Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29953 

During the enforcement period, persons 

and vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this regulated area unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port, or 

his designated representative. 

DATES: The regulations for the safety 

zone listed in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 

1, Item 7, will be enforced from 8:30 

p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on several dates 

between May 23, 2015, and September 

6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this publication, 

call or email Petty Officer Nick 

Bateman, Waterways Management, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; 

telephone (619) 278–7656, email D11- 

PF-MarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the safety zone in 

Mission Bay, California, for the annual 

2015 Sea World San Diego Fireworks 

Display (Item 7 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 

165.1123), on May 23 through May 25, 

June 13 through June 30, July 1 through 

July 31, August 1 through August 9, 

August 15, August 22, August 29, 

September 5, and September 6, 2015. 

The safety zone is located off of the 

south side of Fiesta Island adjacent to 

Sea World. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.1123, persons and vessels are 

prohibited during the fireworks display 

times from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring within the 800 

foot regulated area safety zone around 

the fireworks barge, located in 

approximate position 32°46′03′′ N., 

117°13′11′′ W., unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, or his designated 

representative. Persons or vessels 

desiring to enter into or pass through 

the safety zone may request permission 

from the Captain of the Port or a 

designated representative. The Coast 

Guard Captain of the Port or designated 

representative can be reached via VHF 

CH 16 or at (619) 278–7033. If 

permission is granted, all persons and 

vessels shall comply with the 

instructions of the Captain of the Port or 

designated representative. Spectator 

vessels may safely transit outside the 

regulated area, but may not anchor, 

block, loiter, or impede the transit of 

official fireworks support, event vessels 

or enforcement patrol vessels. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agencies 

in enforcing this regulation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 165.1123. 

In addition to this notice in the Federal 

Register, the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with advance 

notification of this enforcement period 

via the Local Notice to Mariners, 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local 

advertising by the event sponsor. 

If the Coast Guard determines that the 

regulated area need not be enforced for 

the full duration stated on this notice, 

then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or 

other communications coordinated with 

the event sponsor will grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: May 8, 2015. 

J.A. Janszen, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain 

of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12555 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0224] 

Safety Zones; Recurring Events in 

Captain of the Port Boston Zone; 

Charles River 1-Mile Swim 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the subject safety zone in the Captain of 

the Port Boston Zone on the specified 

date and time listed below. This action 

is necessary to ensure the protection of 

the maritime public and event 

participants from the hazards associated 

with this annual recurring event. 

DATES: The subject safety zone will be 

enforced on June 6, 2015 from 7:30 a.m. 

to 9:30 a.m., instead of from 8:00 a.m. 

to 9:00 a.m. on the usual second Sunday 

in July. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice of 

enforcement, call or email Mr. Mark 

Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston 

Waterways Management Division, 

telephone 617–223–4000, email 

Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject event is listed in Table 1 of 33 

CFR 165.118 as enforced annually on 

the second Sunday in July, from 8:00 

a.m. to 9:00 p.m. In 2015, it will be 

enforced on June 6, 2015. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.118, no person or vessel, except for 

the safety vessels assisting with the 

event may enter the safety zone unless 

given permission from the COTP or the 

designated on-scene representative. The 

Coast Guard may be assisted by other 

Federal, State, or local law enforcement 

agencies in enforcing this regulation. 

This notice of enforcement is issued 

under authority of 33 CFR 165.118 and 

5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this 

notification in the Federal Register, the 

Coast Guard will provide mariners with 

advanced notification of enforcement 

periods via the Local Notice to Mariners 

and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. If the 

COTP determines that the regulated area 

need not be enforced for the full 

duration stated in this notice of 

enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners may be used to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: April 22, 2015. 

J.C. O’Connor, III, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Boston. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11814 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770; FRL–9928–16– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is reissuing its final 

approval of the Colorado regional haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted on May 25, 2011 

with respect to the State’s best available 

retrofit technology (BART) 

determination for the Comanche 

Generating Station (Comanche) near 

Pueblo, Colorado. EPA originally 

finalized its approval of the Colorado 

regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012. 

In response to a petition for review of 

that final action in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 

EPA successfully moved for a voluntary 

remand, without vacatur, to more 

adequately respond to public comments 

concerning Comanche. EPA is providing 

new responses to those comments in 

this rulemaking notice. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 25, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08– OAR–2011–0770. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov index. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29954 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 77 FR 18052. 

2 77 FR 76871. 

3See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13–9520 

(10th Cir.) and National Parks Conservation 

Association v. EPA, No. 13–9525 (10th Cir.). 

4See Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 

47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). 

5See Respondents’ Motion for Partial Voluntary 

Remand Without Vacatur and to Stay Briefing 

Schedule Pending Resolution of This Motion, filed 

Sep. 19, 2014 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 

13–9520 (10th Cir.). 

6See Order filed Oct. 6, 2014 in WildEarth 

Guardians v. EPA, No. 13–9520 (10th Cir.). 

7Comments submitted by WildEarth Guardians 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Guardians’ Comments’’) 

at 5–6, EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770–0040 

Attachment 2 (May 25, 2012). 

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 person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Fallon, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6281, 

fallon.gail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and Revised EPA 

Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 26, 2012, EPA proposed to 

approve the Colorado regional haze SIP 

as meeting the applicable requirements 

of Sections 169A and 169B of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308–309 

(Regional Haze Rule) and 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix Y (Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Guidelines).1

Among the components of the SIP was 

a nitrogen oxides (NOX) BART 

determination for Units 1 and 2 at 

Comanche. As with several other 

facilities, the State submitted a BART 

analysis for Comanche that took into 

account the five factors required by 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA. The State 

determined that the existing emission 

controls at Comanche Units 1 and 2, 

low-NOX burners with over-fire air 

(LNB/OFA), are BART. EPA proposed to 

approve the State’s NOX BART 

determination for Comanche. 

EPA received several adverse 

comments on its proposed approval, 

including comments from WildEarth 

Guardians (Guardians) and the National 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). 

On December 31, 2012, EPA published 

a notice of its final approval of the 

Colorado regional haze SIP.2 That final 

action included an approval of the 

Comanche NOX BART determination. 

On February 25, 2013, NPCA and 

Guardians filed petitions seeking the 

Tenth Circuit’s review of EPA’s final 

approval of the Colorado regional haze 

SIP.3 Guardians challenged EPA’s 

approval of Colorado’s BART 

determinations for Units 1 and 2 of the 

Craig Station; Units 1 and 2 of the 

Comanche Station; and Boilers 4 and 5 

of the Colorado Energy Nations 

Company (CENC), LLP facility at the 

Coors Brewery. Guardians also 

challenged EPA’s approval of Colorado’s 

reasonable progress determination for 

Craig Unit 3, and the deadlines for 

compliance with emission limits for the 

units at all three facilities. NPCA 

challenged only EPA’s approval of 

Colorado’s BART and reasonable 

progress determinations for Craig Units 

1, 2, and 3. After the court consolidated 

the cases for review, EPA reached a 

settlement with NPCA and Guardians 

concerning their claims related to the 

Craig Station,4 and Guardians elected 

not to pursue its claims regarding 

CENC/Coors. Guardians’ claims 

concerning the Comanche Station are 

still active. In response to these claims, 

EPA moved the court for a partial 

voluntary remand of its 2012 final 

approval without vacatur so as to 

provide a more detailed and complete 

response to some of the adverse 

comments on the proposed approval.5

The court granted EPA’s motion.6

II. Public Comments and Revised EPA 

Responses 

We received adverse comments on 

our proposed approval of the Colorado 

regional haze SIP, including comments 

from Guardians related to our proposed 

approval of Colorado’s BART 

determinations for Units 1 and 2 at the 

Comanche Station. We are reissuing our 

final approval of the Colorado regional 

haze SIP with respect to Comanche to 

provide more detailed and clearer 

responses to the Comanche-related 

adverse comments. The responses below 

contain our complete, updated, and 

clarified responses to comments related 

to the Comanche NOX BART 

determination. 

Comment: The commenter argues that 

Comanche Units 1 and 2 are currently 

meeting lower NOX emission rates than 

the State’s BART emission limits that 

EPA proposed to approve. The 

commenter cited the State’s BART 

analysis, noting that currently Unit 1 is 

emitting at an average annual rate of 

0.124 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 is emitting 

at an average annual rate of 0.165 lb/

MMBtu, and compares those rates to the 

Colorado BART limits: a 30-day 

emission rate of 0.20 lb/mmBtu, and a 

combined annual average emission rate 

of 0.15 lb/mmBtu. According to the 

commenter, allowing these units to emit 

more pollution than they currently emit 

does not represent BART and would not 

lead to visibility improvements, and 

nothing in the CAA or EPA’s regulations 

suggests that it is appropriate for BART 

limits to include any such cushion. 

Further, the commenter alleges that that 

under the annual BART limits, NOX

emissions will be allowed to increase by 

at least 14 tons per year (tpy), and that 

the 30-day rolling average limits would 

allow Unit 1 to emit at least 40% more 

NOX than the baseline 30-day rolling 

average peak and Unit 2 to emit 12% 

more NOX. The commenter claims that 

the data demonstrates that Unit 1 could 

meet a 30-day rolling average NOX

emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and 

Unit 2 could meet a limit of 0.18 lb/

MMBtu without any trouble, and that 

the BART limits should reflect what is 

achievable. Accordingly, the commenter 

asserts that EPA must disapprove 

Colorado’s NOX BART determinations 

for Comanche Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

adopt a FIP that establishes BART limits 

that represent actual emission 

reductions.7

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. The State set NOX BART 

emission limits for Comanche Units 1 

and 2 individually at a 30-day rolling 

average emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu 

and a combined annual average 

emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. As EPA 

requested in our October 26, 2010 

comment letter during the state public 

comment process, the State considered 

tightening the 30-day limits, but 

ultimately chose not to do so. In EPA’s 

judgment, the State could have better 

explained the basis for the margin for 

compliance, but a more robust analysis 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29955 

8See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 

Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 

Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2, at 17–19 (EPA–R08–OAR– 

2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 312–14); see also 

Appendix C—Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770– 

0017), Attachment 5: Public Service Company— 

Comanche Station Units 1 and 2 Technical 

Analysis. 

9 Guardians’ Comments at 8. 

10 Discussing state flexibility to exempt de 

minimis emission levels from a BART analysis, the 

BART Guidelines make a similar point: ‘‘If a State 

were to undertake a BART analysis for emissions 

of less than 40 tons of SO2 or NOX. . . from a 

source, it is unlikely to result in anything but a 

trivial improvement in visibility. This is because 

reducing emissions at these levels would have little 

effect on regional emissions loadings or visibility 

impairment.’’ 70 FR at 39117. 

11See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 

Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 

Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2, at 2, Table 1: Comanche 

Units 1 and 2 Technical Information (EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 297 (citing boiler 

ratings of 3,531 MMBtu/hr for Unit 1 and 3,482 

MMBtu/hr for Unit 2). 

12 January–October 2010 is the most recent annual 

average emission rate period discussed by Colorado 

in the regional haze SIP. See id. at 18 (PDF page 

313). 

would not have led it to reach a 

different conclusion as to the Comanche 

NOX BART limits. Further, if we were 

to disapprove the SIP and promulgate a 

FIP with lower emission limits, the 

actual emissions from Comanche would 

unlikely be significantly lower. We 

therefore decline to disapprove the NOX

BART determination for Comanche. 

In our October 26, 2010 comment 

letter to the State, we asked Colorado to 

evaluate tightening Comanche’s NOX

limits. The State conducted that 

evaluation.8 Based on its experience, 

and after reviewing other state BART 

proposals, Colorado found that 30-day 

rolling average NOX emission rates 

could be expected to be up to 

approximately 15% higher than annual 

average emission rates. With this in 

mind, and also considering uncertainty 

regarding load fluctuations, coldweather operating, startup, and 

increased cycling to back up renewable 

energy generation, the State concluded 

that a 0.20 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling 

average emission limit was appropriate 

for both units. 

As a general matter, EPA finds it 

appropriate and reasonable to allow a 

margin for compliance in setting 30-day 

rolling average BART limits, and we 

have approved other state BART 

determinations that included such 

margins. The shorter 30-day averaging 

period results in higher variability in 

emissions because of load variation, 

startup, shutdown, and other factors. 

Accordingly, we have not generally 

required that 30-day rolling average 

emission limits be equal to the annual 

emission rates used for calculating costeffectiveness. We find the State’s 

application of a margin for compliance 

here consistent with that approach. 

The compliance margin included for 

the Comanche units is larger than we 

would generally expect. But we find 

that with respect to Comanche, the 

compliance margin is unlikely to lead to 

significant actual NOX emissions 

increases. After all, the lower Comanche 

emissions cited by the commenter 

occurred under permit limits identical 

to those the State selected as BART, and 

the commenter has provided no 

evidence that the facility will change its 

operations just because the State has 

adopted the permit limits as BART 

limits. Instead, emission rates are likely 

to remain near the baseline figures cited 

by the commenter, which as the 

commenter notes are below the BART 

limits. An occasional rise is possible in 

light of the uncertainties referred to 

above, which is the purpose of allowing 

a margin for compliance above the 

actual 30-day rolling average emissions 

levels. The commenter appeared to at 

least partly acknowledge this reality, 

stating that ‘‘[w]e do not suggest that the 

State was required to set the emission 

limits exactly at the levels emitted.’’ 9

But none of these uncertainties suggests 

that there will be a consistent increase 

in emissions over the long term. 

As for annual average emission rates, 

Colorado found that in 2009, the annual 

average rate for both units combined 

was about 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Colorado did 

not propose applying a margin of 

compliance to the 2009 annual average 

rate, and set a limit at 0.15 lb/MMBtu. 

Because short-term emissions increases 

and decreases should average out over 

the course of any single year, we believe 

that setting the BART annual emission 

limit at about the annual emission rate 

from 2009 is reasonable, unless there is 

evidence that the source was not 

properly operated in 2009 or that annual 

average source operating conditions in 

2009 were unrepresentative of future 

operations. The commenter has not 

alleged that there is any such evidence. 

The commenter does assert that the 0.15 

lb/MMBtu annual limit would allow an 

increase in actual emissions if both 

units operate at the BART limit. The 

potential emissions increase calculated 

by the commenter, however, would only 

be 14 tons of NOX per year. A 14-ton 

increase is not significant when 

compared to the annual NOX emissions 

of approximately 3,860 tons from 

Comanche Units 1 and 2; it does not 

warrant disapproval and a subsequent 

FIP.10

The commenter alleges, but does not 

support or quantify, a ‘‘likely’’ further 

increase (beyond the claimed 14-ton 

increase) based on the potential for one 

unit to exceed 0.15 lb/MMBtu while the 

combined rate remains below that limit. 

This comment appears to be referring to 

a scenario in which the unit operating 

above 0.15 lb/MMBtu would have a 

higher heat input than the unit 

operating below 0.15 lb/MMBtu, so that 

together they would still comply with 

the SIP’s 0.15 lb/MMBtu average 

emission rate limit while having higher 

emissions than if each unit were held to 

a limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. With the 

existing LNB/OFA controls, though, 

neither unit can be operated at an 

emission rate much below its current 

emission rate, and so there is unlikely 

to be ‘‘room’’ for the other unit to 

operate much higher while still meeting 

the combined emission limit. Also, the 

two units are subject to very similar 

physical limits on heat input.11 We 

therefore find that any additional 

emissions consistent with a 0.15 lb/

MMBtu combined limit would be 

insignificant from a visibility 

standpoint. Further, we note that the 

annual NOX BART limit of 0.15 lb/

MMBtu is below the average actual 

emissions of 0.16 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 

and 2 between January and October 

2010.12 Therefore, Colorado imposed an 

annual emission limit that was lower 

than the then most recent partial-year 

figures for Units 1 and 2. 

The commenter also argues that the 

30-day rolling average limits of 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu would allow emission increases 

because the actual 30-day rolling 

average rates have consistently been 

below this number. Annual emissions 

are controlled by the SIP’s limit of 0.15 

lb/MMBtu for the average of the two 

unit’s annual average emission rates, 

and would be so controlled even if there 

were no 30-day limits at all. The issue 

of whether the State and EPA correctly 

assessed how well the annual limit will 

control annual emissions was addressed 

above. Therefore, EPA understands that 

this comment regarding the 30-day 

limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu is meant to 

address the possibility that the emission 

rate of one or both units in 30-day 

periods may be higher than 0.15 lb/

MMBtu, while the source could still 

comply with respect to the annual 

average limit by having lower emissions 

in other 30-day periods. EPA agrees that 

this is possible, but the State modeled 

the baseline visibility impact of the 

source assuming a constant emission 

rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, so the possibility 

has been fully considered. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29956 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

13 Guardians’ Comments at 9. 

14Throughout this notice, our references to the 

use of SCR at Comanche incorporate the effects of 

LNB/OFA. Thus, when we discuss comparing the 

effects of SCR against the baseline, we are 

comparing SCR operating with LNB/OFA against 

the post-2009 baseline of LNB/OFA alone. 

15See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 

Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 

Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Tables 10 and 11, at 20–21 

(R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 315–16; 

see also Technical Support Documents for BART 

Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770–0017), 

Attachment: Public Service Company—Cmanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (.xls 

format spreadsheet file, tabs ‘‘Comanche 1 NOX’’ 

and ‘‘Comanche 2 NOX’’). There is an 

inconsequential (approx. 0.33%) difference between 

the Unit 1 baseline numbers in these two parts of 

the record; the discussion in this rule uses the 1506 

tpy figure from the State’s technical analysis 

spreadsheet. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. 

18 ‘‘[T]he Division used years 2009 (annual 

averages and 30-day rolling) for baseline emissions 

for reduction and cost calculations.’’ Colorado 

Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical 

Support Documents for BART Determination), 

BART Analysis of Control Options For Public 

Service Company—Comanche Station, Units 1 and 

2, at 3 (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 298); 

see also id., Table 2 (‘‘PSCo Comanche Units 1 & 

2 Baseline Emissions’’). 

19See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 

Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 

Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Tables 10–13, at 20–21 (R08– 

OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 315–16). 

20See Technical Support Documents for BART 

Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770–0017), 

Attachment: Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (Excel 

spreadsheet file, tabs ‘‘Comanche 1 NOX’’and 

‘‘Comanche 2 NOX’’). 

21For Unit 1, the State also calculated an 

incremental value to assess the cost-effectiveness of 

SCR over SNCR. Even after making the correction 

to an assumed annual average rate of 0.05 lb/

MMBtu as described above, this value remains very 

high: $23,497 per ton. 

22 Guardians’ Comments at 9. 

23Letter from Callie Videtich, EPA, to Paul 

Tourangeau, CDPHE (Oct. 26, 2010), at 8–9 (EPA– 

R08–OAR–2011–0770–0043, Attachment 19). EPA 

stated that using the CCM to assess SCR capital 

costs for the Comanche BART units yielded an 

estimate of approximately $120/kW, as opposed to 

the $247/kW (Unit 1) and $248/kW (Unit 2) derived 

from the CUECost model. Id. This ratio of dollars 

per kW results in a 51.6% lower estimate. 

For these reasons, we have 

determined that while the State could 

have better explained the basis for the 

margin for compliance it allowed, a 

more robust analysis would not have led 

it to reach a different conclusion as to 

the NOX emission limits for Comanche 

Units 1 and 2. In its next regional haze 

SIP, the State can review the longer 

history of emissions from Comanche 

that will be available then, and consider 

whether a downward adjustment in the 

emission limit is appropriate to ensure 

the best possible operation of the 

emission controls. 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

the State failed to appropriately assess 

the cost of SCR, by assuming that SCR 

would achieve an emission rate of 0.07 

lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis. 

But, according to the commenter, EPA 

has noted that SCR can achieve 

emission rates as low as 0.04 lb/MMBtu 

on an annual basis, and a 0.05 lb/

MMBtu emission rate on an annual 

average basis is a more appropriate 

benchmark from which to assess the 

cost-effectiveness of SCR. The 

commenter claims that because the State 

did not assess the cost-effectiveness of 

SCR based on a rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, 

the State did not reasonably take into 

account the cost of compliance with 

SCR in accordance with the CAA. The 

commenter adds that although EPA and 

the State may claim that SCR would not 

be cost-effective in any case, there is no 

support for such an assertion, and 

without an adequate case-specific cost 

analysis, there is no support for 

concluding that SCR is unreasonable, 

particularly for Unit 2.13

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. We have reviewed the 

information in the administrative record 

for this action again, and we find that 

our previous conclusion is still correct. 

We agree that SCR can achieve annual 

NOX emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, 

and that ideally Colorado would have 

used this value when assessing the SCR 

control option.14 But if the State had 

done so, the marginally lower emissions 

would not have caused the State to 

reach a different conclusion as to what 

technology is BART. 

First, we note that the comment 

misstates the rate that Colorado actually 

used for the purpose of calculating costeffectiveness. In the Comanche NOX

BART analysis, the State assumed an 

annual emissions rate for SCR of 0.061 

lb/MMBtu—not 0.07 lb/MMBtu.15 (The 

latter figure was the 30-day rolling 

average rate, not the annual average as 

the commenter contends.16) Therefore, 

the relevant comparison for the 

commenter’s purpose would be between 

the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual average rate 

that the State used and the 0.05 lb/

MMBtu annual average emission rate 

that the commenter prefers. 

Using the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual 

average emission rate, Colorado 

estimated emissions of 740 tpy for Unit 

1 and 869 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR.17

Based on those estimated emissions, the 

State calculated emission reductions of 

770.4 tpy for Unit 1 and 1,480 tpy for 

Unit 2, compared to a baseline level of 

emissions measured in 2009 that 

reflected the installation of LNB/OFA 

controls.18 Based on these reductions, 

the State derived cost-effectiveness 

values for SCR of $15,920 per ton and 

$9,900 per ton for Units 1 and 2, 

respectively.19 It is a simple exercise to 

insert the annual average emission rate 

of 0.05 lb/MMBtu into the State’s 

technical analysis spreadsheet.20 Doing 

so, we can see that using the figure the 

commenter recommends would have 

produced estimated emission levels of 

about 609 tpy for Unit 1 and 713 tpy for 

Unit 2 with SCR, which in turn give 

emission reductions of 897 tpy (Unit 1) 

and 1,636 tpy (Unit 2) compared to a 

2009 baseline level and costeffectiveness values of $13,670 and 

$8,956 per ton for Units 1 and 2, 

respectively.21 Considering that these 

adjusted cost-effectiveness values 

remain high and (as discussed below) 

the extent of the benefits associated 

with SCR remains low, we do not 

believe that the impact on the BART 

analysis would have led to a different 

conclusion if Colorado had used the 

more stringent emission rate. Therefore, 

we conclude that the State’s use of 0.061 

lb/MMBtu to evaluate the costeffectiveness of SCR at Comanche is not 

grounds for disapproval. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

Colorado appears to have overestimated 

the capital cost of SCR, in that the 

State’s reliance on the CUECost model 

led to artificially inflated capital costs. 

According to the commenter, both EPA 

and the National Park Service (NPS) 

previously commented to the State that 

the State should have used EPA’s 

Control Cost Manual, and both noted 

that the CUECost model relied upon by 

the State is not appropriate. The 

commenter argues that the State does 

not explain in the record why its use of 

CUECost was reasonable, particularly in 

light of the concerns expressed by EPA 

and the NPS.22

Response: We agree that there were 

flaws in Colorado’s approach to 

estimating the costs of SCR for the 

Comanche BART units, and that the 

CUECost model likely yielded an 

inflated cost estimate. In the referenced 

correspondence, EPA stated that ‘‘the 

CUECost model yields high capital costs 

for the Comanche facility,’’ and 

suggested that the capital costs 

calculated would have been 

approximately 50% lower if the CCM 

had been followed.23 But even if we 

reduce the capital cost estimates by that 

percentage, and also adjust the emission 

rate as discussed in the previous 

comment, we believe that the cost of 

SCR at Comanche would still be high 

compared to the visibility benefits, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29957 

24The 51.6% adjustment to capital cost can be 

made by multiplying the ‘‘total capital costs’’ 

figures on the State’s technical analysis spreadsheet 

by 0.484. See Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770– 

0017), Attachment: Public Service Company— 

Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical 

Analysis (.xls format spreadsheet file, tabs 

‘‘Comanche 1 NOX’’ and ‘‘Comanche 2 NOX’’). In 

addition to capital costs, the cost-effectiveness 

calculations incorporate operating and maintenance 

costs, which the commenter did not challenge. 

25See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 

(R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 53). 

26 Guardians’ Comments at 9–10. 

27See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 

Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 

Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2, Table 15, at 24 (R08–OAR– 

2011–0770–0013, PDF page 319). As discussed 

below, the table also includes information on 

improvements over the pre-control baseline; this 

information is illustrative and was not the basis for 

the BART determination or for our approval of the 

State’s action. 

28What are labeled by the State as ‘‘NOX emission 

rates’’ (e.g., Table 15 of their analysis) are actually 

the 30-day emission limits. See Colorado Regional 

Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support 

Documents for BART Determination), BART 

Analysis of Control Options For Public Service 

Company—Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, Table 

15, at 24 (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 

319). Actual 30-day emission rates have been lower. 

See id. at 18 (PDF page 313). 

29Thus, comparing the SNCR and SCR numbers, 

we see that a NOX emissions rate reduction from 

0.10 to 0.07 lb/MMBtu is reflected in a visibility 

improvement from 0.11 to 0.14 dv. If we assume, 

for the purpose of conservatively estimating 

visibility improvements, that there is a linear 

relationship between emission reductions and 

visibility improvement, then further reducing the 

NOX emission rate from 0.07 to 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

might cause visibility improvements at Units 1 and 

2 to increase from 0.14 and 0.178 dv to 

approximately 0.16 and 0.198 dv. See Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

State of Florida; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan, 78 FR 53250, 53267 (Aug. 29, 

2013) (‘‘[A]n assumption of a linear response to 

changes in emissions is a reasonable estimation and 

the simplified methodology used for these BART 

determinations likely provides conservative 

overestimates of visibility impact reductions.’’). 

30See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 

(R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 53). 

that Colorado’s decision not to require 

SCR would still be reasonable. 

Specifically, cutting the capital cost 

estimate by 51.6%, and using the more 

stringent 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate 

discussed in the previous comment, 

produces cost-effectiveness values of 

$9,319 and $6,481 per ton for employing 

SCR at Units 1 and 2, respectively.24

Thus, even after addressing both of the 

cost issues raised by the commenter, the 

cost-effectiveness values remain high. 

Also, as discussed below in response to 

another comment, we have concluded 

that the visibility benefits that would 

result from SCR are insufficient to 

justify these high costs. Accordingly, we 

do not believe that Colorado would have 

reached a different NOX BART 

conclusion if it had used the CCM in its 

analysis (as well as the more stringent 

emission rate discussed previously). 

In its SIP, the State explained that, in 

its view, SCR for NOX control would 

generally be reasonable if costs did not 

exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant 

reduced, and if the controls provided a 

modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 

deciviews (dv) or greater at the primary 

Class I Area affected.25 Considering the 

State’s guidance, it is clear that making 

the adjustments that the commenter 

requests would not lead to a different 

outcome. Therefore, considering all the 

BART factors, we do not see a basis to 

conclude that using a lower capital cost 

estimate, combined with a 0.05 lb/

MMBtu emission rate for SCR, would 

have led the State to reach a different 

conclusion or should lead us to 

disapprove the State’s BART 

determination. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

Colorado and EPA may claim that, even 

if the costs were accurately assessed, the 

visibility benefits of SCR would not be 

significant, but that there is no support 

for this assertion. According to the 

commenter, it appears that Colorado’s 

assessment of visibility improvements is 

based on an assumption that the 

proposed BART limits, which the 

commenter refers to as the ‘‘do nothing’’ 

BART limits, would actually improve 

visibility. But, the commenter claims, 

the proposed BART limits would allow 

increased emissions, and therefore 

would not improve visibility. On the 

other hand, states the commenter, SCR 

would appear to provide significant 

visibility improvements. The 

commenter argues that for Unit 2 this is 

especially significant because SCR was 

the only available technology analyzed 

for BART.26

Response: We disagree with this 

comment. In relation to the high costs, 

the visibility benefits of SCR at 

Comanche are not sufficiently large to 

warrant disapproval of the State’s BART 

determination. We would come to this 

conclusion regardless of whether the 

cost component of the BART analysis 

involved the State’s original figures or 

the adjusted figures discussed above in 

response to previous comments. The 

State estimated that SCR would produce 

visibility improvements of 0.14 dv (Unit 

1) and 0.17 dv (Unit 2) as compared to 

the 2009 post-LNB/OFA baseline.27 This 

level of expected visibility improvement 

from SCR is insufficient to cause us to 

conclude that the State’s BART 

determination is unreasonable. 

As discussed above in response to a 

previous comment, we recognize that 

the State did not use the 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

emission rate that accurately represents 

the performance capabilities of SCR. 

Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect 

that the State would have estimated 

slightly greater visibility benefits from 

SCR if it had used the 0.05 lb/MMBtu 

rate. In EPA’s judgment, however, the 

visibility benefits compared to the 2009 

baseline would have remained modest. 

We note, for instance, that in the State’s 

analysis of Comanche Unit 1, the 

difference in visibility benefit between 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

(with a NOX emission rate of 0.10 lb/

MMBtu) and SCR (with a NOX emission 

rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu) is only 0.03 dv.28

We conclude that the impact of a further 

reduction in emission rate to 0.05 lb/

MMBtu would be similarly small.29

As mentioned previously, the State 

explained that, in its view, SCR for NOX

control will generally be reasonable 

when costs do not exceed $5,000 per ton 

of pollutant reduced, and when the 

controls provide a modeled visibility 

benefit of 0.50 dv or greater at the 

primary Class I Area affected.30 While 

we agree with the State that these 

guidance criteria should not be used as 

absolute determinants of BART 

outcomes, they are in general consistent 

with the decisions that other states and 

EPA have made when considering 

whether to require SCR as NOX BART, 

and generally reflect a reasonable 

balancing of the BART factors. In this 

case, we expect that even using the SCR 

emission rate requested by the 

commenter, the visibility improvement 

from SCR would fall well below the 

State’s criteria. Judging these visibility 

improvements against the fairly high 

cost of SCR (again, even after 

adjustment to reflect the comments), we 

find that the State’s decision not to 

impose SCR was reasonable. 

The commenter incorrectly asserted 

that the State’s BART determination was 

based on the assumption that existing 

controls would improve visibility 

compared to current levels. Colorado 

did not claim that its BART emission 

limits would result in visibility benefits 

compared to current levels (that is, 

compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA 

emissions baseline). The State did note 

that the existing level of control 

provided benefits when compared to the 

2004 baseline, which is true. But while 

Colorado referred to both a pre-LNB/

OFA baseline and a 2009 baseline when 

discussing visibility benefits, the State 

actually used only the 2009 baseline in 

calculating cost-effectiveness, and 

likewise relied on visibility benefits 

based on the 2009 baseline in making 

the BART determination for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29958 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

31Colorado stated in the SIP that ‘‘the Division 

used year[ ] 2009 (annual averages and 30-day 

rolling) for baseline emissions for reduction and 

cost calculations.’’ See Colorado Regional Haze 

Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support 

Documents for BART Determination), BART 

Analysis of Control Options For Public Service 

Company—Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 20– 

21, 24 (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 

315–16, 319); see also Appendix C—Technical 

Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA– 

R08–OAR–2011–0770–0017), Attachment 5: Public 

Service Company—Comanche Station Units 1 and 

2 Technical Analysis. Likewise, the State’s BART 

determination cites only the 0.14 dv and 0.17dv 

visibility improvement numbers derived from 

comparison to the 2009 baseline. See Colorado 

Regional Haze Submittal at 66 (R08–OAR–2011– 

0770–0013, PDF page 67). 

32 In replying to this comment and one other 

comment in the December 2012 final approval, we 

inadvertently made a confusing statement 

concerning the applicable baselines. In that notice, 

we stated that Colorado had ‘‘assessed the benefit 

of control options relative to both the subject-toBART baseline and to the installation of new lowNOX burners (LNB) [with over-fire air] in 2007 and 

2008.’’ Further, we noted that ‘‘relative to the 

subject-to-BART baseline, Colorado’s BART 

selection (combustion controls), does in fact show 

visibility improvement.’’ These statements 

appeared to suggest that it was appropriate for 

Colorado to use a 2009 baseline when evaluating 

the benefits of SNCR and SCR, but a 2004 (pre-LNB/ 

OFA) baseline to evaluate the State’s proposed 

BART option. That was not our intention. Our 

reference to the 2004 subject-to-BART baseline— 

that is, to the emissions level before the installation 

of the LNB/OFA, which were required to comply 

with non-BART CAA requirements—was merely an 

observation, by which we intended to show that the 

installation of those controls had produced real air 

quality improvements over previous levels. That 

illustration was not, however, intended to be part 

of our evaluation of the State’s cost or visibility 

analyses. 

33 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2). 34 79 FR 5032, 5104–05 (Jan. 30, 2014). 35See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 

Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 

BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 

Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 

Station, Units 1 and 2, at 1 (R08–OAR–2011–0770– 

0013, PDF page 1) (‘‘As part of that [2004 

construction] project, PSCo proposed to install 

control devices on the existing units.’’); see also 

Colorado Operating Permit # 96OPPB133 

(Comanche Station) (‘‘. . . PSCo proposed to install 

NOX controls (low NOX burners with over-fire air) 

on both Units 1 and 2 . . . to ‘net-out’ of Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review 

requirements for NOX and SO2’’), posted at https:// 

www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/operatingpermits-company-index. 

36 Guardians’ Comments at 10. 37 Guardians’ Comments at 10. 

Comanche.31 We have reviewed the 

visibility estimates and cost calculations 

that the State relied on when making its 

BART determination for Comanche and 

have confirmed that they were based on 

comparisons to the 2009 baseline.32

It was correct for the State to use the 

2009 baseline for NOX emissions from 

Units 1 and 2 in the BART 

determination. The CAA requires that, 

in making BART determinations, states 

and EPA take into consideration ‘‘any 

existing pollution control technology in 

use at the source.’’ 33 As we explained 

in detail in our final action on the 

Wyoming regional haze SIP, this 

consideration should generally 

incorporate controls into baseline 

emissions if the controls were installed 

to comply with CAA requirements other 

than the BART requirement.34 That is 

exactly what happened with respect to 

Comanche Units 1 and 2. The controls 

in question had been placed on these 

units to ‘‘net out’’ of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) review 

requirements for NOX and SO2

emissions from the new Unit 3.35

Therefore, it was appropriate for the 

State to use the 2009 emissions baseline, 

which reflected the reductions achieved 

by LNB/OFA, in its BART analysis for 

Comanche. 

Finally, we addressed the assertion 

that the State’s BART limits would lead 

to increased emissions in our response 

to a previous comment. The commenter 

has failed to offer any support for this 

claim, and we do not find any basis to 

conclude that increased emissions will 

result from the State’s BART limits. 

For the above reasons, while we agree 

that SCR at Comanche Units 1 and 2 

would result in visibility improvements, 

we find that the State reasonably 

concluded that those visibility 

improvements would not be sufficient 

to justify the cost involved. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

it is unclear why Colorado rejected 

SNCR for Comanche Unit 1, particularly 

because the proposed BART limit for 

Unit 1 is less stringent than Unit 1’s 

current actual emissions. Citing EPA 

figures, the commenter asserts that Unit 

1 would meet a 30-day rolling average 

emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu under 

an SNCR scenario. The commenter 

notes that the State found that the cost 

of $3,644 per ton of NOX reduced and 

the perceived ‘‘low visibility 

improvement’’ warranted a 

determination that SNCR was not 

reasonable for Unit 1. The commenter 

asserts, however, that this cost is 

squarely within the range of what 

Colorado considers to be costeffective.36

Response: We find that the State’s 

rejection of SNCR was reasonable based 

on its weighing of the BART factors. The 

State concluded that the cost of SNCR 

was not warranted given the relatively 

modest 0.11 dv visibility improvement 

that would result. Even if a control 

technology is cost-effective on a dollar 

per ton basis, a state may conclude that 

the control technology is not warranted 

based on a reasonable consideration of 

all five BART factors. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

Colorado’s analysis indicates that SNCR 

would achieve greater emission 

reductions than an emission rate of 0.20 

lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. 

According to the commenter, although 

the State asserts that the visibility 

improvement from SNCR would amount 

to 0.11 dv, it is unclear why such 

improvements are not reasonable or are 

insignificant, particularly given that the 

purpose of BART is to reduce or 

eliminate visibility impairment. The 

commenter argues that there is no 

explanation in the record supporting the 

State’s assertion. Further, the 

commenter argues that it appears as if 

the State’s assessment of visibility 

improvements is based on an incorrect 

assumption that the proposed BART 

limit would actually improve visibility. 

The commenter states that when 

compared to the real impacts of the 

State’s proposed BART limit for 

Comanche Unit 1, SNCR appears to 

provide significant visibility 

improvements, because, as opposed to 

the proposed BART limit, SNCR would 

actually achieve improvements. 

Therefore, the commenter concludes, 

EPA must promulgate a FIP that 

establishes an appropriate NOX BART 

limit for Comanche Unit 1.37

Response: The commenter is correct 

that the State predicted that SNCR 

would result in additional improvement 

in visibility over the control technology 

that the State selected as BART. 

However, this does not mean that the 

CAA or our regulations required the 

State to select SNCR as BART. For the 

reasons stated above, we find that it was 

reasonable for the State to reject SNCR 

based on consideration of all five BART 

factors. We agree that SNCR would 

result in visibility improvements, but as 

with SCR, we agree with the State’s 

assessment that the visibility 

improvements were insufficient to 

justify the cost involved. 

Regarding the commenter’s claim that 

the State’s selected limits will lead to an 

increase in emissions, as discussed 

above in detail, the commenter has 

presented no evidence that any 

emissions increase will occur. 

III. Final Action 

With respect to the Comanche Station, 

EPA is re-finalizing its approval of the 

Colorado regional haze SIP submitted 

on May 25, 2011. Because this refinalization merely gives additional 

explanation in response to comments 

and does not alter any previous 

determinations, it does not affect any 

applicable SIP compliance deadlines. 

Our action is based on an evaluation of 

Colorado’s regional haze SIP submittal 

for Comanche against the regional haze 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29959 

requirements at 40 CFR 51.300–51.309 

and CAA sections 169A and 169B. All 

general SIP requirements contained in 

CAA section 110, other provisions of the 

CAA, and our regulations applicable to 

this action were also evaluated. The 

purpose of this action is to ensure 

compliance with these requirements 

and to provide additional rationale to 

support our conclusions. 

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 Colorado 

revisions to its SIP to address the 

requirements of EPA’s regional haze 

rule discussed in section III, Final 

Action, of this preamble. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

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, 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve the use of 

measurement or other standards; 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). 

• 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 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 action 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. 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 July 27, 2015. 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: May 8, 2015. 

Debra H. 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 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(124) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(124) On May 25, 2011 the State of 

Colorado submitted revisions to its State 

Implementation Plan to address the 

requirements of EPA’s regional haze 

rule. On December 31, 2012, EPA issued 

a final rule approving this submittal and 

responding to public comments. On 

May 26, 2015 EPA reissued the final 

rule with respect to the nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) best available retrofit technology 

(BART) determination for the Comanche 

Generating Station to provide additional 

responses to public comments. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–12491 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0422; FRL–9927–90– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions to the Attainment Plans for 

the Commonwealth of Virginia Portion 

of the Washington, DC–MD–VA 1990 1- 

Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas and the 

Maintenance Plan for the 

Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area To Remove the 

Stage II Vapor Recovery Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES