Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2018-07-05T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31332-31334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14387]

[[Page 31332]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015; FRL-9980-13--Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado 
on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The revisions include 
source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) best 
available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Craig Station 
Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable progress determination for 
the Nucla Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and Nucla Station are 
owned in part and operated by Tri-State Generation & Transmission 
Association, Inc. (Tri-State). The EPA is taking this action pursuant 
to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the 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, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 26, 2018 
(83 FR 18243), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Colorado Code 
of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, submitted by 
the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this rulemaking, we are 
taking final action to approve Colorado's modification of the 
NOX BART determination for Craig Unit 1 and the 
NOX reasonable progress determination for Nucla. 
Specifically, the EPA is approving the revised Craig Unit 1 
NOX BART determination, which requires Craig Unit 1 to meet 
an annual NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by 
December 31, 2019. The SIP revision also requires the unit to either 
(1) convert to natural gas by August 31, 2023, and if converting to 
natural gas, comply with a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) beginning August 31, 2021, or (2) shut 
down by December 31, 2025. The EPA is also approving the State's 
revised Nucla NOX reasonable progress determination, which 
requires the source to meet an annual NOX emission limit of 
952 tpy by January 1, 2020, and shut down on or before December 31, 
2022. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the revisions 
on December 15, 2016 (effective February 14, 2017). The reasons for our 
approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.

II. Response to Comments

    We received five comments during the public comment period. After 
reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that four of the 
comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to 
identify any material issue necessitating a response. The remaining 
comment, submitted by Tri-State, raised concerns with the proposed rule 
regarding the amortization period and remaining useful life of Craig 
Unit 1.
    Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that it is important that 
accurately representative periods of time be used in calculating the 
cost effectiveness of emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State 
asserts that amortization period calculations of eight years are 
incorrect. Instead, an amortization period of four years for SNCR and 
two years for SCR should be used, as these represent the periods of 
time following possible EPA approval of the Colorado SIP and complete 
installation of the respective technology until the closure date on or 
before December 31, 2025. The commenter also appreciates Colorado's 
acknowledgement of differing methodologies to calculate the 
amortization period and recognizes that a shorter amortization period 
would not alter Colorado's conclusion, and the EPA's concurrence, that 
neither SCR or SNCR is cost-effective.
    Response: We agree with Tri-State that it is important to 
accurately represent the amortization period used to calculate the cost 
effectiveness of emission control technologies. In past actions we have 
measured the amortization period as the time period from the projected 
compliance date to the date of retirement. In this case, there are 
multiple dates that could potentially be used, given the EPA's 2012 
approval of Colorado's initial BART determination for Craig Unit 1, the 
revised BART determination associated with the 2014 settlement, and the 
updated analysis contained in the 2017 SIP submission. We agree with 
Colorado that it is appropriate to use a compliance date of August 31, 
2021, as the start of the amortization period, as this is the date by 
which, as the State was conducting the BART analysis, SCR would have 
had to be installed and operational. Furthermore, August 31, 2021, is 
the date on which, under the natural gas conversion scenario, Craig 
Unit 1 must comply with an emission limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors 
the BART determination and compliance date in the 2014 settlement. We 
also agree with Colorado's decision to include a second scenario that 
conservatively estimates the amortization period based on the 
compliance dates associated with the State's original BART 
determinations. However, we disagree with the commenter that it is 
appropriate to reset the compliance dates based on the 2017 SIP 
submission, as this ignores the State's existing BART determinations 
and requirements that were in place at the time of the analysis. 
Finally, we appreciate the commenter's bringing to our attention 
Colorado's acknowledgement of Tri-State's alternative amortization 
period calculation, and we generally agree there may be differing 
methodologies for calculating the amortization period. However, and as 
Tri-State recognizes, a shorter amortization period would not alter 
Colorado's determination that neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for 
Craig Unit 1.
    Comment: Second, Tri-State notes that the natural gas conversion 
scenario would not shorten the remaining useful life of Craig Unit 1. 
Specifically, Tri-State argues that determining BART while taking into 
consideration the remaining useful life of the source does not include 
incorporating the type of fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks a 
basis to determine that the natural gas conversion scenario would 
shorten the

[[Page 31333]]

``remaining useful life of the existing coal-fired boiler.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 18247 (April 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We thank the commenter for bringing this distinction to 
our attention and agree with the commenter's perspective that 
converting Craig Unit 1 to natural gas does not in itself shorten the 
remaining useful life of the source. Our intent was to agree with 
Colorado's assertion that it is appropriate to reassess the 
NOX BART limit under the remaining period that Craig Unit 1 
will be burning coal.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is 
approving revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown 
in Table 1 submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017, 
addressing the NOX BART and reasonable progress requirements 
for Craig Unit 1 and Nucla, respectively.

     Table 1--List of Colorado Amendments That the EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Amended sections in May 26, 2017 submittal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table); VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2
 (table); VI.B.3; VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the 
Colorado Code of Regulations described in the amendments set forth to 
40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the 
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For 
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more 
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA 
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the 
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of 
the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next 
update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation 
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse 
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 paragraph (c) is amended by revising table entry for 
VI. under the centered heading ``5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, 
Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
and Reasonable Progress (RP).''
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *

[[Page 31334]]

    (c) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           State       EPA effective
                Title                 effective date       date               Final rule citation/date                          Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regional Haze Determinations....       2/14/2017        8/6/2018  [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/5/  ........................................
                                                                       2018.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2018-14387 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P