31332 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015; FRL–9980– 

13—Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Colorado; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. 

The revisions include source-specific 

revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) determination for Craig Station 

Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable 

progress determination for the Nucla 

Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and 

Nucla Station are owned in part and 

operated by Tri-State Generation & 

Transmission Association, Inc. (TriState). The EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0015. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6252, 

dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In our notice of proposed rulemaking 

published on April 26, 2018 (83 FR 

18243), the EPA proposed to approve 

revisions to Colorado Code of 

Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part 

F, Section VI, submitted by the State of 

Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this 

rulemaking, we are taking final action to 

approve Colorado’s modification of the 

NOX BART determination for Craig Unit 

1 and the NOX reasonable progress 

determination for Nucla. Specifically, 

the EPA is approving the revised Craig 

Unit 1 NOX BART determination, which 

requires Craig Unit 1 to meet an annual 

NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per 

year (tpy) by December 31, 2019. The 

SIP revision also requires the unit to 

either (1) convert to natural gas by 

August 31, 2023, and if converting to 

natural gas, comply with a NOX

emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) beginning August 

31, 2021, or (2) shut down by December 

31, 2025. The EPA is also approving the 

State’s revised Nucla NOX reasonable 

progress determination, which requires 

the source to meet an annual NOX

emission limit of 952 tpy by January 1, 

2020, and shut down on or before 

December 31, 2022. The Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission adopted 

the revisions on December 15, 2016 

(effective February 14, 2017). The 

reasons for our approval are provided in 

detail in the proposed rule. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received five comments during 

the public comment period. After 

reviewing the comments, the EPA has 

determined that four of the comments 

are outside the scope of our proposed 

action or fail to identify any material 

issue necessitating a response. The 

remaining comment, submitted by TriState, raised concerns with the proposed 

rule regarding the amortization period 

and remaining useful life of Craig Unit 

1. 

Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that 

it is important that accurately 

representative periods of time be used 

in calculating the cost effectiveness of 

emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State 

asserts that amortization period 

calculations of eight years are incorrect. 

Instead, an amortization period of four 

years for SNCR and two years for SCR 

should be used, as these represent the 

periods of time following possible EPA 

approval of the Colorado SIP and 

complete installation of the respective 

technology until the closure date on or 

before December 31, 2025. The 

commenter also appreciates Colorado’s 

acknowledgement of differing 

methodologies to calculate the 

amortization period and recognizes that 

a shorter amortization period would not 

alter Colorado’s conclusion, and the 

EPA’s concurrence, that neither SCR or 

SNCR is cost-effective. 

Response: We agree with Tri-State 

that it is important to accurately 

represent the amortization period used 

to calculate the cost effectiveness of 

emission control technologies. In past 

actions we have measured the 

amortization period as the time period 

from the projected compliance date to 

the date of retirement. In this case, there 

are multiple dates that could potentially 

be used, given the EPA’s 2012 approval 

of Colorado’s initial BART 

determination for Craig Unit 1, the 

revised BART determination associated 

with the 2014 settlement, and the 

updated analysis contained in the 2017 

SIP submission. We agree with Colorado 

that it is appropriate to use a 

compliance date of August 31, 2021, as 

the start of the amortization period, as 

this is the date by which, as the State 

was conducting the BART analysis, SCR 

would have had to be installed and 

operational. Furthermore, August 31, 

2021, is the date on which, under the 

natural gas conversion scenario, Craig 

Unit 1 must comply with an emission 

limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors the 

BART determination and compliance 

date in the 2014 settlement. We also 

agree with Colorado’s decision to 

include a second scenario that 

conservatively estimates the 

amortization period based on the 

compliance dates associated with the 

State’s original BART determinations. 

However, we disagree with the 

commenter that it is appropriate to reset 

the compliance dates based on the 2017 

SIP submission, as this ignores the 

State’s existing BART determinations 

and requirements that were in place at 

the time of the analysis. Finally, we 

appreciate the commenter’s bringing to 

our attention Colorado’s 

acknowledgement of Tri-State’s 

alternative amortization period 

calculation, and we generally agree 

there may be differing methodologies for 

calculating the amortization period. 

However, and as Tri-State recognizes, a 

shorter amortization period would not 

alter Colorado’s determination that 

neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for 

Craig Unit 1. 

Comment: Second, Tri-State notes 

that the natural gas conversion scenario 

would not shorten the remaining useful 

life of Craig Unit 1. Specifically, TriState argues that determining BART 

while taking into consideration the 

remaining useful life of the source does 

not include incorporating the type of 

fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks 

a basis to determine that the natural gas 

conversion scenario would shorten the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31333 

1 81 FR 18247 (April 26, 2018). 

2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

‘‘remaining useful life of the existing 

coal-fired boiler.’’ 1

Response: We thank the commenter 

for bringing this distinction to our 

attention and agree with the 

commenter’s perspective that converting 

Craig Unit 1 to natural gas does not in 

itself shorten the remaining useful life 

of the source. Our intent was to agree 

with Colorado’s assertion that it is 

appropriate to reassess the NOX BART 

limit under the remaining period that 

Craig Unit 1 will be burning coal. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons expressed in the 

proposed rule, the EPA is approving 

revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part 

F, Section VI, shown in Table 1 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

May 26, 2017, addressing the NOX

BART and reasonable progress 

requirements for Craig Unit 1 and 

Nucla, respectively. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF COLORADO AMENDMENTS THAT THE EPA IS APPROVING

Amended sections in May 26, 2017 submittal 

Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table); 

VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2 (table); VI.B.3; 

VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

Colorado Code of Regulations described 

in the amendments set forth to 40 CFR 

part 52. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 8 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, these materials have been 

approved by the EPA for inclusion in 

the SIP, have been incorporated by 

reference by the EPA into that plan, are 

fully federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of the EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation.2

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, described in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 4, 

2018. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 28, 2018. 

Debra Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 paragraph (c) is 

amended by revising table entry for VI. 

under the centered heading ‘‘5 CCR 

1001–05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, 

Regional Haze Limits—Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) and 

Reasonable Progress (RP).’’ 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31334 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1Upon the effective date of reclassification, we 

note that certain regulatory changes would occur 

(c) * * * 

Title State effective 

date 

EPA effective 

date Final rule citation/date Comments 

*******

5 CCR 1001–05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits—Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable 

Progress (RP) 

VI. Regional Haze Determinations ............................ 2/14/2017 8/6/2018 [Insert Federal Register 

citation], 7/5/2018.

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–14387 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0223; FRL–9980– 

48—Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; Eastern 

Kern Air Pollution Control District; 

Reclassification 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is granting a request by the State of 

California to reclassify the Eastern Kern 

County (‘‘Eastern Kern’’) nonattainment 

area from ‘‘Moderate’’ to ‘‘Serious’’ for 

the 2008 ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). In 

connection with the reclassification, the 

EPA is establishing a deadline of no 

later than 12 months from the effective 

date of reclassification for submittal of 

revisions to the Eastern Kern portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to meet certain additional 

requirements for Serious ozone 

nonattainment areas. The EPA has 

already received SIP revision submittals 

addressing most of the additional SIP 

requirements. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0223. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22235), the 

EPA proposed to grant a request by the 

State of California to reclassify the 

Eastern Kern nonattainment area from 

Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Our May 14, 2018 proposed 

rule provides: Background information 

concerning the Clean Air Act (CAA); the 

EPA’s promulgation of the NAAQS; SIPs 

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS within each state; ozone and its 

precursors (volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS; area 

designations, classifications and 

reclassifications for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS; and SIP revisions required to 

address CAA ozone nonattainment area 

plan requirements based on 

classification. 

Our proposed rule also describes the 

California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 

request for reclassification of the Eastern 

Kern 2008 ozone nonattainment area 

from Moderate to Serious, our 

evaluation of the request, and the basis 

for our proposed approval of the 

request. Lastly, our proposed rule 

describes the SIP revisions that CARB 

has already submitted to the EPA for the 

Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment area 

and finds that all the SIP elements that 

apply to Eastern Kern as a Serious ozone 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS have been addressed except for 

new source review (NSR) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for major sources of NOX. 

Today, we are taking final action to 

grant CARB’s reclassification request for 

the Eastern Kern ozone nonattainment 

area and to establish a 12-month 

deadline (from the effective date of this 

final rule) for submittal of the two 

remaining SIP elements for this area. 

Please see our May 14, 2018 proposed 

rule for further detail concerning these 

topics. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received four comments 

that were submitted anonymously. The 

commenters raised issues that are 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking, 

including foreign policy, wildfire 

suppression, dams, wind turbines, air 

quality in China and India, water 

quality in China, and climate change. 

The comment letters are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

III. EPA Action 

Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3) 

and 40 CFR 51.1103(b), the EPA is 

granting a request by the State of 

California to reclassify the Eastern Kern 

nonattainment area from Moderate to 

Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In 

connection with the reclassification, the 

EPA is establishing a deadline of no 

later than 12 months from the effective 

date of reclassification for submittal of 

the two remaining SIP elements (i.e., 

NSR and RACT for major sources of 

NOX) for Serious ozone nonattainment 

areas that have not already been 

submitted for the Eastern Kern ozone 

nonattainment area.1


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES