Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5, 22036-22038 [2011-9580]
Download as PDF
22036
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention
Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake
Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at 414–747–
7154, e-mail Adam.D.Kraft@uscg.mil.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
The Coast
Guard will enforce the Safety Zone;
Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast,
Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931 for
the following events:
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of
Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS:
‘‘Interference With Visibility’’
Requirement
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Navy Pier Fireworks; on May 28, 2011 from
10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on June 1, 2011
from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on June 4,
2011 from 10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on
June 8, 2011 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45
p.m.; on June 11, 2011 from 10 p.m. through
10:30 p.m.; on June 15, 2011 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.; on June 18, 2011 from 10
p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; on June 22, 2011
from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.; on June 25,
2011 from 10 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.; and
on June 29, 2011 from 9:15 p.m. through 9:45
p.m.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
All vessels must obtain permission
from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative to enter, move within or
exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons
granted permission to enter the safety
zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her onscene representative. While within a
safety zone, all vessels shall operate at
the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advance
notification of these enforcement
periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners
or Local Notice to Mariners. The
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, will issue a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners notifying the public when
enforcement of the safety zone
established by this section is suspended.
If the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, determines that the safety
zone need not be enforced for the full
duration stated in this notice, he or she
may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
to grant general permission to enter the
safety zone. The Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her onscene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.
Dated: April 7, 2011.
S.R. Schenk,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port, Lake Michigan, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2011–9531 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1036; FRL–9297–1]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is partially approving the
Colorado Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision,
submitted on March 31, 2010,
addressing the requirements of Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
for the 1997 ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, in this
Federal Register action EPA is fully
approving those portions of the
Colorado March 31, 2010 submission
that address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement
prohibiting a state’s emissions from
interfering with any other state’s
required measures to protect visibility
for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
This action is being taken under section
110 of the CAA.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective May 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1036. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Sfmt 4700
Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202–
1129, (303) 312–6144,
dygowski.laurel@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. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background Information
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated
new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for
fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This
action is being taken in response to the
promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires states to submit SIPs
to address a new or revised NAAQS
within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) lists the elements that such
new SIPs must address, as applicable,
including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to interstate transport of certain
emissions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
requires that a 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 all four
elements of the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
II. Final Action
governments, as described in the
EPA is partially approving the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
sections of the Colorado Interstate
(Pub. L. 104–4).
Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010
This rule also does not have tribal
that address the section
implications because it will not have a
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ‘‘interference with
substantial direct effect on one or more
visibility protection’’ requirement for the Indian tribes, on the relationship
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On
between the Federal Government and
January 13, 2010, the Colorado Air
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
Quality Control Commission (AQCC)
power and responsibilities between the
adopted interstate transport SIP
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
revisions addressing the requirements of as specified by Executive Order 13175
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
1997 ozone NAAQS, and the
action also does not have Federalism
requirements of CAA section
implications because it does not have
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997
substantial direct effects on the States,
PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted
on the relationship between the national
these revisions to EPA on March 31,
government and the States, or on the
2010. In this Federal Register action
distribution of power and
EPA is proposing to approve the
responsibilities among the various
sections of the March 31, 2010
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
submissions that address element (4),
‘‘interference with visibility protection,’’ August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
As noted earlier, in this rulemaking
Federal standard, and does not alter the
EPA is evaluating only the Colorado SIP relationship or the distribution of power
revisions of the March 31, 2010
and responsibilities established in the
submission that address the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
requirements of element (4), prohibiting subject to Executive Order 13045
sources in Colorado from emitting
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
pollutants from interfering with any
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
other state’s measures to protect
because it approves a state rule
visibility, for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
implementing a Federal standard.
NAAQS. EPA has already taken final
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
action on elements (1) and (2) for ozone
role is to approve state choices,
(see 75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029,
provided that they meet the criteria of
respectively). EPA will be taking action
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
on elements (1)–(3) for PM2.5 and
absence of a prior existing requirement
element (3) for ozone in a separate
for the State to use voluntary consensus
action.
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
III. Statutory and Executive Orders
to disapprove a SIP submission for
Review
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA’s
concerns regarding the June 11, 2008
submission, the State later submitted
two superceding interstate transport SIP
revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009
submission addressing the requirements
of elements (1) and (2) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS; and (b) a March 31, 2010
submission addressing the requirements
of elements (3) and (4) for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS and of elements (1)
through (4) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
On February 14, 2011, EPA published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
for the State of Colorado. The NPR
proposed approval of the sections of the
Colorado Interstate Transport SIP
submitted March 31, 2010 that address
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
‘‘interference with visibility protection’’
requirement for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22037
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 20, 2011.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 6, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
22038
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart G—Colorado
2. Section 52.352 is revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.352
Interstate transport.
Addition to the Colorado State
Implementation Plan of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP regarding the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the
‘‘significant contribution’’, the ‘‘interfere
with maintenance’’, and ‘‘interference
with visibility protection’’ requirements,
submitted by the Governor’s designee
on June 18, 2009 and March 31, 2010.
[FR Doc. 2011–9580 Filed 4–19–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–1078; FRL–9293–6]
Revision to the South Coast Portion of
the California State Implementation
Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB
1318 Tracking System
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a source-specific State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (District) portion
of the California SIP. This sourcespecific SIP revision is known as the
CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318
Tracking System. The SIP revision
consists of enabling language and the
AB 1318 Tracking System to revise the
District’s SIP approved New Source
Review (NSR) program. The SIP revision
allows the District to transfer offsetting
emission reductions for particulate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10) and one of its precursors, sulfur
oxides (SOX), to the CPV Sentinel
Energy Project, which will be a natural
gas fired power plant.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 20, 2011.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Apr 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3524, yannayon.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’,
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP Revision
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Public Comments and Responses to
Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review 13563
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Population
I. Background
The proposed Sentinel Energy Project
is designed to be a nominally rated 850
megawatt electrical generating facility
covering approximately 37 acres within
Riverside County, adjacent to Palm
Springs, California. EPA’s proposal for
this action contained a detailed
description of the project and the Clean
Air Act’s (CAA) requirements for offsets
during New Source Review permitting.
76 FR 2294 (January 13, 2011) With our
proposal to approve this SIP revision,
EPA attached the complete list of PM10
and SOX offsetting emission reductions
that are being transferred in the AB 1318
Tracking System to our Technical
Support Document (TSD).
Documentation for each of the offsetting
emission reductions listed in the
attachment to the TSD was included in
the docket for the proposal in hard copy
at EPA’s offices as well as other
locations. For additional background
information please see the January 13,
2011 proposed notice for this action. (76
FR 2294)
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Evaluation of Source-Specific SIP
Revision
A. What is the rule that EPA is
finalizing?
EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the
South Coast portion of the California
SIP. The SIP revision will be codified in
40 CFR 52.220 by incorporating by
reference the Offset Requirements for
the Proposed CPV Sentinel Power Plant,
including the CPV Sentinel Energy
Project AB 1318 Tracking System, as
adopted by the District.
The SIP revision provides a federally
approved and enforceable mechanism
for the District to transfer PM10 and SOX
offsetting emissions reductions from the
District’s internal bank to the Sentinel
Energy Project and to track those
emissions credits through the AB 1318
Tracking System.
B. Public Comment and Final Action
In response to our January 13, 2011
proposed rule, we received four
comments, one each from the South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(District), Michael Carroll of Latham &
Watkins LLP, the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), and the Law
Offices of Angela Johnson-Mezaros on
behalf of California Communities
Against Toxics and Communities for a
Better Environment (jointly referred to
herein as ‘‘CCAT’’). Copies of each
comment letter have been added to the
docket and are accessible at
regulations.gov. The comment from the
District supported EPA’s analysis and
proposed source-specific SIP revision
and provided an errata sheet correcting
minor typos and the amount of SOX
offsets available in the AB1318 Tracking
System (reduced the quantity by 92 lbs).
The comment from Latham & Watkins
was also supportive of our proposed
action. The comment from NRDC
generally opposed the SIP revision but
did not provide any specific grounds for
its opposition or raise any specific
issues. To the extent that NRDC
generally opposes the SIP revision, our
response to its general opposition is
included below with our response to
CCAT’s more specific comments. We
have summarized CCAT’s comments
(based on the structure of their comment
letter) and provide our response to each
comment below.
Comment I: CCAT comments that
EPA did not allow meaningful public
participation on the SIP revision for
several reasons and that approval of the
SIP revision based on the available
information would be arbitrary and
capricious.
Comment I.A: CCAT contends the
regulatory text of the SIP revision is too
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22036-22038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9580]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036; FRL-9297-1]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: ``Interference With Visibility''
Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving the Colorado Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted on March 31, 2010,
addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, in this Federal Register action EPA is fully approving
those portions of the Colorado March 31, 2010 submission that address
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement prohibiting a state's
emissions from interfering with any other state's required measures to
protect visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective May 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6144,
dygowski.laurel@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. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background Information
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken in response to the promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to
submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after
promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA
may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs
must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a 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 all four elements of the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
ozone and
[[Page 22037]]
PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA's concerns regarding the
June 11, 2008 submission, the State later submitted two superceding
interstate transport SIP revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009 submission
addressing the requirements of elements (1) and (2) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (b) a March 31, 2010
submission addressing the requirements of elements (3) and (4) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and of elements (1) through (4) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
On February 14, 2011, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of Colorado. The NPR proposed approval of the
sections of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP submitted March 31,
2010 that address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ``interference with
visibility protection'' requirement for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. Final Action
EPA is partially approving the sections of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010 that address the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ``interference with visibility protection''
requirement for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On January
13, 2010, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted
interstate transport SIP revisions addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted these revisions to EPA on
March 31, 2010. In this Federal Register action EPA is proposing to
approve the sections of the March 31, 2010 submissions that address
element (4), ``interference with visibility protection,'' of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
As noted earlier, in this rulemaking EPA is evaluating only the
Colorado SIP revisions of the March 31, 2010 submission that address
the requirements of element (4), prohibiting sources in Colorado from
emitting pollutants from interfering with any other state's measures to
protect visibility, for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
has already taken final action on elements (1) and (2) for ozone (see
75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029, respectively). EPA will be taking action
on elements (1)-(3) for PM2.5 and element (3) for ozone in a
separate action.
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 20, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur
oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 6, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 22038]]
Subpart G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.352 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.352 Interstate transport.
Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for
the ``significant contribution'', the ``interfere with maintenance'',
and ``interference with visibility protection'' requirements, submitted
by the Governor's designee on June 18, 2009 and March 31, 2010.
[FR Doc. 2011-9580 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P