

(f), 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(C), 

(D), and (F).

EPA is approving this definition with the exception 

of I.B.3. and the second 

sentence of I.B.4, which 

EPA considers withdrawn.

The reference in D–I.B.5. to 

‘‘I.B.26. of Part A’’ is at 

A–I.B.35.c. in the current 

codified SIP.

See footnotes 1 and 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

The reference in D–I.B.5. to 

‘‘I.B.26. of Part A’’ is at 

A–I.B.35.c. in the current 

codified SIP. 

N/A ...................................... D–I.B.3 ....................... Emission tests at 

clean units (part of 

Applicability Tests).

No .............................. 51.166 (a)(7)(iv)(e), 

51.165(a)(2)(ii)(E).

EPA considers this provision as withdrawn.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–I.B.4. second sentence.For example, for a 

project involves 

both an existing unit 

and a clean unit 

(part of Applicability 

Tests).

No .............................. 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f) second 

sentence, 

51.165(a)(2)(ii)(F) second 

sentence.

EPA considers this language as withdrawn.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

EPA is not taking action on 

this part of provision D– 

I.B.4. at this time. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

N/A ...................................... D–I.C ......................... For any major stationary source requesting, or operating under, a 

Plantwide Applicability Limitation.

Yes ............................ 51.166 (a)(7)(v), 

51.165(a)(2)(iii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–I.D ......................... An owner or operator 

undertaking a Pollution Control Project.

No .............................. 51.166 (a)(7)(vi), 

51.165(a)(2)(iv).

EPA considers this provision as withdrawn.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.2 ...................... Actuals PAL Definition Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(i), 

51.165(f)(2)(i).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.4 ...................... Baseline Actual Emissions definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(47), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxv).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.7 ...................... Begin Actual Construction definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(11), 

51.165(a)(1)(xv).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.9 ...................... Clean Coal Technology definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(33), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxiii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.10 .................... Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(34), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxiv).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.11 .................... Clean Unit definition .. No .............................. 51.166(b)(41), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxix).

EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.13 .................... Construction definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(8), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxviii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.14 .................... Emissions Unit definition (for PSD/NSR 

purposes).

.................................... 51.166(b)(7), 

51.165(a)(1)(vii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.15 .................... Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Unit 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(30), 

51.165(a)(1)(xx).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21463 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.17 .................... High Terrain definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(25) ...................... EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.18 .................... Hydrocarbon Combustion Flare definition.

.................................... 51.166(b)(31)(iv), 

51.165(a)(1)(xv)(D).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.20 .................... Low Terrain definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(26) ...................... EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.22 .................... Major Emissions Unit 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(iv), 

51.165(f)(2)(iv).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.28 .................... Nonattainment New 

Source Review definition.

Yes ............................ 51.165(a)(1)(xxx) ................ EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.29 .................... PAL Effective Date 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(vi), 

51.165(f)(2)(vi).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.30 .................... PAL Effective Period 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(vii), 

51.165(f)(2)(vii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.31 .................... PAL Major Modification definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(viii), 

51.165(f)(2)(viii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.32 .................... PAL Permit definition Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(ix), 

51.165(f)(2)(ix).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.33 .................... PAL Pollutant definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(x), 

51.165(f)(2)(x).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.34 .................... Plantwide Applicability 

Limitation (PAL) 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(v), 

51.165(f)(2)(v).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

NA ....................................... D–II.A.35 .................... Pollution Control 

Project definition.

No .............................. 51.166(b)(31), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxv).

EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.36 .................... Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(42), 

51.165(a)(1)(xli).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.37 .................... Project definition ........ Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(51), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxix).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.38 .................... Projected Actual 

Emissions definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(40), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxviii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.39 .................... Reactivation of Very 

Clean Coal-Fired 

EUSGU definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(37) ...................... EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.40 .................... Regulated NSR Pollutant definition.No, see comment ...... 51.166(b)(49), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.41 .................... Replacement Unit definition.Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(32), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxi).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.42 .................... Repowering definition Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(36) ...................... EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.45 .................... Significant Emissions 

Increase definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(39), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxvii).

Approved by interstate 

transport NFR. See next 

column.

Fully approved. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.46 .................... Significant Emissions 

Unit definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(xi), 

51.165(f)(2)(xi).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.47 .................... Small Emissions Unit 

definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w)(2)(iii), 

51.165(a)(1)(iii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–II.A.48 .................... Temporary Clean 

Coal Demonstration 

Project definition.

Yes ............................ 51.166(b)(35), 

51.165(a)(1)(xxii).

EPA is approving this provision.

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21465 

Provision location in 

Colorado’s current SIP 

Reg 3 (NA = not in 

current Colorado SIP) 

Provision location 

in Colorado’s 

4/16/2004 Reg 3 

revision 

Provision 

description 

EPA is incorporating all or part 

of revision or addition into the SIP 

Equivalent provision in 

40 CFR 51.165 and 40 

CFR 51.166 

How provision is acted 

on in this action (if applicable see footnote) 

How provision is acted 

on by EPA in a separate final action related 

to Colorado’s interstate 

transport SIP (see proposed action at 76 FR 

21835, April 19, 2011) 

N/A ...................................... D–XV ......................... Clean Units ................ No .............................. 51.166(t) and (u), 51.165(c) 

and (d).

EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–XVI ........................ Pollution Control 

Projects.

No .............................. 51.166(v), 51.165(e) ........... EPA considers this provision withdrawn by the 

State.

See footnote 6. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec. 7, 

2005 notice. 

N/A ...................................... D–XVII ....................... Plantwide Applicability 

Limitations.

Yes ............................ 51.166(w), 51.165(f) ........... EPA is approving this provision.

The references in 

XVII.N.1.g and 

XVII.N.2.d. of this section 

to ‘‘I.B.38. of Part A’’ are 

at A–I.B.53. in the current 

codified SIP.

Colorado has revised D– 

XVII.I.2. (application 

deadline) to 12 months 

prior to expiration instead 

of 6 months.

Colorado has revised 

XVII.N.1. (Semi-Annual 

Report) to require submission of QA/QC data 

as requested, not as part 

of the semi-annual report 

specified in 

51.166(w)(14)(i)(c).

See footnote 1. 

Not taking action * * * Because it was not a necessary prerequisite for 

the action on the 8/1/07 

submittal, or provision 

was not proposed for approval in our Dec 7, 2005 

notice. 

The references in 

XVII.N.1.g and XVII.N.2.d 

of this section to ‘‘I.B.38. 

of Part A’’ are at A– 

I.B.53. in the current 

codified SIP. 

Colorado has revised D– 

XVII.I.2. (application 

deadline) to 12 months 

prior to expiration instead 

of 6 months. 

Colorado has revised 

XVII.N.1. (Semi-Annual 

Report) to require submission of QA/QC data 

as requested, not as part 

of the semi annual report 

specified in 

51.166(w)(14)(i)(c). 

Footnote 1: We are approving this new rule in Regulation No. 3 because the rule is identical or consistent with the Federal New Source Review regulations found at 

40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 and contain no changes to the language that would affect the meaning of the rule. 

Footnote 2: We are approving this change of an existing Regulation No. 3 rule because the rule has only been renumbered, contains nonsubstantive changes to the 

rule that do not affect the meaning of the rule and/or has been modified to move a definition that has already been approved into the SIP to a specific rule section in 

which the definition applies. This renumbered rule and all subsections within this rule supersede and replace the prior numbered rule and subsections in Colorado’s federally approved SIP. 

Footnote 3: Colorado has marked this part of the definition of Major Modification as underlined, meaning that the State intends it will only be effective until EPA approves the NSR Reform revisions for incorporation into the SIP. Colorado has since clarified that they intended that this provision remain as part of the definition of 

Major Modification as it applies to PSD sources located in attainment areas only, consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(j). If Colorado revises Regulation No. 3 to indicate 

this clarification prior to EPA taking final action, EPA is approving this addition to the definition of Major Modification into the SIP. 

Footnote 4: Colorado’s SIP submittal deletes the following language in D–II.A.25.b from what was previously in the definition of Major Stationary Source (at A– 

I.B.58.a.): 

In the Denver Metro PM10 nonattainment area, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides shall be treated as PM10 precursors, and any source which is major for these precursors is subject to the nonattainment new source review provisions. Additionally, a source causing or contributing to a violation of a NAAQS for any pollutant regulated 

under Section 110 of the Federal Act shall be considered major when it has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of that pollutant. The source will be considered to cause or contribute to a violation when the source exceeds the significance levels in the table under Section IV.D.3.d(ii), Part B. Such source is subject to the requirements of IV.D.3. 

Colorado has revised Regulation No. 3 to add this deleted language back into the definition of Major Stationary Source. As discussed in the proposal, EPA is therefore approving this part of the definition of Major Stationary Source into the SIP. 

Footnote 5: EPA discussed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on how it intended to implement provisions D–V.A.7 and D– 

VI.B.5. without the language regarding the ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ that a project ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase’’ included as part of these provisions. 

CDPHE’s intent is that Colorado will implement the rule consistently with EPA’s policy and guidance. Additionally, CDPHE provided a letter to EPA dated Nov 28, 2005 

that stated their intent is to also ‘‘request that the Commission make any revisions to Regulation No. 3 necessary to incorporate and implement federal program revisions should it be necessary for EPA to take further action on the remand of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, sections 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6).’’ Therefore, consistent with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA approves D–V.A.7.c and D–VI.B.5 with the exception of the phrases ‘‘a reasonable possibility that,’’ ‘‘a 

Clean Unit or at,’’ and ‘‘may result in a significant emissions increase.’’ This approval is consistent with Colorado’s deletion of the phrases in subsequent submittals. 

Footnote 6: The Clean Unit and Pollution Control Projects provisions in the 2002 NSR Reform Rule were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 2005. Colorado has since removed references to these provisions in subsequent Reg. 3 submittals. As such, EPA considers these 

provisions effectively withdrawn by the State. 

II. Response to Comments 

Environment Colorado and the Rocky 

Mountain Office of Environmental 

Defense jointly commented on our 

December 2005 proposed action. We 

have carefully considered the 

comments, and, as part of that 

consideration, have obtained 

information from the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) in order to assist 

us in deciding how to address certain 

comments. Below we provide 

summaries of, and our responses to, the 

significant adverse comments. Nothing 

in them has caused us to change our 

action from what we proposed. 

Comment No. 1: The commenters 

assert that ‘‘[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule 

provisions that were not vacated by the 

D.C. Circuit in New York v. EPA 

[citation omitted] allow previouslyprohibited emissions-increases to 

occur.’’ Comments at 4. In their main 

comment letter and in attached 

materials, the commenters argue that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Supplemental Analysis is available at 

http://epa.gov/nsr/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf, and 

has also been added to the docket for this action. 

It is incorporated into these responses by reference. 

Colorado’s SIP revision will allow for 

increased air pollution, and they focus 

on three main aspects of Colorado’s 

revised Regulation 3: (1) Revisions to 

the method of calculating baseline 

actual emissions for existing sources; (2) 

revisions to the applicability test for 

existing sources; and (3) the plantwide 

applicability limitation (PAL) 

provisions. The commenters assert that 

approval of Colorado’s proposed SIP 

revision would violate section 110(l) of 

the CAA, because ‘‘EPA cannot make a 

finding that revising Colorado’s permit 

provisions so that they track the nonvacated provisions of the 2002 rule 

‘would not interfere with attainment or 

other applicable requirements.’ ’’ 

Comments at 5. 

EPA Response No. 1: Section 110(l) of 

the CAA states that ‘‘[t]he Administrator 

shall not approve a revision of a plan if 

the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7410(l). 

EPA does not interpret section 110(l) 

to require a full attainment or 

maintenance demonstration before any 

changes to a SIP may be approved. 

Generally, a SIP revision may be 

approved under section 110(l) if EPA 

finds it will at least preserve status quo 

air quality. See Kentucky Resources 

Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th 

Cir. 2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06– 

61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008); see also, 

e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 

28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and 

final rules, upheld in Kentucky 

Resources, which discuss EPA’s 

interpretation of section 110(l)). 

EPA has determined that Colorado’s 

SIP revision will not ‘‘interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress * * * or any other applicable 

requirement of [the CAA]’’ in violation 

of section 110(l) of the CAA because, as 

explained below, the revision will result 

in effects on air quality that are neutral 

or beneficial. The Colorado SIP revision 

tracks the Federal 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules that were not vacated by the Court 

of Appeals in New York v. EPA, 413 

F.3d 3, 21–31 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per 

curiam). Overall, EPA expects that 

changes in air quality as a result of 

implementing Colorado’s rules will be 

consistent with EPA’s analysis of the 

Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules—that 

the effects will be somewhere between 

neutral and providing modest 

contribution to reasonable further 

progress when the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules are compared to the pre-Reform 

provisions. EPA’s analysis for the 

environmental impacts of these three 

components of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules is informative of how Colorado’s 

adoption of NSR Reform (based on the 

federal rules) will affect emissions. See 

generally Supplemental Analysis of the 

Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final 

NSR Improvement Rules (Nov. 21, 2002) 

(‘‘Supplemental Analysis’’).1

EPA’s conclusion rests primarily on 

the national-scale analysis that EPA 

conducted in support of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules. This national analysis 

indicates that the non-vacated 

provisions of the NSR Reform Rules will 

have a neutral or beneficial impact. The 

three significant changes in the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules (that were not 

vacated by the court) were: (1) 

Plantwide applicability limits (PALs); 

(2) the 2-in-10 baseline (also known as 

the ten-year lookback); and (3) the 

actual-to-projected actual emission test. 

EPA’s Supplemental Analysis discussed 

each of these three changes 

individually, and addresses many of the 

issues raised by commenters. 

The environmental impacts of NSR 

Reform in Colorado will not be 

substantially different from those 

discussed in the Supplemental 

Analysis. Furthermore, with limited 

exceptions discussed below, the 

commenters do not raise Coloradospecific arguments or provide Coloradospecific data to suggest that the results 

of the NSR Reform in Colorado will be 

substantially different from those 

discussed in the Supplemental 

Analysis. Where the commenters have 

relied on generic or national arguments 

against NSR Reform, we have relied on 

the analyses conducted in support of the 

2002 NSR Reform rules for our 

response. 

It is worth emphasizing that, while 

the comments focus exclusively on how 

Colorado’s SIP revision may allow 

certain facilities to increase emissions 

without undergoing NSR, the NSR 

process does not prohibit emissions 

increases. Nor does it regulate facilities 

that simply increase their hours of 

operation or production rate over what 

has occurred in recent years, resulting 

in increased annual emissions. Rather, 

NSR regulates construction of new 

major sources, and of physical or 

operational changes at existing major 

sources that result in significant 

emissions increases, and requires the 

new source or modification to control 

its emissions using stringent 

technology-based standards, as well as 

meet other requirements. In some cases 

(e.g., a modification at an already wellcontrolled unit) the benefits of the NSR 

program may be small. See 

Supplemental Analysis at 5. At the same 

time, avoidance of an NSR permitting 

process does not necessarily mean that 

emissions increase, since facilities may 

be discouraged by the permitting 

process itself from undertaking 

environmentally beneficial projects. See 

id. at 5. Finally, the NSR program can 

lead to changes in source behavior that 

have environmental effects (including 

potentially beneficial effects) even for 

sources that do not get an NSR permit, 

and permitting data tell us little about 

these effects. See id. at 5–6. 

For these reasons, focusing entirely on 

hypothetical emissions increases that 

might avoid NSR misstates the overall 

effect of the NSR revisions that Colorado 

and other states have adopted. The 

question is not simply whether the SIP 

revision would theoretically allow 

certain sources to make emissionsincreasing changes that might be subject 

to NSR under the current SIP but would 

not be subject to NSR in the revised SIP. 

Rather, the question is whether the SIP 

revision, as a whole, would interfere 

with applicable CAA requirements. 

Since the focus of this analysis is on the 

SIP as a whole, and since NSR Reform 

is expected to lead to overall emissions 

reductions even though emissions at 

some individual sources may increase, 

the commenters’ arguments (arguing 

that certain individual sources’ 

emissions may increase) do not show 

that the SIP revision as a whole would 

interfere with applicable CAA 

requirements. That said, we respond in 

detail below to the commenters’ 

significant adverse comments regarding 

specific alleged emissions increases that 

would avoid NSR under Colorado’s SIP 

revision. 

1. Baseline Actual Emissions. 

The commenters argue that revisions 

to Regulation No. 3’s method of 

calculating baseline actual emissions for 

existing sources will allow those 

sources to ‘‘inflate’’ baseline actual 

emissions, and thereby substantially 

increase emissions without undergoing 

NSR. Specifically, the commenters 

argue that (1) the rule’s definition of 

baseline actual emissions enables 

facilities to choose the highest 

consecutive two-year period over the 

prior ten years, thus treating high 

emissions that may not have been 

emitted for many years as ‘‘baseline’’ 

emissions; (2) the regulation allows 

sources to select a different two-year 

period for each pollutant, thus creating 

a ‘‘baseline’’ that is higher than actual 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21467 

2Environmental Integrity Project and the Council 

of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference, 

Reform or Rollback? How EPA’s Changes to New 

Source Review Could Affect Air Pollution in 12 

States, October 2003. 

3We incorporate by reference into this response 

a detailed critique of this report presented in EPA’s 

approval of Wisconsin’s NSR Reform SIP revision. 

See 73 FR 76560, 76563–64. 

4Based on email communication from Roland C. 

Hea, CDPHE Permitting Section Supervisor, to EPA 

Region 8 dated November 18, 2011. A copy of the 

email has been added to the docket for this action. 

emissions of the facility in any actual 

two-year period over the last decade; 

and (3) the regulation calculation 

‘‘rewards’’ facilities for malfunctions, 

upsets and unusual emissions during 

start-up and shut-downs by allowing 

facilities to inflate the baseline with 

those emissions. We disagree that these 

changes will result in substantial 

emissions increases, and discuss each in 

turn. 

First, with regard to the 2-in-10 

baseline, EPA concluded in the context 

of the NSR Reform regulation that ‘‘the 

environmental impact from the change 

in baseline * * * will not result in any 

significant change in benefits derived 

from the NSR program.’’ Supplemental 

Analysis at 13. As we explained in the 

Supplemental Analysis, the rule change 

will not alter the baseline at all for many 

sources. See Supplemental Analysis at 

13. Furthermore, for other instances, 

EPA explained: 

[F]or the remaining case, where recent 

emissions are low compared to the past, a 

source cannot qualify for a significantly 

higher baseline emissions level if the present 

emissions are lower as a result of enforceable 

controls or other enforceable limitations that 

have gone into effect since that time—which 

is true an estimated 70 percent of the time. 

Indeed, such sources could face more 

stringent baselines under the current rule if 

controls are applied toward the end of the 

baseline period. This leaves only the case 

where emissions are lower as a result of 

decreased utilization due to decreased 

market demand, some kind of outage, or 

other circumstance. Even in this case, it is 

not clear that a different baseline would 

always result, because the source is eligible, 

under current rules, to request a more 

representative baseline than the previous two 

years. 

Id. at 13. Additional information 

regarding the 2-in-10 baseline change is 

available in the Supplemental Analysis, 

Appendix F. See also 67 FR 80186, 

80199–80200 (Dec. 31, 2002); New York, 

413 F.3d at 21–31 (explaining why 

EPA’s selection of ten-year lookback 

period is reasonable). 

The commenters also provided 

Colorado-specific emissions data to 

support their hypothesis that allowing a 

2-in-10 baseline calculation could lead 

to significant emissions increases in 

Colorado. EPA has evaluated this 

analysis and concluded that the 

commenters overlooked other important 

factors involved with the baseline 

calculation and oversimplified 

interpretation of the baseline calculation 

changes. The commenters also failed to 

present any rationale that allowing a 2- 

in-10 baseline calculation will, in fact, 

cause actual emission increases in 

Colorado that would not occur absent 

the Reform rule. Applicability of NSR is 

determined on a project-specific basis. 

Commenters have not explained why 

there should be reason to believe that 

more projects will actually occur, or that 

higher-emitting projects will actually 

occur, as a result of a 2-in-10 

calculation, rather than the baseline 

calculation specified in pre-Reform NSR 

rules. Appendix F of the Supplemental 

Analysis provides a number of reasons 

why the majority of sources will not be 

affected by the change in baseline 

calculation. The following 

circumstances at particular sources 

would not result in a change in baseline: 

new sources and new units at existing 

sources, electric utility steam generating 

units, sources with recent high levels of 

emissions, and sources with recent 

emissions comparable to the past. The 

Supplemental Analysis explains that 

NSR Reform requires ‘‘use of current 

emission limits that account for 

enforceable pollution control measures 

that have been put into place.’’ 

Supplemental Analysis at F–4. While 

the commenters did remove electric 

utility steam generating units from their 

analysis, they did not evaluate the 

change in baseline calculation with 

respect to the other circumstances 

described above. In particular, they 

acknowledge that they did not evaluate 

other provisions of state and federal law 

that could limit pollution increases 

(comment 0020.21 in docket). In lieu of 

doing this evaluation for Colorado, the 

commenters cite an October 2003 

report 2 that looked at the impact of nonNSR provisions in relation to the 2-in10 baseline calculation in 12 states, of 

which Colorado was not one. EPA has 

previously noted that this report is 

‘‘overly simplistic and erroneous in its 

interpretation of NSR.’’ 73 FR 76563 

(Dec. 17, 2008).3

Furthermore, it is overly simplistic to 

assume that sources would be able to 

increase their emissions by simply 

relying on a higher baseline calculation 

that a 10-year lookback may (or may 

not) afford, for at least four reasons. 

1. As mentioned above, there are 

several circumstances that the 

commenters overlooked, such as the 

existing rules’ provision to select an 

alternate representative baseline period, 

and enforceable controls or other 

enforceable limitations, that factor into 

the ability to take a higher baseline by 

looking back 10 years as opposed to 2 

years. With respect to the existing rules’ 

provision allowing for a source to 

request an alternate representative 

baseline period, CDPHE has informed 

EPA that, even under its current NSR 

rules, it has approved at least four 

requests for a more representative 

baseline other than the most recent two 

years.4 The commenters did not take 

this into account when calculating the 

hypothetical emissions increases that 

might occur under the 2-in-10 baseline 

calculation. 

2. The commenters have attempted to 

show that a 10-year lookback can yield 

a higher facility-wide baseline, but NSR 

applicability is determined for a 

particular project affecting particular 

emissions units. For existing emissions 

units, the source would likely use the 

actual-to-projected-actual applicability 

test, which compares projected actual 

emissions to the baseline actual 

emissions for that emissions unit. See 

Regulation No. 4, Part D, section I.B.1. 

The project’s overall NSR applicability 

is determined by summing this 

difference across all emissions units 

involved in the project. See id. The 

possibility that an emissions unit not 

involved in the project (i.e. not having 

an emissions increase from the project) 

might have a high baseline actual 

emissions is irrelevant in this context. 

3. The prospect that the ten-year 

lookback might allow certain sources to 

use a higher baseline and therefore 

increase emissions (as compared to a 

two-year-lookback) does not mean that 

sources will actually do so. See Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. Jackson, 

650 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘‘The 

two-in-ten rule, for example, might 

allow a business to increase average 

emissions, but does it? So far, we have 

no answer to that question, either from 

actual experience in adopting states or 

through efforts to test a model by 

retrodiction.’’) (emphases in original). 

As explained in depth in the 

Supplemental Analysis, EPA has 

concluded that any emissions increases 

made possible by the ten-year lookback 

will be balanced by emissions 

reductions elsewhere as part of the 

overall NSR Reform. 

4. Any source modification that, 

because of the changes to the baseline 

calculation, would avoid major NSR 

would nevertheless be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis under the minor 

source permitting program in Colorado 

that is in place to maintain or make 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

5 In the case of ozone, the State has attaining data 

in relation to the 1997 8-hour standard and has a 

recently approved attainment demonstration SIP for 

this standard. See the response to Comment No. 3 

below for more information regarding the ozone 

attainment status in Colorado. 

progress towards attainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). While it is true that 

Colorado’s minor source permitting 

program does not require Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT), in actual 

practice Colorado has a track record of 

progress towards attainment of the 

NAAQS given that it currently attains 

all NAAQS except ozone.5 Furthermore, 

within the ozone nonattainment area, 

the minor source permitting program in 

Colorado requires Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for 

stationary sources. The commenters’ 

failure to consider this RACT 

requirement in their analysis of the 2-in10 baseline calculation contributes to an 

unrealistically inflated hypothetical 

emissions increase due to the revised 

baseline calculation. 

With respect to the fact that a facility 

may select a different two-year baseline 

period for each pollutant, NSR 

applicability has long been evaluated on 

a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and the 

NSR Reform rule did not change this. 

Whether a modification results in a net 

emissions increase exceeding 

significance thresholds is determined on 

a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and 

BACT (or, where appropriate, Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)) is 

determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. Different pollutants may be 

generated by different equipment or 

production processes within a facility. 

When comparing emissions from 

different years, it is not unusual for a 

facility to have a higher level of one 

pollutant than another in a given year, 

and then the reverse relationship in a 

subsequent year. In many such cases, 

the reason is simply that the facility 

operates several different processes (e.g., 

associated with several different 

products or operations) with different 

emissions characteristics, and, due to 

variations in product cycles, the facility 

runs different processes or production 

lines more in some years than others. 

Moreover, the facility may use entirely 

different control technologies to control 

different pollutants. It is therefore not 

unreasonable to calculate a facility’s 

emissions increase and net emissions 

increase for a particular pollutant with 

respect to the baseline actual emissions 

for that pollutant, even if the variability 

of emissions of that pollutant differs 

from that of another pollutant emitted at 

the same facility. Moreover, the 

commenters have not provided any 

specific data suggesting that allowing a 

facility to select its baseline period on 

a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, rather 

than requiring a facility to use a single 

two-year baseline period for all 

regulated NSR pollutants, will actually 

result in emissions increases in 

Colorado. 

Finally, with respect to startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, Regulation 

No. 3, in accordance with the federal 

regulation, defines ‘‘Projected Actual 

Emissions’’ as including ‘‘emissions 

associated with startups, shutdowns, 

and malfunctions.’’ See Regulation No. 

3, Part D, Paragraph II.A.36.b.(ii). Thus, 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction are 

included in both the calculation of both 

baseline actual emissions and projected 

actual emissions. With respect to the 

exclusion for ‘‘non-compliant emissions 

that occurred while the source was 

operating above any emission 

limitation,’’ the application of this 

exclusion is straightforward. The 

calculation of baseline actual emissions 

cannot include periods of time when 

those emissions exceed an emissions 

limitation. Whether enforcement action 

has been taken is irrelevant for purposes 

of calculating the baseline actual 

emissions. 

2. Revised Applicability Test 

The commenters argue that the 

revised applicability test would allow 

existing sources to substantially 

increase emissions without undergoing 

NSR. Specifically, the commenters 

object to (1) extending the actual-toprojected-actual test to all sources, and 

(2) excluding emissions associated with 

increased demand (so long as the 

facility could have accommodated that 

growth before the modification). 

We disagree that these changes will 

result in substantial emissions 

increases. The commenters provide no 

Colorado-specific information in 

support of these arguments, and 

consequently our response relies on the 

NSR Reform rulemaking record. 

With regard to the actual-to-projected 

actual test, EPA concluded that ‘‘the 

environmental impacts of the switch to 

the actual-to-projected actual test are 

likely to be environmentally beneficial. 

However, as with the change to the 

baseline, the vast majority of sources, 

including new sources, new units, 

electric utility steam generating units, 

and units that actually increase 

emissions as a result of a change, will 

be unaffected by this change. Thus, the 

overall impacts of the NSR changes are 

likely to be environmentally beneficial, 

but only to a small extent.’’ 

Supplemental Analysis at 14, Appendix 

G; see also 67 FR 80186, 80196. 

With regard to the demand growth 

exclusion, the commenters’ arguments 

have been addressed in the NSR Reform 

rulemaking. See 67 FR 80186, 80202–03; 

see also New York, 413 F.3d at 31–33. 

3. Plantwide Applicability Limits 

The commenters argue that the PAL 

provisions would allow existing sources 

to substantially increase emissions 

without undergoing NSR. 

We disagree that the PAL provisions 

will result in substantial emissions 

increases. The commenters provide no 

Colorado-specific information in 

support of these arguments, only a 

Colorado-specific example to illustrate 

the non-controversial statement that 

potential-to-emit can be larger than 

actual emissions. (comment 0020.18 in 

docket). Consequently, our response 

relies on the NSR Reform rulemaking 

record. 

The Supplemental Analysis explained 

that ‘‘EPA expects that the adoption of 

PAL provisions will result in a net 

environmental benefit. Our experience 

to date is that the emissions caps found 

in PAL-type permits result in real 

emissions reductions, as well as other 

benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6. 

EPA further explained that: 

Although it is impossible to predict how 

many and which sources will take PALs, and 

what actual reductions those sources will 

achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, 

on a nationwide basis, PALs are certain to 

lead to tens of thousands of tons of 

reductions of VOC from source categories 

where frequent operational changes are 

made, where these changes are time 

sensitive, and where there are opportunities 

for economical air pollution control 

measures. These reductions occur because of 

the incentives that the PAL creates to control 

existing and new units in order to provide 

room under the cap to make necessary 

operational changes over the life of the PAL. 

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The 

Supplemental Analysis, and particularly 

Appendix B, provides additional details 

regarding EPA’s analysis of PALs and 

anticipated associated emissions 

decreases. See also 67 FR 80186, 80214– 

22; New York, 413 F.3d at 36–38. 

Comment No. 2: EPA’s proposed 

approval contravenes the CAA’s General 

Savings Clause set forth in section 193 

of the Act. 

EPA Response No. 2: EPA’s response 

to the section 193 issues raised by the 

commenters involves many of the same 

elements of the response above to the 

section 110(l) comments, which is also 

incorporated by reference here. Section 

193 states (in relevant part) that ‘‘[n]o 

control requirement in effect, or 

required to be adopted by an order, 

settlement agreement, or plan in effect 

before November 15, 1990, in any area 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21469 

6Of course, section 193 does not apply at all 

outside the Denver Metropolitan Ozone 

Nonattainment Area. 

which is a nonattainment area for any 

air pollutant may be modified after 

November 15, 1990, in any manner 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of such air pollutant.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 7515. 

Assuming for purposes of this 

discussion that section 193 does apply 

to the instant action,6 as discussed 

earlier in this notice, EPA has 

previously determined and explained in 

the Supplemental Analysis that 

implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rule provisions still in effect (that is, 

those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are 

expected to have at least a neutral 

environmental effect. EPA has no 

information indicating that findings 

associated with EPA’s Supplemental 

Analysis would not apply in Colorado— 

that is, that Colorado’s SIP revisions 

would not have at least a neutral (and 

possibly a modest beneficial) 

environmental effect. 

Therefore, even if section 193 does 

apply to this action, EPA does not agree 

with the commenters’ assertions that the 

SIP revisions approved in this action 

raise a section 193 concern. EPA is 

simply approving Colorado’s SIP 

revisions that adopt rules equivalent to 

the federal rules, and, as discussed 

earlier in this notice, the Supplemental 

Analysis that EPA developed to support 

adoption of the federal rules suggests 

that the effects of the revised rules will 

be at least neutral. The Colorado SIP 

will continue to operate with the full 

suite of NSR-related elements, including 

a comprehensive minor source program. 

Comment No. 3: EPA’s proposed 

approval will interfere with the ozone 

attainment demonstration (with respect 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) for 

the Denver Metro area and interfere 

with the Early Action Compact (EAC). 

EPA Response No. 3: These comments 

are no longer relevant since much has 

changed regarding the EAC and 

Denver’s ozone attainment status 

between now and when the EPA first 

proposed approval of NSR Reform for 

Colorado. 

Denver failed to meet the 

requirements of the EAC and, as of 

November 2007, was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Since that time, EPA 

has approved a SIP revision (76 FR 

47443) for the State of Colorado that 

includes an attainment demonstration 

by November 2010 for the Denver Metro 

Area. Ambient air monitoring data also 

supports the attainment demonstration, 

with no ozone monitors in the Denver 

Metro Area showing a violation of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard using 

design values from 2007–2009 (82 ppb) 

or from 2008–2010 (78 ppb). 

Preliminary data from 2009–2011 also 

shows attainment with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Comment No. 4: Colorado is preparing 

to make substantial revisions to its 

Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) 

program that will further undermine the 

ozone attainment demonstration for the 

Denver Metro Area. 

EPA Response No. 4: The comment is 

outside the scope of this action since 

EPA did not propose to take any action 

with respect to Colorado’s I/M program. 

Furthermore, many aspects of the I/M 

program in the Denver Metro Area/ 

North Front Range have changed since 

this comment was originally made. On 

September 25, 2006, the State of 

Colorado submitted a SIP submittal for 

the CAA section 175A(b) second 10-year 

carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance 

plans for the Denver metropolitan and 

Longmont areas. This SIP submittal also 

included revisions to Colorado’s 

Regulation Number 11 which included 

the removal of the I/M program in both 

carbon monoxide maintenance areas. 

EPA approved these second 10-year 

maintenance plan SIP revisions on 

August 17, 2007 (see 72 FR 46148). 

However, in our August 17, 2007 action, 

we drew special attention to the point 

that the I/M program would continue in 

both areas for purposes of the ozone 

element of the SIP: ‘‘* * * the removal 

of the I/M program from Denver’s 

revised CO maintenance plan does not 

mean the I/M program is eliminated. 

The State relies on the I/M program in 

the Denver’s 1-hour ozone maintenance 

plan and Denver’s 8-hour ozone Early 

Action Compact (EAC). Therefore, the 

motor vehicle I/M program will remain 

intact in the Denver-metro area.’’ (72 FR 

46155, August 17, 2007). We also note 

that we had previously approved Fort 

Collins’ and Greeley’s revised CO 

maintenance plans which also involved 

the removal of the Basic I/M program 

from the SIP for both areas (see 68 FR 

43316, July 22, 2003 and 70 FR 48650, 

August 19, 2005, respectively). Those 

actions effectively eliminated Basic I/M 

in Larimer and Weld Counties; however, 

we note that those basic I/M programs 

had only been in place for purposes of 

CO emission reductions. 

Colorado has submitted two other SIP 

revisions, after our August 17, 2007 

Federal Register action, that involve 

amendments to Regulation Number 11. 

Those revisions involve a low emitter 

index (LEI) of vehicles with respect to 

the Clean Screen element of Regulation 

Number 11 and to eliminate obsolete 

provisions for gasoline filter neck 

inspections and CFC (refrigerant) leak 

checks. The latter submittal has since 

been withdrawn by the State and we 

have not acted on the LEI submittal yet. 

However, we do note that since our 

most recent action to Federally approve 

revisions to Colorado’s Regulation 

Number 11 (see 72 FR 46148, August 17, 

2007), Colorado has reinstated the I/M 

programs in Larimer and Weld Counties 

for the purpose of reducing ozone 

precursor emissions. These I/M 

programs contain State-only enforceable 

provisions and the re-implementation of 

the I/M programs began on November 1, 

2010. These State-only I/M expansion 

provisions for Larimer and Weld 

Counties appear in Colorado’s 

Regulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Inspection Program, 5 CCR 

1001–13, current as State-adopted on 

January 20, 2011; State-effective on 

March 2, 2011. We note that EPA has 

approved an attainment demonstration 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

the Denver Metro Area/North Front 

Range (76 FR 47443, August 5, 2011) 

and this attainment demonstration 

included ozone precursor emission 

reductions from the continued 

implementation of Colorado’s Federallyapproved I/M program. Furthermore, as 

stated above, ambient data shows 

attaining monitors using design values 

from 2007–2009 (82 ppb) and from 

2008–2010 (78 ppb). Preliminary data 

from 2009–2011 also shows attainment 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

Comment No. 5: Title 1, Part C, 

Section 160 of the CAA states that air 

quality in national parks must be 

protected. It is contrary to this CAA 

section for EPA to approve a rule 

revision that would increase air 

pollution in Colorado’s Class I areas. 

Section 110(l) is proof that such a SIP 

revision should not be approved. 

EPA Response No. 5: EPA’s response 

to the air quality in national parks issue 

raised by the commenters involves 

many of the same elements of the 

response above to the section 110(l) 

comments, which is also incorporated 

by reference here. EPA’s national 

analysis in support of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules indicates that the nonvacated provisions of the NSR Reform 

Rules will have a neutral or beneficial 

impact. 

The primary issue raised by the 

commenters was the impact of nitrogen 

deposition in Rocky Mountain National 

Park (RMNP) which resides fully within 

the boundaries of Colorado. The 

commenters incorporate by reference a 

September 1, 2004 petition to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
21470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Department of Interior (DOI) from 

Colorado Trout Unlimited and 

Environmental Defense. The petition 

asks DOI to ‘‘[c]all for the EPA and the 

State of Colorado to fulfill their legal 

responsibilities to lower NOX and 

Ammonia to protect human health, 

plants and ecosystems, and scenic vistas 

at Rocky Mountain National Park and to 

fully mitigate nitrogen deposition above 

the identified critical load.’’ Partly in 

response to this petition, a 

Memorandum of Understanding was 

signed by the National Park Service, 

EPA, and the CDPHE to form the RMNP 

Initiative. The agencies agreed to pursue 

a more in-depth review of the issues 

related to nitrogen deposition in RMNP 

and a course of action to address them. 

As a result, the Initiative formulated the 

‘‘Nitrogen Deposition Reduction 

Contingency Plan’’ which was endorsed 

by the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) on June 17, 2010. 

The plan includes goals for reducing 

nitrogen deposition incrementally over 

5 year periods with contingencies in 

place should these goals not be reached. 

In addition to the contingency 

measures adopted by the multi-agency 

plan, it is expected that current and 

future ozone planning in Colorado 

should positively impact nitrogen 

deposition in RMNP. Reduction in 

ozone precursors (e.g. NOX) that result 

from the control measures adopted in 

Colorado’s recent federally approved 

ozone attainment demonstration SIP 

will also contribute to a reduction of 

nitrogen deposition in RMNP. 

Furthermore, Colorado is subject to 

the Protection of Visibility requirements 

at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, including 

the Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) requirements, the 

Regional Haze requirements, and the 

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 

Commission requirements. Each of these 

programs requires Colorado to achieve a 

variety of emissions reductions aimed at 

protecting visibility in national parks 

and other Class I areas. In particular, 

EPA expects that Colorado’s SIP 

revision submission to meet the 

Regional Haze requirements, including 

both the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) controls and the 

long-term strategy for regional haze, will 

provide NOX reductions that will reduce 

the nitrogen deposition in RMNP. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving portions of 

Colorado’s revisions to Regulation No. 

3, submitted by Colorado on July 11, 

2005 and October 25, 2005, that relate 

to the PSD and NSR construction 

permits program. These revisions meet 

the minimum program requirements of 

the December 31, 2002, EPA NSR 

Reform rulemaking. Several of the 

remaining revisions made by Colorado 

to Regulation No. 3 as adopted on April 

16, 2004 by the Colorado AQCC are 

being acted on by EPA in a separate 

final action related to Colorado’s 

Interstate Transport SIP (see proposed 

action at 76 FR 21835, April 19, 2011). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 11, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 21471 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 21, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(122) The State of Colorado submitted 

revisions October 25, 2005 to Colorado’s 

5 CCR 1001–5 Regulation Number 3, 

Part A and Colorado’s 5 CCR 1001–5 

Regulation Number 3, Part D. The 

October 25, 2005 submittal included 

language changes and renumbering of 

Regulation Number 3. The incorporation 

by reference in ((i)(A) and (i)(B) reflects 

the renumbered sections and language 

changes as of the October 25, 2005 

submittal. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) 5 CCR 1001–5, Regulation 3, 

Stationary Source Permitting and Air 

Contaminant Emission Notice 

Requirements, Part A, Concerning 

General Provisions Applicable to 

Reporting and Permitting, adopted April 

16, 2004 and effective June 30, 2004: 

Section I, Applicability, Sections I.B, 

Definitions; I.B.7, Allowable Emissions; 

I.B.13, Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring System (CEMS); I.B.14, 

Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring 

Systems (CERMS); I.B.15, Continuous 

Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS); 

I.B.33, Pollution Prevention; I.B.35, 

Potential to Emit; I.B.36, Predictive 

Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS); 

adopted April 16, 2004 and effective 

June 30, 2004. 

(B) 5 CCR 1001–5, Regulation 3, 

Stationary Source Permitting and Air 

Contaminant Emission Notice 

Requirements, Part D, Concerning Major 

Stationary Source New Source Review 

and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration, adopted April 16, 2004 

and effective June 30, 2004: 

(1) Section I, Applicability, 

(i) I.A., General Applicability; I.A.2; 

I.A.3; 

(ii) I.B, Applicability Tests; I.B.1; 

I.B.2; I.B.4 (except the final sentence 

beginning, ‘‘For example...’’); I.B.5; 

(iii) I.C; 

(2) Section II, Definitions, 

(i) II.A; 

(ii) II.A; II.A.1, Actual Emissions; 

II.A.1.a (only the language that appears 

as plain or italicized text); II.A.1.c (only 

the language that appears as plain text); 

II.A.1.d; 

(iii) II.A.2, Actuals PAL; 

(iv) II.A.4, Baseline Actual Emissions; 

(v) II.A.7, Begin Actual Construction; 

(vi) II.A.9, Clean Coal Technology; 

(vii) II.A.10, Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Project; 

(viii) II.A.13, Construction; 

(ix) II.A.14, Emissions Unit; 

(x) II.A.15, Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Unit; 

(xi) II.A.17, High Terrain; 

(xii) II.A.18, Hydrocarbon Combustion 

Flare; 

(xiii) II.A.20, Low Terrain; 

(xiv) II.A.21, Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate (LAER); II.A.21.b (only 

the language that appears as plain or 

italicized text); 

(xv) II.A.22, Major Emissions Unit; 

(xvi) II.A.23, Major Modification (only 

the language that appears as plain and 

italicized text); II.A.23.d.(iii); 

II.A.23.d(x); II.A.23.d(xi); II.A.23.e; 

(xvii) II.A.25, Major Stationary 

Source; II.A.25.b (only the language that 

appears as plain or italicized text); 

(xviii) II.A.27, Net Emissions Increase; 

II.A.27.a.(i) (only the language that 

appears as plain or italicized text); 

II.A.27.a.(ii); II.A.27.b; II.A.27.g.(iii) 

(only the language that appears as plain 

or italicized text); II.A.27.i; 

(xix) II.A.28, Nonattainment Major 

New Source Review (NSR) Program; 

(xx) II.A.29, PAL Effective Date; 

(xxi) II.A.30, PAL Effective Period; 

(xxii) II.A.31, PAL Major Modification; 

(xxiii) II.A.32, PAL Permit; 

(xxiv) II.A.33, PAL Pollutant; 

(xxv) II.A.34, Plantwide Applicability 

Limitation (PAL); 

(xxvi) II.A.36, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit; 

(xxvii) II.A.37, Project; 

(xxviii) II.A.38, Projected Actual 

Emissions; 

(xxvix) II.A.39, Reactivation of Very 

Clean Coal-fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Unit; 

(xxx) II.A.41, Replacement Unit; 

(xxxi) II.A.42, Repowering; 

(xxxii) II.A.43, Secondary Emissions; 

(xxxiii) II.A.46, Significant Emissions 

Unit; 

(xxxiv) II.A.47, Small Emissions Unit; 

(xxxv) II.A.48, Temporary Clean Coal 

Technology Demonstration Project; 

(3) Section V, Requirements 

Applicable to Nonattainment Areas, 

V.A.7.c (except for the phrases, ‘‘a Clean 

Unit or at’’, ‘‘a reasonable possibility 

that’’, and ‘‘may result in a significant 

emissions increase’’); V.A.7.d; 

(4) Section VI, Requirements 

applicable to attainment and 

unclassifiable areas and pollutants 

implemented under section 110 of the 

Federal Act (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program), Sections 

VI.A.1.c (only the language that appears 

as plain or italicized text); VI.B.5 

(except for the phrases, ‘‘a Clean Unit or 

at’’, ‘‘a reasonable possibility that’’, and 

‘‘may result in a significant emissions 

increase’’); VI.B.6; 

(5) Section XVII, Actuals PALs; 

adopted April 16, 2004 and effective 

June 30, 2004. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8349 Filed 4–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2012–0003] 

Final Flood Elevation Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified 

BFEs are made final for the 

communities listed below. The BFEs 

and modified BFEs are the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

each community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

DATES: Effective dates: The date of 

issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate 

Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and 

modified BFEs for each community. 

This date may be obtained by contacting 

the office where the maps are available 

for inspection as indicated in the table 

below. 

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES