Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS: “Significant Contribution to Nonattainment” Requirement, 16032-16037 [2010-6893]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16032
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules
non-regulatory provisions adopted into
the State SIP April 1, 2009 satisfactorily
address the requirements of elements (1)
and (3) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing approval of
revisions, submitted by the Governor of
North Dakota with a letter dated April
6, 2009, to the prevention of significant
deterioration provisions in subsection
33–15–15 of the NDAC, and partial
approval of the addition to the State SIP
of the ‘‘Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution’’ SIP addressing the
requirements of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). For the
North Dakota Interstate Transport SIP,
EPA is proposing approval of: (a) The
introductory language in the State SIP
Section 7.8; (b) the ‘‘Overview’’ language
in subsection A., Section 7.8.1; (c)
language in Section 7.8.1, subsection B.,
‘‘Nonattainment and Maintenance Area
Impact,’’ that specifically addresses
element (1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the
requirement that the SIP contain
adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions from North Dakota from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment in any other state; and
(d) Section 7.8.1, subsection C, ‘‘Impact
on Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD).’’
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Review
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.);
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:17 Mar 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
• 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
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, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 18, 2010.
Carol L. Campbell,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator,
Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010–6894 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1032; FRL–9131–4]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of
Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS: ‘‘Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment’’
Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing partial
approval of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions ‘‘State of Colorado
Implementation Plan to Meet the
Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate Transport
Regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard’’ submitted by the State of
Colorado on June 18, 2009. The
Colorado Interstate Transport SIP
revisions submitted June 18, 2009
address the requirements of Clean Air
Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this
Federal Register action EPA proposes
approval of the Colorado SIP sections
that address the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibiting a state’s
emissions from contributing
significantly to any other state’s
nonattainment of the NAAQS. EPA will
act at a later date on the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP sections that
address the requirement prohibiting a
state’s emissions from interfering with
any other state’s maintenance of the
NAAQS. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2007–1032, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode
8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129.
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich,
Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–
1032. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. 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,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:17 Mar 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202–
1129, (303) 312–6436,
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our
mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words Colorado and State
mean the State of Colorado.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
II. Background Information
III. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
IV. What Is the State Process To Submit
These Materials to EPA?
V. EPA’s Review and Technical Information
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16033
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background Information
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
requires that a state’s SIP must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting
any air pollutant in amounts which will:
(1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any
other state; (3) interfere with any other
state’s required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality;
or (4) interfere with any other state’s
required measures to protect visibility.
On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado
submitted to EPA an Interstate
Transport SIP addressing the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 and
8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to
EPA’s concerns with the June 11, 2008
submittal, on December 30, 2008 the
State adopted and on June 18, 2009
submitted a revised SIP addressing the
requirements of elements (1) and (2) of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State of
Colorado is planning to submit in June
2010 further revisions addressing the
requirements of elements (3) and (4) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
requirements of elements (1) through (4)
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
16034
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules
III. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing partial approval of
the Colorado Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution SIP addressing the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. On December 30, 2008,
the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC) adopted the ‘‘State
of Colorado Implementation Plan to
Meet the Requirements of the Clean Air
Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I)—Interstate
Transport Regarding the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard.’’ Colorado submitted
the December 30, 2008 SIP revision to
EPA on June 18, 2009. In this Federal
Register action EPA is proposing to
approve only the language and
demonstration that addresses element
(1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Prohibition
of significant contribution to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
IV. What Is the State Process To Submit
These Materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses
EPA’s rulemaking action on SIP
submissions by states. The CAA
requires states to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing
SIP revisions for submittal to EPA.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires
that each SIP revision be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
This must occur prior to the revision
being submitted by a state to EPA.
The Colorado AQCC held a public
hearing in December 2008 for the
interstate transport SIP revision: ‘‘State
of Colorado Implementation Plan to
Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate
Transport Regarding the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard.’’ The AQCC adopted
this revision on December 30, 2008, and
the State submitted it to EPA on
June 18, 2009.
On November 18, 2009, the AQCC
provided EPA with an exact color
duplicate of the SIP adopted by the
AQCC on December 30, 2008 and
included in the June 18, 2009 submittal
to EPA. In the original submittal, AQCC
provided a black and white copy. The
SIP’s color duplicate, available for
review as part of the Docket, makes it
easier to understand modeling results
reported in several graphs that are part
of the SIP technical demonstration.
EPA has reviewed the submittal from
the State of Colorado and has
determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:17 Mar 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
V. EPA’s Review and Technical
Information
The interstate transport provisions at
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also
referred to as the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions, require that each state’s SIP
contain adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that adversely affect any other
state’s air quality through interstate
transport of air pollutants. As discussed
in the Background Information section
of this notice, a state’s SIP must contain
provisions that satisfy the four elements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On August 15,
2006, EPA issued guidance for SIP
submissions addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 1997 PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.1 The portions of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP revision that
address element (1) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are consistent with EPA’s 2006
guidance.
To demonstrate that emissions from
Colorado do not contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state, the
Colorado Interstate Transport SIP relies
on a combination of: (a) Modeling
analysis done by the State as part of the
attainment demonstration SIP for the
Denver Metropolitan Area/North Front
Range (DMA/NFR) nonattainment area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard; (b)
monitoring data gathered by states and
reported to EPA in the Air Quality
System (AQS) database; and (c)
considerations of geographical and
meteorological factors. In this action,
EPA expands on the analysis of
geographical and meteorological factors,
and of ozone concentration levels
reflecting AQS monitoring data.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides that
EPA cannot approve a state’s SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS unless it
contains adequate measures to prohibit
emissions from sources within the state
from contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state. EPA’s August 15, 2006 guidance
to states concerning section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) recommended various
methods by which states might evaluate
whether or not its emissions
significantly contribute to violations of
the 1997 ozone standards in another
1 Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled
Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (Aug. 15, 2006) (‘‘2006
Guidance’’). Available for review in EPA’s January
14, 2010 docket document entitled: ‘‘Relevant
Guidance and Supporting Documentation for the
Proposed Rulemaking Federal Register Action
Docket ID # EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1032.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
state. Among other methods, EPA
recommended consideration of available
EPA modeling conducted in
conjunction with CAIR,2 or in the
absence of such EPA modeling,
consideration of other information such
as the amount of emissions, the
geographic location of violating areas,
meteorological data, or various other
forms of information that would be
relevant to assessing the likelihood of
significant contribution to violations of
the NAAQS in another state. The
assessment of significant contribution to
nonattainment is not restricted to
impacts upon areas that are formally
designated nonattainment. Consistent
with EPA’s approach in CAIR, this
impact must be evaluated with respect
to any monitors showing a violation of
the NAAQS (70 FR 25172, May 12,
2005, and 63 FR 57371, October 27,
1998). Furthermore, although relevant
information other than modeling may be
considered in assessing the likelihood of
significant contribution to violations of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in
another state, EPA notes that no single
piece of information in the following
discussion is by itself dispositive of the
issue. Instead, the total weight of all the
evidence taken together supports the
conclusion that emissions from
Colorado sources are unlikely to
contribute significantly to violations of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in any
other state.
The Colorado Interstate Transport SIP
uses results from Colorado’s 2009
‘‘8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan’’ for the
DMA/NFR nonattainment area, and a
report from the Western States Air
Resource (WESTAR) Council to
underscore that: (a) Local anthropogenic
ozone contribution to high ozone
concentrations in Denver is only about
25%; and (b) on days of highest ozone
concentrations (reflecting a design value
of 84.9 ppb) in the DMA/NFR area, the
projected design values decrease to 63
ppb or less for all downwind Colorado
counties east of an imaginary northsouth line approximately 70 miles east
from Denver.3 EPA does not accept the
State of Colorado Interstate Transport
SIP assessment that these results
2 In this action the expression ‘‘CAIR’’ refers to the
final rule published in the May 12, 2005 Federal
Register and entitled ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain
Program; Revisions to NOX SIP Call; Final Rule’’ (70
FR 25162).
3 See Figure 5, page 15 of the Interstate Transport
SIP submitted June 18, 2009. It must be noted that
the modeling analysis domain for the DMA/NFR
attainment plan was limited to the State territory,
and that the 70-mile distance represents the
approximate distance from Denver to the western
border of Morgan County.
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
demonstrate that ‘‘ the magnitude of
ozone transport from Colorado to other
states is too low to significantly
contribute to nonattainment in * * *
any other state with respect to the 0.08
ppb NAAQS.’’ 4 Similarly, EPA does not
accept the claim in Colorado’s SIP that
the absence of violations of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in adjacent downwind
states such as Kansas, Nebraska and
Wyoming suffices to show that
emissions from Colorado sources do not
significantly affect farther downwind
ozone nonattainment areas such as St.
Louis.5 The relatively limited
contribution of local emissions to
nonattainment in the DMA/NFR, the
quick drop in ozone levels in the
easternmost Colorado counties, and
even the substantial gap between the
1997 NAAQS and design values in
adjacent downwind states do not
exclude a potential significant
contribution from Colorado emissions to
downwind nonattainment areas.
However, as a reflection of emission
levels, the relatively (to the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS) moderate ozone
concentrations in eastern Colorado and
in adjacent downwind states somewhat
reduces the probability of significant
ozone contribution from Colorado
emission sources to considerably farther
downwind nonattainment areas such as
St. Louis, Missouri, and Chicago,
Illinois.
In addition, significant contribution
should be measured not just against
nonattainment areas, but also against
areas with monitors showing violations
of the NAAQS. That said,
nonattainment areas are a convenient
starting point for EPA’s analysis. For the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the St.
Louis area and the Illinois and
Wisconsin Counties along the
southwestern shore of Lake Michigan
(Illinois/Wisconsin area) are the
designated downwind nonattainment
areas closest to Colorado.6 EPA’s
evaluation of whether emissions from
Colorado contribute significantly to
ozone nonattainment in these areas
relies on an examination of a variety of
data and analysis that provide insight
on ozone transport from Colorado to
these two areas. Because EPA does not
4 ‘‘State of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet
the Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate Transport Regarding
the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard,’’ p. 17, December
12, 2009.
5 Ibid., pp. 8–9.
6 The Wisconsin nonattainment areas for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard include: Door, Kewaunee,
Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Washington,
Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine and Kenosha
counties; the Chicago nonattainment area includes
Cook County and several adjacent Illinois and
Indiana counties (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:17 Mar 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
have detailed modeling for Colorado
and nearby downwind states, our
approach does not rely on a quantitative
determination of Colorado’s
contribution, as EPA did for other states
in its CAIR rulemaking, but on a weightof-evidence analysis based on
qualitative assessments and estimates of
the relevant factors. While conclusions
reached for each of the factors
considered in the following analysis are
not in and by themselves determinative,
consideration of all of these factors
provides a reliable qualitative
conclusion on whether Colorado’s
emissions are likely to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the St.
Louis and the Illinois/Wisconsin areas.
The Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment
area is approximately 900 miles east/
northeast from the Colorado DMA/NFR
area. Distance per se is not an obstacle
to long range transport of ozone and/or
its precursors, as discussed in the
January 30, 2004 notice proposing CAIR
(69 FR 4599). NOx, the primary ozone
precursor that was the object of the
CAIR transport study, may be
transported for long distances,
contributing significantly to high ozone
concentrations in other states. However,
with increasing distance there are
greater opportunities for ozone or NOX
dispersion and/or removal from the
atmosphere due to the effect of winds or
chemical sink processes. As a result,
one may conclude that the 900-mile
distance from Colorado sources of NOX
emissions and the Illinois/Wisconsin
area reduces, but does not exclude, the
possibility of significant contribution to
this area’s nonattainment.
Another transport factor is wind
direction. For long range transport
winds, a modeling analysis of ozone
dispersion during the summer months
(June to August) of the five-year period
1991–1995 shows that on high local
ozone days the prevailing long range
transport winds in States immediately
to the east and north of Colorado
(Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa,
Minnesota, and North Dakota) had a
southerly direction. On high regional
ozone days, during the same period,
regional transport winds in the same
States were southwesterly, but with a
westerly component so weak that a
greater portion of NOX emissions from
Colorado would likely remain
significantly west of the Illinois/
Wisconsin nonattainment area.7 To the
extent that these results are
7 Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG),
Air Quality Analysis Workgroup: ‘‘3.3 Climatology
of Ozone Synoptic Scale Transport in the Eastern
US,’’ Figures 1(a) and 5(a), pp. 3, 6, January 11,
1998. High ozone days were days with ozone
concentrations in the 90th percentile.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16035
representative of general ozone
transport patterns not limited to the
1991–1995 period, the weak western
component of long range transport
winds during high ozone days in the
States east and north of Colorado
provides evidence that NOX emissions
from Colorado are unlikely to contribute
significantly to violations of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Illinois/Wisconsin
counties along the southwestern shores
of Lake Michigan.
Additional circumstantial evidence
supporting this conclusion is found in
technical documentation developed in
recent years by the States of Kansas and
Wisconsin. To support its Interstate
Transport SIP, the State of Kansas
submitted to EPA Region 7 technical
documentation that includes back
trajectory analyses gauging the pathway
of air masses impacting the Illinois/
Wisconsin nonattainment area on the
four days with highest ozone
concentrations during each of the years
2005–2007. The back trajectory analyses
in Appendix G of the technical support
section show that, for the four days with
the highest ozone readings, none of the
pathways followed by air masses
moving into the Chicago Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) or into several of
the Wisconsin nonattainment counties
came from Colorado. Since these back
trajectories refer to the pathways of air
masses and not specifically to ozone
transport, the results of this analysis
cannot be considered determinative as
to the significant contribution of ozone
or NOX from Colorado emissions to the
nonattainment counties along the
southwestern shores of Lake Michigan.
However, the lack of any back
trajectories from Colorado indicates that
it is unlikely that NOX emissions from
the State contribute significantly to the
nonattainment of the Illinois/Wisconsin
area.
Further support is given by a recent
attainment demonstration by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) for the
nonattainment counties along the
southwestern shores of Lake Michigan.8
The WDNR analysis identifies heavy
industrial activity and dense
urbanization as the major local
contributors to the high ozone
concentrations in the Indiana, Illinois
and Wisconsin Counties along the
southwestern shores of Lake Michigan.
Between 40 and 60 percent of the
maximum ozone concentrations in the
Lake Michigan airshed is attributed to
8 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
‘‘Attainment Demonstration—The Wisconsin
Counties of Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee,
Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Sheboygan,
Manitowoc and Door,’’ September 2009.
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
16036
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules
regional transport, occurring from
emission sources located within a
south-southwesterly arc spanning from
160 to 270 degrees (compass direction).
Colorado’s location at the western
margins of this arc (Denver is
approximately 260 degrees southwest of
Chicago) substantially reduces the
likelihood for NOX emissions from the
State to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in the Illinois/Wisconsin
area.9 Given the southerly orientation of
regional transport winds in States east
and north of Colorado, it is likely that
Colorado ozone or NOX emissions
would be heavily dispersed in a
northward direction west of this
nonattainment area.
Finally, by 2008, the 8-hour ozone
design values for the Illinois and
Wisconsin nonattainment counties
along the shores of Lake Michigan fell
below the level of the NAAQS, a
reduction attributed to the
implementation of State and Federal
control measures since the designation
of these counties as nonattainment in
2004. In other words, were there
emissions from Colorado sources
reaching the Illinois and Wisconsin
counties along the western rim of Lake
Michigan, they would no longer be
significantly contributing to violations
of the NAAQS in that area.10
The other nonattainment area, St.
Louis and adjacent counties, is
approximately 800 miles straight east
from the Colorado DMA/NFR area. This
substantial distance does not, in and by
itself, exclude the possibility of
significant contribution from Colorado’s
NOX emissions to nonattainment in the
St. Louis area. However, it is also
sufficient to provide many opportunities
for ozone dispersion and removal from
the atmosphere due to the effect of
winds and chemical sink processes, and
thus reduce the likelihood of significant
contribution from Colorado to
nonattainment in this area.
The impact of wind direction on
ozone transport from Colorado to the St.
Louis area is gauged through the results
of several findings. Kansas, immediately
east of Colorado and west of Missouri,
is characterized by strong southerly
surface winds that match prevailing
regional transport winds, which have a
southerly orientation during days of
elevated ozone concentration.
Throughout 2005 its winds averaged
daily speeds slightly over 9 mph.11 The
OTAG modeling analysis referred to
9 Ibid.,
earlier shows that, during the five years
from 1991 to 1995, on high ozone days
regional transport winds in Kansas and
Missouri have a prevailing southerly
orientation. To the extent that these
results are representative of general
ozone transport patterns not limited to
the 1991–95 period, they indicate that
ozone/NOX emissions from Colorado
reaching Kansas or Missouri were very
likely to be redirected northward and
away from the St. Louis area, thus
lessening the likelihood for a significant
ozone contribution to nonattainment
from Colorado.
Results from other studies are
consistent with these tentative
conclusions. In a study published by
OTAG in 1997, the St. Louis area
showed higher ozone concentrations (70
as compared with 55 ppb) on days with
winds from the south or the east than on
days with winds from the west (the
general direction from Colorado) or
southwest.12 More recent back trajectory
analyses gauging the pathway of air
masses impacting St. Louis on days of
high ozone allow similar conclusions.
The State of Kansas’ technical
documentation supporting its Interstate
Transport SIP (approved by EPA in
March 2007) include back trajectory
analyses independent of their source
regions (i.e., Colorado or Kansas.) The
results show that for each of the 2005–
2007 years, on the four days with the
highest ozone readings the frequency of
trajectory ‘‘contribution’’ from Colorado
to St. Louis was negligible. There is only
one instance of a 500 meter trajectory
from Colorado, while there were none
for transport at 1500 meter of altitude.13
These findings, in combination with the
other circumstantial evidence examined
above, strengthen the conclusion that it
is unlikely that emissions from Colorado
sources contribute significantly to the
nonattainment of the St. Louis area.
As mentioned above, EPA must
consider not only significant
contribution to nonattainment areas, but
also to areas with monitors showing
violations of the NAAQS. A review of
the AQS monitoring data for adjacent
downwind states shows that it is highly
unlikely that emissions from Colorado
contribute significantly to downwind
areas that have monitors showing
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Between 1999 and 2008 there
were no violations of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS at any of the monitors in
p. 51.
10 Ibid.
11 See
the January 4, 2007 State of Kansas
submittal to EPA of Interstate Transport SIP
revisions, Document ID# EPA–R07–OAR–2007–
0141–0003, pp. 6–7.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:17 Mar 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
12 OTAG, ‘‘Ozone as Function of Local Wind
Speed and Direction: Evidence of Local and
Regional Transport,’’ p. 33, July 26, 1997.
13 Document ID# EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0141–
0003, Appendix G.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
adjacent downwind states, such as
Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming.
Design values for the years 2005–
2007 14 show that in adjacent downwind
states such as Kansas, Nebraska, and
Wyoming, there were no violations of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that
in most counties ozone levels remained
substantially below the NAAQS. In
Kansas, the 2007 design value for Trego
County, the county with a monitoring
station closest to Colorado, was 71 ppb,
or 16 percent below the ozone NAAQS.
The counties that had the highest design
values are at or near the eastern edge of
the state, about 400 miles from
Colorado’s eastern border, and their
design values ranged from 76 ppb for
Johnson and Sumner Counties to 77 ppb
for Leavenworth and Wyandotte
Counties. In Nebraska and Wyoming,
the highest ozone design values did not
exceed 69 ppb in Douglas County,
Nebraska and 72 ppb in Sublette
County, Wyoming.
The historical trend over the period
1998–2008 for the 1997 8-hour ozone
design values in these states places the
2005–2007 data reviewed above in
context. In Nebraska, ozone design
values were consistently low throughout
the period. In Wyoming, design values
were also constant in most of the
monitored areas, where ozone
monitoring only began between 2003
and 2005. Kansas design values show a
clear trend of declining ozone levels
from the late 1990s to the most recent
years. In Linn, Sedgwick, and Sumner
Counties, design values decreased from
highs ranging between 77 and 82 ppb
during 2000–2003 to levels ranging
between 66 and 75 ppb in 2006–2008.
The data and weight of evidence
analysis presented above support the
conclusion of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP (adopted into the State
SIP on December 30, 2008 and
submitted to EPA June 18, 2009) that
emissions from Colorado do not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, consistently
with the requirements of element (1) of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
VI. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing partial approval of
the Colorado SIP to meet the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
regarding the 1997 ozone standard.
Specifically, in this action EPA is
proposing to approve only the language
and demonstration that, in this SIP
revision, address the requirements of
element (1): Prohibition of significant
14 See Table 4, pages 7 and 8, of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP.
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 31, 2010 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
contribution to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state. At a later date, EPA will act on the
language and demonstration addressing
element (2): prohibition of interference
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Review
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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
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).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:17 Mar 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile Organic
Compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 18, 2010.
Carol L. Campbell,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator,
Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010–6893 Filed 3–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0549; SW–FRL–
9131–6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by Tokusen USA,
Inc. (called just Tokusen hereinafter) to
exclude (or delist) a wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) sludge filter
cake (called just sludge hereinafter)
generated by Tokusen in Conway, AR
from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA
used the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) in the evaluation of
the impact of the petitioned waste on
human health and the environment.
EPA bases its proposed decision to
grant the petition on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
the petitioner. This proposed decision,
if finalized, would exclude the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
If finalized, EPA would conclude that
Tokusen’s petitioned waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original
listing criteria. EPA would also
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16037
conclude that Tokusen’s process
minimizes short-term and long-term
threats from the petitioned waste to
human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until
April 30, 2010. We will stamp
comments postmarked after the close of
the comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These
‘‘late’’ comments may not be considered
in formulating a final decision.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
RCRA–2009–0549 by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: kim.youngmoo@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Youngmoo Kim,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Youngmoo Kim,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–
0549. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 31, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16032-16037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6893]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1032; FRL-9131-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS: ``Significant Contribution to Nonattainment''
Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing partial
approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions ``State of
Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport Regarding the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' submitted by the State of Colorado on June 18,
2009. The Colorado Interstate Transport SIP revisions submitted June
18, 2009 address the requirements of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this Federal Register action EPA proposes
approval of the Colorado SIP sections that address the requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibiting a state's emissions from
contributing significantly to any other state's nonattainment of the
NAAQS. EPA will act at a later date on the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP sections that address the requirement prohibiting a
state's emissions from interfering with any other state's maintenance
of the NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1032, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
[[Page 16033]]
Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-1032. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6436,
mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Background Information
III. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
IV. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
V. EPA's Review and Technical Information
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background Information
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a state's SIP must
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in any other state; (2) interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS by any other state; (3) interfere with any other state's required
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; or (4)
interfere with any other state's required measures to protect
visibility. On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado submitted to EPA an
Interstate Transport SIP addressing the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to EPA's concerns
with the June 11, 2008 submittal, on December 30, 2008 the State
adopted and on June 18, 2009 submitted a revised SIP addressing the
requirements of elements (1) and (2) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State of Colorado is planning to submit in
June 2010 further revisions addressing the requirements of elements (3)
and (4) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the requirements of
elements (1) through (4) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
[[Page 16034]]
III. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado Interstate
Transport of Air Pollution SIP addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December
30, 2008, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted
the ``State of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of
the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
Regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard.'' Colorado submitted the
December 30, 2008 SIP revision to EPA on June 18, 2009. In this Federal
Register action EPA is proposing to approve only the language and
demonstration that addresses element (1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i):
Prohibition of significant contribution to nonattainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
IV. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses EPA's rulemaking action on SIP
submissions by states. The CAA requires states to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a state to EPA.
The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing in December 2008 for the
interstate transport SIP revision: ``State of Colorado Implementation
Plan to Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport Regarding the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard.'' The AQCC adopted this revision on December 30, 2008,
and the State submitted it to EPA on June 18, 2009.
On November 18, 2009, the AQCC provided EPA with an exact color
duplicate of the SIP adopted by the AQCC on December 30, 2008 and
included in the June 18, 2009 submittal to EPA. In the original
submittal, AQCC provided a black and white copy. The SIP's color
duplicate, available for review as part of the Docket, makes it easier
to understand modeling results reported in several graphs that are part
of the SIP technical demonstration.
EPA has reviewed the submittal from the State of Colorado and has
determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice
and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
V. EPA's Review and Technical Information
The interstate transport provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
also referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provisions, require that each
state's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
adversely affect any other state's air quality through interstate
transport of air pollutants. As discussed in the Background Information
section of this notice, a state's SIP must contain provisions that
satisfy the four elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On August 15,
2006, EPA issued guidance for SIP submissions addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5
and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The portions of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP revision that address element (1) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are consistent with
EPA's 2006 guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(Aug. 15, 2006) (``2006 Guidance''). Available for review in EPA's
January 14, 2010 docket document entitled: ``Relevant Guidance and
Supporting Documentation for the Proposed Rulemaking Federal
Register Action Docket ID EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate that emissions from Colorado do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state, the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP relies on a
combination of: (a) Modeling analysis done by the State as part of the
attainment demonstration SIP for the Denver Metropolitan Area/North
Front Range (DMA/NFR) nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard; (b) monitoring data gathered by states and reported to EPA in
the Air Quality System (AQS) database; and (c) considerations of
geographical and meteorological factors. In this action, EPA expands on
the analysis of geographical and meteorological factors, and of ozone
concentration levels reflecting AQS monitoring data.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides that EPA cannot approve a state's
SIP for a new or revised NAAQS unless it contains adequate measures to
prohibit emissions from sources within the state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. EPA's
August 15, 2006 guidance to states concerning section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
recommended various methods by which states might evaluate whether or
not its emissions significantly contribute to violations of the 1997
ozone standards in another state. Among other methods, EPA recommended
consideration of available EPA modeling conducted in conjunction with
CAIR,\2\ or in the absence of such EPA modeling, consideration of other
information such as the amount of emissions, the geographic location of
violating areas, meteorological data, or various other forms of
information that would be relevant to assessing the likelihood of
significant contribution to violations of the NAAQS in another state.
The assessment of significant contribution to nonattainment is not
restricted to impacts upon areas that are formally designated
nonattainment. Consistent with EPA's approach in CAIR, this impact must
be evaluated with respect to any monitors showing a violation of the
NAAQS (70 FR 25172, May 12, 2005, and 63 FR 57371, October 27, 1998).
Furthermore, although relevant information other than modeling may be
considered in assessing the likelihood of significant contribution to
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in another state, EPA
notes that no single piece of information in the following discussion
is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all
the evidence taken together supports the conclusion that emissions from
Colorado sources are unlikely to contribute significantly to violations
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In this action the expression ``CAIR'' refers to the final
rule published in the May 12, 2005 Federal Register and entitled
``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to NOX SIP Call; Final Rule'' (70 FR 25162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Interstate Transport SIP uses results from Colorado's
2009 ``8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan'' for the DMA/NFR nonattainment
area, and a report from the Western States Air Resource (WESTAR)
Council to underscore that: (a) Local anthropogenic ozone contribution
to high ozone concentrations in Denver is only about 25%; and (b) on
days of highest ozone concentrations (reflecting a design value of 84.9
ppb) in the DMA/NFR area, the projected design values decrease to 63
ppb or less for all downwind Colorado counties east of an imaginary
north-south line approximately 70 miles east from Denver.\3\ EPA does
not accept the State of Colorado Interstate Transport SIP assessment
that these results
[[Page 16035]]
demonstrate that `` the magnitude of ozone transport from Colorado to
other states is too low to significantly contribute to nonattainment in
* * * any other state with respect to the 0.08 ppb NAAQS.'' \4\
Similarly, EPA does not accept the claim in Colorado's SIP that the
absence of violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in adjacent downwind
states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming suffices to show that
emissions from Colorado sources do not significantly affect farther
downwind ozone nonattainment areas such as St. Louis.\5\ The relatively
limited contribution of local emissions to nonattainment in the DMA/
NFR, the quick drop in ozone levels in the easternmost Colorado
counties, and even the substantial gap between the 1997 NAAQS and
design values in adjacent downwind states do not exclude a potential
significant contribution from Colorado emissions to downwind
nonattainment areas. However, as a reflection of emission levels, the
relatively (to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) moderate ozone
concentrations in eastern Colorado and in adjacent downwind states
somewhat reduces the probability of significant ozone contribution from
Colorado emission sources to considerably farther downwind
nonattainment areas such as St. Louis, Missouri, and Chicago, Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Figure 5, page 15 of the Interstate Transport SIP
submitted June 18, 2009. It must be noted that the modeling analysis
domain for the DMA/NFR attainment plan was limited to the State
territory, and that the 70-mile distance represents the approximate
distance from Denver to the western border of Morgan County.
\4\ ``State of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the
Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate
Transport Regarding the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard,'' p. 17,
December 12, 2009.
\5\ Ibid., pp. 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, significant contribution should be measured not just
against nonattainment areas, but also against areas with monitors
showing violations of the NAAQS. That said, nonattainment areas are a
convenient starting point for EPA's analysis. For the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the St. Louis area and the Illinois and Wisconsin Counties along
the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan (Illinois/Wisconsin area) are
the designated downwind nonattainment areas closest to Colorado.\6\
EPA's evaluation of whether emissions from Colorado contribute
significantly to ozone nonattainment in these areas relies on an
examination of a variety of data and analysis that provide insight on
ozone transport from Colorado to these two areas. Because EPA does not
have detailed modeling for Colorado and nearby downwind states, our
approach does not rely on a quantitative determination of Colorado's
contribution, as EPA did for other states in its CAIR rulemaking, but
on a weight-of-evidence analysis based on qualitative assessments and
estimates of the relevant factors. While conclusions reached for each
of the factors considered in the following analysis are not in and by
themselves determinative, consideration of all of these factors
provides a reliable qualitative conclusion on whether Colorado's
emissions are likely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in
the St. Louis and the Illinois/Wisconsin areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Wisconsin nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard include: Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee,
Washington, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine and Kenosha counties; the
Chicago nonattainment area includes Cook County and several adjacent
Illinois and Indiana counties (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment area is approximately 900
miles east/northeast from the Colorado DMA/NFR area. Distance per se is
not an obstacle to long range transport of ozone and/or its precursors,
as discussed in the January 30, 2004 notice proposing CAIR (69 FR
4599). NOx, the primary ozone precursor that was the object of the CAIR
transport study, may be transported for long distances, contributing
significantly to high ozone concentrations in other states. However,
with increasing distance there are greater opportunities for ozone or
NOX dispersion and/or removal from the atmosphere due to the
effect of winds or chemical sink processes. As a result, one may
conclude that the 900-mile distance from Colorado sources of
NOX emissions and the Illinois/Wisconsin area reduces, but
does not exclude, the possibility of significant contribution to this
area's nonattainment.
Another transport factor is wind direction. For long range
transport winds, a modeling analysis of ozone dispersion during the
summer months (June to August) of the five-year period 1991-1995 shows
that on high local ozone days the prevailing long range transport winds
in States immediately to the east and north of Colorado (Kansas,
Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota) had a
southerly direction. On high regional ozone days, during the same
period, regional transport winds in the same States were southwesterly,
but with a westerly component so weak that a greater portion of
NOX emissions from Colorado would likely remain
significantly west of the Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment area.\7\ To
the extent that these results are representative of general ozone
transport patterns not limited to the 1991-1995 period, the weak
western component of long range transport winds during high ozone days
in the States east and north of Colorado provides evidence that
NOX emissions from Colorado are unlikely to contribute
significantly to violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Illinois/
Wisconsin counties along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), Air Quality
Analysis Workgroup: ``3.3 Climatology of Ozone Synoptic Scale
Transport in the Eastern US,'' Figures 1(a) and 5(a), pp. 3, 6,
January 11, 1998. High ozone days were days with ozone
concentrations in the 90th percentile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional circumstantial evidence supporting this conclusion is
found in technical documentation developed in recent years by the
States of Kansas and Wisconsin. To support its Interstate Transport
SIP, the State of Kansas submitted to EPA Region 7 technical
documentation that includes back trajectory analyses gauging the
pathway of air masses impacting the Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment
area on the four days with highest ozone concentrations during each of
the years 2005-2007. The back trajectory analyses in Appendix G of the
technical support section show that, for the four days with the highest
ozone readings, none of the pathways followed by air masses moving into
the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or into several of the
Wisconsin nonattainment counties came from Colorado. Since these back
trajectories refer to the pathways of air masses and not specifically
to ozone transport, the results of this analysis cannot be considered
determinative as to the significant contribution of ozone or
NOX from Colorado emissions to the nonattainment counties
along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. However, the lack of
any back trajectories from Colorado indicates that it is unlikely that
NOX emissions from the State contribute significantly to the
nonattainment of the Illinois/Wisconsin area.
Further support is given by a recent attainment demonstration by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) for the
nonattainment counties along the southwestern shores of Lake
Michigan.\8\ The WDNR analysis identifies heavy industrial activity and
dense urbanization as the major local contributors to the high ozone
concentrations in the Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin Counties along
the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. Between 40 and 60 percent of
the maximum ozone concentrations in the Lake Michigan airshed is
attributed to
[[Page 16036]]
regional transport, occurring from emission sources located within a
south-southwesterly arc spanning from 160 to 270 degrees (compass
direction). Colorado's location at the western margins of this arc
(Denver is approximately 260 degrees southwest of Chicago)
substantially reduces the likelihood for NOX emissions from
the State to contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Illinois/
Wisconsin area.\9\ Given the southerly orientation of regional
transport winds in States east and north of Colorado, it is likely that
Colorado ozone or NOX emissions would be heavily dispersed
in a northward direction west of this nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, ``Attainment
Demonstration--The Wisconsin Counties of Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee,
Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Sheboygan, Manitowoc and Door,''
September 2009.
\9\ Ibid., p. 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, by 2008, the 8-hour ozone design values for the Illinois
and Wisconsin nonattainment counties along the shores of Lake Michigan
fell below the level of the NAAQS, a reduction attributed to the
implementation of State and Federal control measures since the
designation of these counties as nonattainment in 2004. In other words,
were there emissions from Colorado sources reaching the Illinois and
Wisconsin counties along the western rim of Lake Michigan, they would
no longer be significantly contributing to violations of the NAAQS in
that area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other nonattainment area, St. Louis and adjacent counties, is
approximately 800 miles straight east from the Colorado DMA/NFR area.
This substantial distance does not, in and by itself, exclude the
possibility of significant contribution from Colorado's NOX
emissions to nonattainment in the St. Louis area. However, it is also
sufficient to provide many opportunities for ozone dispersion and
removal from the atmosphere due to the effect of winds and chemical
sink processes, and thus reduce the likelihood of significant
contribution from Colorado to nonattainment in this area.
The impact of wind direction on ozone transport from Colorado to
the St. Louis area is gauged through the results of several findings.
Kansas, immediately east of Colorado and west of Missouri, is
characterized by strong southerly surface winds that match prevailing
regional transport winds, which have a southerly orientation during
days of elevated ozone concentration. Throughout 2005 its winds
averaged daily speeds slightly over 9 mph.\11\ The OTAG modeling
analysis referred to earlier shows that, during the five years from
1991 to 1995, on high ozone days regional transport winds in Kansas and
Missouri have a prevailing southerly orientation. To the extent that
these results are representative of general ozone transport patterns
not limited to the 1991-95 period, they indicate that ozone/
NOX emissions from Colorado reaching Kansas or Missouri were
very likely to be redirected northward and away from the St. Louis
area, thus lessening the likelihood for a significant ozone
contribution to nonattainment from Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See the January 4, 2007 State of Kansas submittal to EPA of
Interstate Transport SIP revisions, Document ID EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0141-0003, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results from other studies are consistent with these tentative
conclusions. In a study published by OTAG in 1997, the St. Louis area
showed higher ozone concentrations (70 as compared with 55 ppb) on days
with winds from the south or the east than on days with winds from the
west (the general direction from Colorado) or southwest.\12\ More
recent back trajectory analyses gauging the pathway of air masses
impacting St. Louis on days of high ozone allow similar conclusions.
The State of Kansas' technical documentation supporting its Interstate
Transport SIP (approved by EPA in March 2007) include back trajectory
analyses independent of their source regions (i.e., Colorado or
Kansas.) The results show that for each of the 2005-2007 years, on the
four days with the highest ozone readings the frequency of trajectory
``contribution'' from Colorado to St. Louis was negligible. There is
only one instance of a 500 meter trajectory from Colorado, while there
were none for transport at 1500 meter of altitude.\13\ These findings,
in combination with the other circumstantial evidence examined above,
strengthen the conclusion that it is unlikely that emissions from
Colorado sources contribute significantly to the nonattainment of the
St. Louis area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ OTAG, ``Ozone as Function of Local Wind Speed and
Direction: Evidence of Local and Regional Transport,'' p. 33, July
26, 1997.
\13\ Document ID EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0141-0003, Appendix
G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, EPA must consider not only significant
contribution to nonattainment areas, but also to areas with monitors
showing violations of the NAAQS. A review of the AQS monitoring data
for adjacent downwind states shows that it is highly unlikely that
emissions from Colorado contribute significantly to downwind areas that
have monitors showing violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Between 1999 and 2008 there were no violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at any of the monitors in adjacent downwind states, such as
Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming.
Design values for the years 2005-2007 \14\ show that in adjacent
downwind states such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming, there were no
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that in most counties
ozone levels remained substantially below the NAAQS. In Kansas, the
2007 design value for Trego County, the county with a monitoring
station closest to Colorado, was 71 ppb, or 16 percent below the ozone
NAAQS. The counties that had the highest design values are at or near
the eastern edge of the state, about 400 miles from Colorado's eastern
border, and their design values ranged from 76 ppb for Johnson and
Sumner Counties to 77 ppb for Leavenworth and Wyandotte Counties. In
Nebraska and Wyoming, the highest ozone design values did not exceed 69
ppb in Douglas County, Nebraska and 72 ppb in Sublette County, Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Table 4, pages 7 and 8, of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The historical trend over the period 1998-2008 for the 1997 8-hour
ozone design values in these states places the 2005-2007 data reviewed
above in context. In Nebraska, ozone design values were consistently
low throughout the period. In Wyoming, design values were also constant
in most of the monitored areas, where ozone monitoring only began
between 2003 and 2005. Kansas design values show a clear trend of
declining ozone levels from the late 1990s to the most recent years. In
Linn, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, design values decreased from highs
ranging between 77 and 82 ppb during 2000-2003 to levels ranging
between 66 and 75 ppb in 2006-2008.
The data and weight of evidence analysis presented above support
the conclusion of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP (adopted into
the State SIP on December 30, 2008 and submitted to EPA June 18, 2009)
that emissions from Colorado do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
consistently with the requirements of element (1) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
VI. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado SIP to meet the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the 1997 ozone
standard. Specifically, in this action EPA is proposing to approve only
the language and demonstration that, in this SIP revision, address the
requirements of element (1): Prohibition of significant
[[Page 16037]]
contribution to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state. At a later date, EPA will act on the language and
demonstration addressing element (2): prohibition of interference with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 18, 2010.
Carol L. Campbell,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-6893 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
