Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado, 28707-28715 [2011-12213]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
additional requirements. For that
reason, this proposed 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 the 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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Dated: May 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–12063 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0809; FRL–9307–6]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards; Colorado
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
and conditionally approve the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
from the State of Colorado to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the
requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July
18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires that each state, after a new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated, review
their SIPs to ensure that they meet the
requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure
elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State
of Colorado submitted a certification of
their infrastructure SIP for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, dated January 7, 2008
which was determined to be complete
on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205).
EPA does not propose to act on the
State’s January 7, 2008 submission to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to
interstate transport of air pollution, for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved
the State’s interstate transport SIP
submission at 75 FR 31306, 75 FR
71029, and 76 FR 22036.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2009–0809, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28707
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–2009–
0809. 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 information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
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
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
28708
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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:
Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. 303–312–6142,
dolan.kathy@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.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What infrastructure elements are required
under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. How did Colorado address the
infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (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 on 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:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register, date, and page number);
Follow directions and organize your
comments;
Explain why you agree or disagree;
Suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes;
Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced;
Provide specific examples to illustrate
your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats; and,
Make sure to submit your comments
by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated
new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour
average concentrations. The 8-hour
averaging period replaced the previous
1-hour averaging period, and the level of
the NAAQS was changed from 0.12
parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62
FR 38856). By statute, SIPs meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) are to be submitted by states within
three years after promulgation of a new
or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2)
provides basic requirements for SIPs,
including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling, to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
standards. These requirements are set
out in several ‘‘infrastructure elements,’’
listed in section 110(a)(2).
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation
upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and
the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. In particular, the data
and analytical tools available at the time
the state develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affects the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
state’s existing SIP already contains. In
the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
states typically have met the basic
program elements required in section
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with
previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued
on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to
the extent an existing SIP already meets
the section 110(a)(2) requirements,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
states need only to certify that fact via
a letter to EPA.1
On March 27, 2008, EPA published a
final rule entitled, ‘‘Completeness
Findings for Section 110(a) State
Implementation Plans for the 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS’’ (73 FR 16205). In the
rule, EPA made a finding for each state
that it had submitted or had failed to
submit a complete SIP that provided the
basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
particular, EPA found that Colorado had
submitted a complete SIP to meet these
requirements.
III. What infrastructure elements are
required under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)?
Section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
SIP submissions after a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP
must contain or satisfy. These
infrastructure elements include
requirements, such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories,
that are designed to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
elements that are the subject of this
action are listed below.
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and
international pollution.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources
and authority.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source
monitoring and reporting.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
government officials; public
notification; and prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and
visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/
data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
A detailed discussion of each of these
elements is contained in the next
section.
Two elements identified in section
110(a)(2) are not governed by the three
year submission deadline of section
1 Memorandum from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, ‘‘Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (Oct. 2,
2007).
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
110(a)(1) and are therefore not
addressed in this action. These elements
relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and
submissions to satisfy them are not due
within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are
due at the same time nonattainment area
plan requirements are due under section
172. The two elements are: (i) Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to
permit programs (known as
‘‘nonattainment new source review
(NSR)’’) required under part D, and
(ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. As a result, this action does not
address infrastructure elements related
to the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to
110(a)(2)(I).
This action also does not address the
‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements of
element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approved
portions of the State’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
interstate transport SIP for the 1997
ozone NAAQS in separate actions (75
FR 31306; 75 FR 71029; 76 FR 22036),
and has proposed approval of the
remaining portion to meet the
requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding
interference with measures to prevent
significant deterioration (76 FR 21835).
IV. How did Colorado address the
infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
1. Emission limits and other control
measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules
and timetables for compliance as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this Act.
a. Colorado’s Response to this
requirement: Enforceable emission
limits and control measures are detailed
in the various Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission (AQCC) regulations
for all sources of criteria pollutants as
well as hazardous air pollutants, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), smoke and
odors. A summary of the regulations is
found below under section 110(a)(2)(C).
b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets
the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(A), subject to the following
clarifications. First, EPA does not
consider SIP requirements triggered by
the nonattainment area mandates in part
D of Title I of the CAA to be governed
by the submission deadline of section
110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Colorado has
included some SIP provisions originally
submitted in response to part D
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
requirements in its certification for the
infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2). For the purposes of
this action, EPA is reviewing any rules
originally submitted in response to part
D requirements solely for the purposes
of determining whether they support a
finding that the State has met the basic
infrastructure requirements of section
110(a)(2). For example, in response to
the requirement to have enforceable
emission limitations under section
110(a)(2)(A), Colorado cited to rules in
Regulation Number 7 that were
submitted to meet the reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
requirements of part D. EPA is here
approving those rules as meeting the
requirement to have enforceable
emission limitations on ozone
precursors; any judgment about whether
those emission limitations discharge the
State’s obligation to impose RACT
under part D was or will be made
separately, in an action reviewing those
rules pursuant to the requirements of
part D.
Second, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state rules with regard to
director’s discretion or variance
provisions. A number of States have
such provisions which are contrary to
the CAA and existing EPA guidance
(52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the
Agency plans to take action in the future
to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any State
having a director’s discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to
the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps
to correct the deficiency as soon as
possible.
Finally, in this action, EPA is also not
proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to
excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of
operations at a facility. A number of
states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance 2 and the Agency plans to
address such state regulations in the
future. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a deficient
SSM provision to take steps to correct
it as soon as possible.
2. Ambient air quality monitoring/
data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for
establishment and operation of
2 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division
Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs):
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20,
1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28709
appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to (i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data on ambient
air quality, and (ii) upon request, make
such data available to the
Administrator.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: The provisions for
episodic monitoring, data compilation
and reporting, public availability of
information, and annual network
reviews are found in the statewide
monitoring SIP which was approved by
EPA on 7/9/80 (45 FR 46073) and 8/11/
80 (45 FR 53147). The State has since
revised the monitoring SIP to include all
new federal requirements. The revised
SIP includes a commitment to operate a
particulate monitoring network in
accordance with EPA regulations
(40 CFR Part 58.20 and Appendices A
through G). The AQCC adopted
monitoring SIP revisions on 3/18/93.
The Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division periodically submits a Quality
Management Plan and a Quality
Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8.
These plans cover procedures to
monitor, analyze, and report data to an
EPA central database. As such the State
of Colorado has an approved monitoring
SIP, a plan and authority for monitoring,
and the ability to properly handle all
related data.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s air
monitoring programs and data systems
meet the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The Colorado 2010 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan (AMNP) was approved by
EPA Region 8 on August 26, 2010.
3. Program for enforcement of control
measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires
SIPs to include a program to provide for
the enforcement of the measures
described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan as
necessary to assure that NAAQS are
achieved, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: Colorado has an approved
SIP regulating the construction and
modification of stationary sources as
necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved (Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission Regulation 3), including a
permit program as required in Parts C
and D of the federal CAA. Colorado has
an approved SIP which provides for the
enforcement of the control measures
required by CAA Section llO (a)(2)(C).
Many of the Colorado AQCC
Regulations address in some manner the
programs for enforcement of control
measures. Some of these AQCC
regulations and other relevant Colorado-
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28710
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
specific programs that are in the SIP are
described below:
• Regulation 1, ‘‘Particulates, Smokes,
Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur
Dioxides’’—Regulation 1 sets forth
emissions limitations, equipment
requirements, and work practices
(abatement and control measures)
intended to control the emissions of
particulates, smoke and sulfur oxides
from new and existing stationary
sources. Control measures specified in
this regulation are designed to limit
emissions into the atmosphere and
thereby minimize the ambient
concentrations of particulates and sulfur
dioxides.
• Regulation 3, ‘‘Air Pollution
Emission Notices—Permits’’—
Regulation 3 provides for a procedural
permitting program and requires air
pollution sources to file Air Pollution
Emissions Notices (APENs). The
regulation also requires that new or
modified sources of air pollution with
certain exemptions-obtain
preconstruction permits.
• Regulation 4, ‘‘Woodburning
Controls’’—Regulation 4 requires new
stove and fireplace inserts meet the
federal certification requirements in
specified areas of Colorado.
• Regulation 7, ‘‘Volatile Organic
Compounds Control’’—Regulation 7
controls the emissions of volatile
organic compounds, primarily in the
Denver-metro area. It sets standards and
mandates controls for specific types of
volatile organic compound sources.
• Regulation 10, ‘‘Transportation
Conformity’’—Regulation 10 defines the
criteria the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission uses to evaluate the
consistency between state air quality
standards/objectives, and transportation
planning and major construction
activities across the State, as defined in
state implementation plans.
• Regulation 11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle
Inspection’’—Regulation 11 requires
automobile emission inspection and
maintenance programs to be
implemented in specified areas of the
State for gasoline-powered on-road
vehicles. These programs apply to
businesses, industry, and the general
public. In addition, the State’s
Automobile Inspection and
Readjustment (AIR) program’s purpose
is to reduce motor vehicle-related
pollution through the inspection and
emissions-related repair of automobiles.
The program, as defined in Regulation
11, works in specific areas of the State
and requires motor vehicles to meet
emission standards through periodic
maintenance and/or repair.
• Regulation 13, ‘‘Oxygenated
Fuels’’—Regulation 13 addresses the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
issue of motor vehicle related pollution
and requires the use of oxygenated fuels
in gasoline-powered motor vehicles in
Colorado’s Automobile Inspection and
Readjustment program.
• Regulation 16, ‘‘Street Sanding and
Sweeping’’—Regulation 16 sets
specification standards for street
sanding material and street sweeping
practices in the Automobile Inspection
and Readjustment program area and
Denver-metro particulate attainment/
maintenance area.
b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the
State is required to have SIP-approved
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD), nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR), and minor NSR
permitting programs adequate to
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. As explained above, in this
action EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment related provisions, such
as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D of the Act. Also, in
this action, EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove any state rules
with regard to NSR Reform
requirements. EPA will act on SIP
submittals that are made for purposes of
addressing NSR Reform through a
separate rulemaking process. In this
action, EPA is evaluating the State’s
PSD program as required by part C of
the Act, and the State’s minor NSR
program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).
Colorado has a SIP-approved PSD
program that meets the general
requirements of part C of the Act (51 FR
31125). Below, EPA considers
requirements for the PSD program
specific to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but
first considers the effects of recent rules
regulating greenhouse gases on
Colorado’s PSD program.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation
EPA notes a potential inconsistency
between Colorado’s January 7, 2008
infrastructure SIP certification and
EPA’s recently promulgated rule,
‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans’’
(‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’), 75 FR
82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). In the PSD SIP
Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its
previous approval of Colorado’s PSD
program to the extent that it applied
PSD permitting to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions increases from GHG-emitting
sources below thresholds set in EPA’s
June 3, 2010 ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (‘‘Tailoring Rule’’),
75 FR 31514. EPA withdrew its
approval on the basis that the State
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
lacked sufficient resources to issue PSD
permits to such sources at the statutory
thresholds in effect in the previouslyapproved PSD program. After the PSD
SIP Narrowing Rule, the portion of
Colorado’s PSD SIP from which EPA
withdrew its approval had the status of
having been submitted to EPA but not
yet acted upon. In its January 7, 2008
certification, Colorado relied on its PSD
program as approved at that date—
which was before December 30, 2010,
the effective date of the PSD SIP
Narrowing Rule—to satisfy the
requirements of infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C). Given EPA’s basis for the
PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA proposes
approval of the Colorado infrastructure
SIP for infrastructure element (C) if
either the State clarifies (or modifies) its
certification to make clear that the State
relies only on the portion of the PSD
program that remains approved after the
PSD SIP Narrowing Rule issued on
December 30, 2010, and for which the
State has sufficient resources to
implement, or the State acts to
withdraw from EPA consideration the
remaining portion of its PSD program
submission that would have applied
PSD permitting to GHG sources below
the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In the
alternative, if Colorado does not take
either action, EPA proposes to
disapprove the infrastructure SIP to the
extent it incorporates that portion of the
previously-approved PSD program from
which EPA withdrew its approval in the
PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is the
portion which would have applied PSD
permitting requirements to GHG
emissions increases from GHG-emitting
sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds. Such disapproval, if
finalized, would not result in a need for
Colorado to resubmit a SIP revision,
sanctions, or a federal implementation
plan (FIP).
Regulation of Ozone Precursors
In order for the State’s SIP-approved
PSD program to satisfy the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the program must
properly regulate ozone precursors. On
November 29, 2005, EPA promulgated
the phase 2 implementation rule for the
1997 ozone NAAQS (Phase 2 Rule),
which includes requirements for PSD
programs to treat nitrogen oxides (NOX)
as a precursor for ozone (72 FR 71612).
On August 1, 2007, the State submitted
to EPA revisions to AQCC Regulation
No. 3, Part D (PSD) which incorporate
EPA’s Phase 2 Rule. On April 19, 2011,
EPA proposed approval of the portions
of the August 1, 2007 revisions which
adopt language treating NOX as a
precursor for ozone (76 FR 21835). We
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
anticipate finalizing the approval of the
portions in the April 19, 2011 proposal
that satisfy the requirements of the
Phase 2 Rule before finalizing approval
of Colorado’s infrastructure SIP.
Contingent on that approval, Colorado’s
PSD program meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
Minor New Source Review
The State has a SIP-approved minor
NSR program, adopted under section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, which regulates
emissions of ozone and its precursors.
On April 30, 1981, EPA approved the
State’s minor NSR program for
incorporation into the SIP, and there
was at the time no objection to the
provisions of this program (46 FR
24180). Since then, the State and EPA
have relied on the approved minor NSR
program to assure that new and
modified sources not captured by the
major NSR permitting programs do not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve Colorado’s infrastructure SIP
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect
to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and
construction of any stationary source as
necessary to assure that the NAAQS are
achieved. EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove the State’s
existing minor NSR program itself to the
extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s
regulations governing this program. A
number of states may have minor NSR
provisions that are contrary to the
existing EPA regulations for this
program. EPA intends to work with
states to reconcile state minor NSR
programs with EPA’s regulatory
provisions for the program. The
statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable
flexibility in designing minor NSR
programs, and it may be time to revisit
the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an
appropriate level of flexibility to design
a program that meets their particular air
quality concerns, while assuring
reasonable consistency across the
country in protecting the NAAQS with
respect to new and modified minor
sources.
4. Interstate transport: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions prohibiting,
consistent with the provisions of this
title, any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will (I) contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
maintenance by, any other state, with
respect to any such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard,
or (II) interfere with measures required
to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: An Interstate Transport
SIP revision was approved by the AQCC
on February 15, 2007 that demonstrates
pollutants from Colorado, including
ozone and PM2.5, do not contribute to a
NAAQS problem in neighboring states.
The SIP revision utilized both
monitoring data and modeling to show
that neither ozone nor particulate matter
originating in Colorado contributes to
NAAQS problems outside of Colorado.
The SIP revision will be forwarded to
EPA after review and approval from the
Colorado Legislature and the Governor’s
Office.
Specific issues of interstate transport
are addressed within Colorado
Regulation 3, ‘‘Air Pollution Emission
Notices.’’ Regulation 3, Part B, Section
IV.C.4 requires the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division to notify any
state that may be affected by emissions
from that source or from a modification
to that source as related to the
prevention of significant deterioration.
Colorado also has a regulation requiring
installation of Best Achievable Retrofit
Technology (BART) on stationary
sources if visibility impairment in any
Class I Area is reasonably attributed to
such stationary source (Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission Regulation
3, Part B.XI.D).
The AQCC has a directive regarding
interstate transport of pollutants that
prohibits Colorado sources from causing
a violation of the NAAQS in a
neighboring state with reciprocal
provisions as found in the AQCC
Common Provisions, Part 2, Section A
(5CCR 1001–2).
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado did not
submit its interstate transport SIP to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) with the January 7, 2008
Infrastructure SIP. Colorado has since
submitted an interstate transport SIP
and revisions to EPA for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. EPA approved portions of the
State’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate
transport SIP for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in separate actions (75 FR
31306; 75 FR 71029; 76 FR 22036), and
has proposed approval of the remaining
portion to meet the requirement of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference
with measures to prevent significant
deterioration (76 FR 21835). EPA is
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28711
taking no action relevant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposal.
5. Interstate and international
transport provisions: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP
shall contain adequate provisions
insuring compliance with applicable
requirements of sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement).
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: Colorado did not
specifically address this requirement,
but rather addressed 110(a)(2)(D) as a
whole. See Colorado’s response to
requirement 110(a)(2)(D)(i), in particular
the State’s citation of Regulation 3, Part
B, Section IV.C.4.
b. EPA Analysis: Section 126(a)
requires notification to affected, nearby
states of major proposed new (or
modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and
(c) pertain to petitions by affected states
to the Administrator regarding sources
violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Section 115 similarly pertains to
international transport of air pollution.
Colorado meets the requirement of
section 126(a) through AQCC Regulation
No. 3 Part B, Section IV.C.4. This
provision requires notification to states
whose lands may be affected by the
construction or modification of a
stationary source. In addition to
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR
51.166(q)(2)(iv), the provision meets the
requirements of section 126(a). Final
approval of the AQCC Regulation No. 3
Part B, Section IV.C.4 became effective
February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910).3
Colorado has no pending obligations
under sections 126(c) or 115(b);
therefore, Colorado’s SIP currently
meets the requirements of those
sections. The SIP therefore meets the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
6. Adequate resources and authority:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to
provide (i) necessary assurances that the
state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law
to carry out the SIP (and is not
prohibited by any provision of federal or
state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the
state comply with the requirements
respecting state boards under section
128, and (iii) necessary assurances that,
where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or
instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has
responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such SIP provision.
3 Colorado has since renumbered AQCC
Regulation Number 3, Part B.
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
28712
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement:
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Personnel, Funding, and Authority
There are no state or federal
provisions prohibiting the
implementation of any provision of the
Colorado SIP. In general, Colorado
provides the necessary assurances that
funding, personnel, and authority exist
and that the State of Colorado has
responsibility for implementing local
provisions. All of the regulatory
provisions in the SIP were adopted by
the AQCC pursuant to authority
delegated to it by statute. The AQCC’s
general authority to adopt the rules and
regulations necessary to implement the
SIP is set out in the Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Act
Section 25–7–105 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The general
authority for the Air Pollution Control
Division to administer and enforce the
program is set out at 25–7–111, C.R.S.
Additional authority to regulate air
pollution and implement provisions in
the SIP is set out elsewhere in the
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Act, Article 7 of Title 25. In
addition, the AQCC and the Division
have the authority delegated to them in
Sections 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, C.R.S.
(concerning motor vehicle emissions)
and 42–4–414 (concerning emissions
from diesel-powered vehicles).
The AQCC’s authority includes the
authority to regulate particulate
emissions, regardless of size (C.R.S.
Section 25–7–109 (2)(b)).
The Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division has staff and an annual budget
to operate its six programs (Stationary
Sources, Mobile Sources, Indoor Air,
Technical Services, Planning and
Policy, Administrative Services). The
Division employs 154 people and has a
budget of $16.5 million for fiscal year
2006–2007.
Of the total budget, 21 percent was
derived from federal grants, 38 percent
from mobile source fees, and 41 percent
from stationary source fees.
State Boards
Section 128 of the CAA indicates
Colorado’s SIP must contain
requirements that anybody that
approves permits or enforcement orders
under the CAA must have a majority of
members who represent the public
interest and do not derive any
significant portion of their income from
persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders.
The Commission’s Air Quality
Commission Procedural Rules section
1.11.0 state that ‘‘The Commission shall
have at least a majority of members who
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
represent the public interest and do not
derive a significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits
or enforcement orders under this article
or under the federal act. The members
of the Commission shall disclose any
potential conflicts of interest that arise
during their terms of membership to the
other Commissioners in a public
meeting of the Commission.’’
Relationships With Other Agencies
Responsible for Carrying Out State
Activities
The Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division contracts with local
governments in two distinct ways:
1. Colorado grants monies to local
health departments to endow them as
agents of the State to provide
inspections of some local stationary
sources, asbestos abatement jobs, and
CFC sources. Some local health
departments also operate gaseous and
particulate monitors under contract for
the state. These efforts must comply
with federal and state regulations.
2. Colorado grants monies to local
governments to help pay for their
support of SIP elements via public and
private partnerships, education and
informational campaigns. Most of these
agencies create their own work plan that
consists of programs they feel will help
enhance air quality in their
communities in accordance with general
SIP directives.
Colorado has adopted specific
regulations for local attainment/
maintenance areas to assure these areas
meet requirements of the SIP. These
regulations include The Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission SIPspecific regulations, 5 CCR 1001–20.
These regulations provide the necessary
authority for the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division to adequately enforce
the provisions of the SIP elements in
local attainment/maintenance areas.
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The State
cites the Colorado Revised Statutes,
specifically Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Act Sections 25–7–105, 25–
7–111, 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, 42–4–414
and Article 7 of Title 25 to demonstrate
that the APCD and AQCC have adequate
authority to carry out Colorado’s SIP
obligations with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS and revise its SIP as
necessary. The State receives sections
103 and 105 grant funds through its
Performance Partnership Grant along
with required state matching funds to
provide funding necessary to carry out
Colorado’s SIP requirements. Finally,
section IV of Colorado’s Common
Provisions contains requirements for
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
members of the AQCC to disclose
potential conflicts of interest.
7. Stationary source monitoring
system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires
(i) the installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions
from such sources, (ii) period reports on
the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such
reports by the state agency with any
emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to the Act, which
reports shall be available at reasonable
times for public inspection.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: Colorado AQCC
Regulations 1, 3, and 6 address the issue
of stationary source monitoring.
Colorado Regulation 1 sets forth
emission limitations, equipment
requirements and work practices
(abatement and control measures)
intended to control the emissions of
particulates, smoke, and sulfur dioxides
from new and existing stationary
sources. Colorado Regulation 3 requires
stationary sources to report their
emissions on a regular basis through
APENs. This air pollutant inventory
program is described in the Colorado
Pollution Prevention and Control Act
Section 25–7–114.1 (C.R.S.) and in
Colorado Regulation 3, Part I.VIII that
allows for monitoring and record
keeping of air pollutants. Colorado
Regulation 6 sets standards for
performance of new stationary sources
in the state and establishes monitoring
system requirements.
The Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division may require owners and
operators of stationary air pollution
sources to install, maintain, and use
instrumentation to monitor and record
emission data as a basis for periodic
reports to the Division under the
Colorado AQCC Common Provisions.
b. EPA Analysis: The regulations cited
by Colorado, including APEN reporting
requirements and requirements in
Regulation No. 8. I.VIII, meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
8. Emergency powers: Section
110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide
for authority to address activities
causing imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health,
including contingency plans to
implement the emergency episode
provisions in their SIPs.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: The SIP includes
contingency plans to implement
emergency powers similar to Section
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
303 of the CAA. Such contingency
plans, called Denver Emergency Episode
Plans, address ozone, particulate matter,
and carbon monoxide. The Colorado
Pollution Prevention and Control Act
Sections 25–7–112 and 25–7–113,
which have various sections similar to
42 U.S.C. 7603, generally describe
Colorado’s authority regarding
Emergency Episodes. For example, 25–
7–112 (2) provides the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division with
authority to implement the Emergency
Plan through the Governor of Colorado
issuing an order in regard to emergency
power.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado Pollution
Prevention and Control Act Sections
25–7–112 and 25–7–113 provide APCD
with general emergency authority
comparable to that in section 303 of the
Act. In addition, the Denver Emergency
Episode Plan, applicable to the Denver
metropolitan area, satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart
H (See 74 FR 47888). The SIP therefore
meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G)
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
9. Future SIP revisions: Section
110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide
for revision of such plan (i) from time
to time as may be necessary to take
account of revisions of such national
primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard or the availability of
improved or more expeditious methods
of attaining such standard, and (ii),
except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the
Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional
requirements under this Act.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: The State of Colorado has
the ability and authority to address and
revise the SIP due to changes in the
NAAQS or due to findings of
inadequacies.
The Colorado AQCC has the authority
and the duty to adopt and revise a State
Implementation Plan as necessary to
comply with the federal requirements.
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Act Section 25–7–105(1)(a)(I)
(C.R.S.) directs the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission to promulgate rules
and regulations as related to a
comprehensive SIP which will assure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and which will prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in
the State of Colorado.
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Act Section 25–7–109
(C.R.S.) also gives the Colorado Air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
Quality Control Commission the
authority to promulgate emission
control regulations.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s statutory
provision at Colorado Air Pollution
Prevention and Control Act Section 25–
7–105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient
authority to meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(H).
10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revision under Part D: Section
110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP
revision for an area designated as a
nonattainment area must meet the
applicable requirements of Part D of this
subchapter (relating to nonattainment
areas).
a. EPA analysis for Section
110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the specific
nonattainment area plan requirements
of Section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the
timing requirement of section 172, not
the timing requirement of section
110(a)(1). This element is therefore not
applicable to this action. EPA will take
action on part D attainment plans
through a separate process.
11. Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD and
visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J)
requires that each SIP meet the
applicable requirements of section 121
of this title (relating to consultation),
section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of this
subchapter (relating to prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality
and visibility protection).
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: Engineering and
meteorological consultation is provided
by the State to local agencies. The State
assists local agencies in planning air
management programs for their
respective areas. Colorado holds public
meetings and hearings on all SIP
revisions in accordance with the AQCC
Procedural Rules. Public comment is
solicited and accepted at Colorado
AQCC meetings and hearings.
Colorado’s Transportation Conformity
Rule, Regulation 10, specifies
consultation procedures for SIP
revisions in Section IV.F.
Also, as part of the State of Colorado’s
Visibility SIP, the Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division consults with
the Federal Land Managers as necessary
and required.
b. EPA Analysis: The State has
demonstrated that it has the authority
and rules in place to provide a process
of consultation with general purpose
local governments, designated
organizations of elected officials of local
governments and any Federal Land
Manager having authority over federal
land to which the SIP applies,
consistent with the requirements of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28713
CAA section 121. Furthermore, EPA
previously approved Colorado’s SIP
submission to meet the requirements of
CAA section 127 (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11,
1980).
Colorado’s SIP regulations for its PSD
program were federally-approved and
made part of the SIP on September 2,
1986 (51 FR 31125). EPA has further
evaluated the State’s SIP-approved PSD
program in this proposed action in
section IV.3, element 110(a)(2)(C).
Finally, with regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection,
EPA recognizes that states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the act. In
the event of the establishment of a new
NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements
under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new visibility
obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective. In conclusion, the
Colorado SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
12. Air quality and modeling/data:
Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each
SIP provide for (i) the performance of
such air quality modeling as the
Administrator may prescribe for the
purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of any emissions of
any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a
NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon
request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: Colorado has the authority
and resources to model for criteria
pollutants. Air quality modeling is done
for SIP revisions and for transportation
conformity. Colorado Regulation 3 (Air
Pollution Emissions Notices,
Construction Permits and Fees,
Operating Permits, and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration) requires
stationary sources to predict the effect of
air pollutants in attainment areas.
Regulation 3 also details the State of
Colorado’s program regarding
permitting as related to air quality
modeling and data handling in
predicting the effect of emissions of a
pollutant with an established NAAQS.
Regulatory requirements for Air Quality
Related Values as related to modeling
are described within Colorado
Regulation 3, Part B subsection X and
XI. A permit modification for purposes
of the acid rain portion of a permit shall
be governed by regulations promulgated
under Title IV of the federal act, found
in 40 CFR part 72 as described under
Colorado Regulation 3, Part C,
subsection X.K.
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28714
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The Modeling, Meteorology, and
Emission Inventory Unit within the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
performs and reviews air quality impact
analyses for a variety of programs,
including SIP revisions, transportation
conformity determinations, stationary
source permitting, environmental
impact statements, and hazardous waste
site studies. The analyses include
modeling, meteorological analysis, and
emission inventory development for
mobile sources and area stationary
sources such as woodburning. The Unit
also performs air quality forecasting for
the Denver-area High Pollution Season,
open burning, and for special air quality
studies. Additional information
regarding these programs and authority
is provided below. Some of these
programs are found in the SIP. For
example, both Colorado AQCC
Regulation 4 (Woodburning) and the
Denver PM10 SIP address State air
quality modeling programs.
PSD and Increment Consumption:
Colorado’s PSD program includes a
requirement that the State periodically
assess the adequacy of its plan to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality. This is presented in Regulation
3, Part B, Section VII. In addition,
Regulation 3, Part A, Section VIII
‘‘Technical Modeling and Monitoring
Requirements’’ states that all estimates
of ambient concentrations required
under Regulation 3 shall be based on the
applicable air quality models, data
bases, and other requirements generally
approved by EPA and specifically
approved by the Division.
SIP development: Modeling is
performed in the development and
revision of SIPs, as needed, to ensure
that specific areas of the state will
maintain compliance with the NAAQS
in light of development and increased
population and traffic.
Permits: The primary Colorado
regulation for air quality permits is
Colorado AQCC Regulation No.3.
Certain new/modified air pollution
sources are subject to the regulatory
modeling requirements in Regulation 3.
Regulation 3, Part A, subsection VIII
describes Colorado’s technical modeling
and monitoring requirements. Modeling
is often required to obtain a
construction permit. While modeling is
not required to obtain an operating
permit, it may be required if the
operating permit is modified (in
Regulation 3, Part C, subsection X–
Minor Permit Modification Procedures).
Operating permits may also be subject to
modeling if the application is for a
combined construction/operating permit
(in Regulation 3, Part C, subsection
III.C.12.d).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets
the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
In particular, Colorado’s Regulation 3
Part A.VIII requires estimates of ambient
air concentrations be based on
applicable air quality models approved
by EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3
Part A.VIII became effective February
20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). As a result, the
SIP provides for such air quality
modeling as the Administrator has
prescribed.
13. Permitting fees: Section
110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require the
owner or operator of each major
stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of
any permit required under this act, a fee
sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable
costs of reviewing and acting upon any
application for such a permit, and (ii) if
the owner or operator receives a permit
for such source, the reasonable costs of
implementing and enforcing the terms
and conditions of any such permit (not
including any court costs or other costs
associated with any enforcement
action), until such fee requirement is
superseded with respect to such sources
by the Administrator’s approval of a fee
program under title V.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: The State of Colorado
requires the owner or operator of a
major stationary source to pay the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
any fee necessary to cover the
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting
upon any permit applications. The
collection of fees is described in
Colorado AQCC Regulation 3.
Specifically, Regulation 3, Part A.VI
describes how each applicant required
to obtain a permit must pay a fee,
including the cost of permit review and
relevant actions. Also, stationary source
owners or operators must pay an annual
fee based on total emissions. The funds
are used by the State to administer
programs for the control of air pollution
from stationary sources.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s approved
title V operating permit program meets
the requirements of CAA section
111(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Final approval of the title V operating
permit program became effective
October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim
approval of Colorado’s title V operating
permit program became effective
February 23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As
discussed in the proposed interim
approval of the title V program (59 FR
52123, Oct. 14, 1994), the State
demonstrated that the fees collected
were sufficient to administer the
program.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14. Consultation/participation by
affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide
for consultation and participation in SIP
development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
a. Colorado’s response to this
requirement: Colorado AQCC
Regulation 10, ‘‘Transportation
Conformity,’’ defines the criteria the
Colorado AQCC uses for transportation
conformity determination to develop
SIP revisions in non-attainment areas.
Colorado AQCC Regulation 3 also
provides for consultation and
participation by local entities. Local
governments receive notice and have
the opportunity to comment on and
participate in construction permit
review procedures and operating permit
application procedures.
The Colorado AQCC holds a public
hearing before adopting any regulatory
revisions to the SIP. Local political
subdivisions may participate in the
hearing.
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s submittal
meets the requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
V. What action is EPA taking?
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve in full the following section
110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for
Colorado for the 1997 ozone NAAQS:
(A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), (M). EPA proposes to approve the
section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure
element in full for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the event that Colorado takes
one of the actions described in the
discussion of that element. In the
alternative, EPA proposes to disapprove
the section 110(a)(2)(C) element to the
extent described and to otherwise
approve this element. EPA is taking no
action on infrastructure elements (D)(i)
and (I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves some state law
as meeting Federal requirements and
disapproves other state law because it
does not meet Federal requirements;
this proposed action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this proposed action:
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
• 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 CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 10, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011–12213 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:57 May 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 110427267–1267–01]
RIN 0648–BB04
Endangered and Threatened Species:
Designation of a Nonessential
Experimental Population for Middle
Columbia River Steelhead Above the
Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric
Project in the Deschutes River Basin,
Oregon
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of
availability.
AGENCY:
We, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to
designate the Middle Columbia River
(MCR) steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), recently reintroduced into the
upper Deschutes River basin in central
Oregon, as a nonessential experimental
population (NEP) under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). This NEP
designation would expire 12 years after
the first generation of adults return to
the NEP area. A draft environmental
assessment (EA) has been prepared on
this proposed action and is available for
comment (see ADDRESSES and
INSTRUCTIONS section below).
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
consider your comments on this
proposed rule, they must be received no
later than July 18, 2011. If you would
like to request a public hearing, we must
receive your request in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, by July 5,
2011. Comments on the EA must be
received by July 18, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposed rule by any of the
following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Assistant Regional Administrator,
Hydropower Division, Northwest
Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.,
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
• Fax: (503) 231–2318.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28715
submitted by the commenter may be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
You may access a copy of the draft EA
by one of the following:
• Visit NMFS’ Northwest Region Web
site at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
• Call 503.736.4741 and request to
have a CD or hard copy mailed to you.
• Obtain a CD or hard copy by
visiting NMFS’ Portland office at 1201
NE Lloyd Blvd, Suite 1100, Portland,
OR 97232.
You may submit comments on the
draft EA by one of the following
methods:
• E-mail: expopEA.nwr@noaa.gov.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Hydropower Division, FERC and Water
Diversions Branch, NMFS, 1201 NE.
Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232.
Please see the draft EA for additional
information regarding commenting on
that document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Carlon, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd
Blvd., Portland, OR 97232 (503–231–
2379), or Marta Nammack, NMFS, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910 (301–713–1401).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Context
On March 25, 1999, NMFS listed the
Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead
distinct population segment (DPS) as
threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–
1544) (64 FR 14517). The MCR
steelhead DPS range covers
approximately 35,000 square miles
(90,650 sq km) of the Columbia plateau
of eastern Oregon and eastern
Washington. The Deschutes River in
central Oregon is one of six major river
basins supporting steelhead in this DPS.
Since 1968, the Pelton Round Butte
Hydroelectric Project (Pelton Round
Butte) on the Deschutes River has
blocked steelhead from accessing nearly
200 miles (322 km) of historical
spawning and rearing habitat.
In this rulemaking, we are proposing
to designate as an experimental
population the MCR steelhead currently
being reintroduced to the upper
Deschutes River basin. This
reintroduction is a requirement of the
new hydropower license for the Pelton
Round Butte Hydroelectric Project in
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
18MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28707-28715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12213]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2009-0809; FRL-9307-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards; Colorado
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve and conditionally approve the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Colorado
to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each state, after a new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs to ensure that they
meet the requirements of the ``infrastructure elements'' of section
110(a)(2). The State of Colorado submitted a certification of their
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, dated January 7, 2008
which was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205).
EPA does not propose to act on the State's January 7, 2008
submission to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the
CAA, relating to interstate transport of air pollution, for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the State's interstate transport SIP
submission at 75 FR 31306, 75 FR 71029, and 76 FR 22036.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2009-0809, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, 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-
2009-0809. 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 information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 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
[[Page 28708]]
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: Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. 303-312-6142,
dolan.kathy@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.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (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 on 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:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and page number);
Follow directions and organize your comments;
Explain why you agree or disagree;
Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested
changes;
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives;
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats; and,
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). By
statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides basic
requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These
requirements are set out in several ``infrastructure elements,'' listed
in section 110(a)(2).
Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects
the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP
already contains. In the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. In a
guidance issued on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to the extent an
existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states
need only to certify that fact via a letter to EPA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality
Policy Division, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (Oct. 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rule entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS'' (73 FR 16205). In the rule, EPA made a
finding for each state that it had submitted or had failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
particular, EPA found that Colorado had submitted a complete SIP to
meet these requirements.
III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?
Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or
satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements, such as
modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, that are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are
the subject of this action are listed below.
110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution.
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority.
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the
next section.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three year submission deadline of section
[[Page 28709]]
110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These
elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to
satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time nonattainment
area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are:
(i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs
(known as ``nonattainment new source review (NSR)'') required under
part D, and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not
address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR
portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I).
This action also does not address the ``interstate transport''
requirements of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approved portions of the
State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport SIP for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in separate actions (75 FR 31306; 75 FR 71029; 76 FR 22036), and
has proposed approval of the remaining portion to meet the requirement
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding interference with measures to prevent
significant deterioration (76 FR 21835).
IV. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
a. Colorado's Response to this requirement: Enforceable emission
limits and control measures are detailed in the various Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission (AQCC) regulations for all sources of
criteria pollutants as well as hazardous air pollutants, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), smoke and odors.
A summary of the regulations is found below under section 110(a)(2)(C).
b. EPA analysis: Colorado's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(A), subject to the following clarifications. First,
EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment
area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Colorado has
included some SIP provisions originally submitted in response to part D
requirements in its certification for the infrastructure requirements
of section 110(a)(1) and (2). For the purposes of this action, EPA is
reviewing any rules originally submitted in response to part D
requirements solely for the purposes of determining whether they
support a finding that the State has met the basic infrastructure
requirements of section 110(a)(2). For example, in response to the
requirement to have enforceable emission limitations under section
110(a)(2)(A), Colorado cited to rules in Regulation Number 7 that were
submitted to meet the reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements of part D. EPA is here approving those rules as meeting
the requirement to have enforceable emission limitations on ozone
precursors; any judgment about whether those emission limitations
discharge the State's obligation to impose RACT under part D was or
will be made separately, in an action reviewing those rules pursuant to
the requirements of part D.
Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. A number of States have such
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52
FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the
future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any State having a director's discretion or variance
provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps
to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
Finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations
at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance \2\ and the Agency plans
to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (Sept. 20,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon
request, make such data available to the Administrator.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: The provisions for
episodic monitoring, data compilation and reporting, public
availability of information, and annual network reviews are found in
the statewide monitoring SIP which was approved by EPA on 7/9/80 (45 FR
46073) and 8/11/80 (45 FR 53147). The State has since revised the
monitoring SIP to include all new federal requirements. The revised SIP
includes a commitment to operate a particulate monitoring network in
accordance with EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 58.20 and Appendices A
through G). The AQCC adopted monitoring SIP revisions on 3/18/93. The
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division periodically submits a Quality
Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8.
These plans cover procedures to monitor, analyze, and report data to an
EPA central database. As such the State of Colorado has an approved
monitoring SIP, a plan and authority for monitoring, and the ability to
properly handle all related data.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado's air monitoring programs and data
systems meet the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. The Colorado 2010 Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP)
was approved by EPA Region 8 on August 26, 2010.
3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C
and D.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: Colorado has an
approved SIP regulating the construction and modification of stationary
sources as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved (Colorado
Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 3), including a permit
program as required in Parts C and D of the federal CAA. Colorado has
an approved SIP which provides for the enforcement of the control
measures required by CAA Section llO (a)(2)(C).
Many of the Colorado AQCC Regulations address in some manner the
programs for enforcement of control measures. Some of these AQCC
regulations and other relevant Colorado-
[[Page 28710]]
specific programs that are in the SIP are described below:
Regulation 1, ``Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and
Sulfur Dioxides''--Regulation 1 sets forth emissions limitations,
equipment requirements, and work practices (abatement and control
measures) intended to control the emissions of particulates, smoke and
sulfur oxides from new and existing stationary sources. Control
measures specified in this regulation are designed to limit emissions
into the atmosphere and thereby minimize the ambient concentrations of
particulates and sulfur dioxides.
Regulation 3, ``Air Pollution Emission Notices--
Permits''--Regulation 3 provides for a procedural permitting program
and requires air pollution sources to file Air Pollution Emissions
Notices (APENs). The regulation also requires that new or modified
sources of air pollution with certain exemptions-obtain preconstruction
permits.
Regulation 4, ``Woodburning Controls''--Regulation 4
requires new stove and fireplace inserts meet the federal certification
requirements in specified areas of Colorado.
Regulation 7, ``Volatile Organic Compounds Control''--
Regulation 7 controls the emissions of volatile organic compounds,
primarily in the Denver-metro area. It sets standards and mandates
controls for specific types of volatile organic compound sources.
Regulation 10, ``Transportation Conformity''--Regulation
10 defines the criteria the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
uses to evaluate the consistency between state air quality standards/
objectives, and transportation planning and major construction
activities across the State, as defined in state implementation plans.
Regulation 11, ``Motor Vehicle Inspection''--Regulation 11
requires automobile emission inspection and maintenance programs to be
implemented in specified areas of the State for gasoline-powered on-
road vehicles. These programs apply to businesses, industry, and the
general public. In addition, the State's Automobile Inspection and
Readjustment (AIR) program's purpose is to reduce motor vehicle-related
pollution through the inspection and emissions-related repair of
automobiles. The program, as defined in Regulation 11, works in
specific areas of the State and requires motor vehicles to meet
emission standards through periodic maintenance and/or repair.
Regulation 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels''--Regulation 13
addresses the issue of motor vehicle related pollution and requires the
use of oxygenated fuels in gasoline-powered motor vehicles in
Colorado's Automobile Inspection and Readjustment program.
Regulation 16, ``Street Sanding and Sweeping''--Regulation
16 sets specification standards for street sanding material and street
sweeping practices in the Automobile Inspection and Readjustment
program area and Denver-metro particulate attainment/maintenance area.
b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD), nonattainment New Source Review (NSR),
and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. As explained above, in this action EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D of the Act. Also, in this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to NSR
Reform requirements. EPA will act on SIP submittals that are made for
purposes of addressing NSR Reform through a separate rulemaking
process. In this action, EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as
required by part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as
required by 110(a)(2)(C).
Colorado has a SIP-approved PSD program that meets the general
requirements of part C of the Act (51 FR 31125). Below, EPA considers
requirements for the PSD program specific to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but
first considers the effects of recent rules regulating greenhouse gases
on Colorado's PSD program.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation
EPA notes a potential inconsistency between Colorado's January 7,
2008 infrastructure SIP certification and EPA's recently promulgated
rule, ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans'' (``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule''), 75 FR 82536
(Dec. 30, 2010). In the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its
previous approval of Colorado's PSD program to the extent that it
applied PSD permitting to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions increases from
GHG-emitting sources below thresholds set in EPA's June 3, 2010
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule'' (``Tailoring Rule''), 75 FR 31514. EPA withdrew its
approval on the basis that the State lacked sufficient resources to
issue PSD permits to such sources at the statutory thresholds in effect
in the previously-approved PSD program. After the PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule, the portion of Colorado's PSD SIP from which EPA withdrew its
approval had the status of having been submitted to EPA but not yet
acted upon. In its January 7, 2008 certification, Colorado relied on
its PSD program as approved at that date--which was before December 30,
2010, the effective date of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule--to satisfy the
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). Given EPA's basis
for the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA proposes approval of the Colorado
infrastructure SIP for infrastructure element (C) if either the State
clarifies (or modifies) its certification to make clear that the State
relies only on the portion of the PSD program that remains approved
after the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule issued on December 30, 2010, and for
which the State has sufficient resources to implement, or the State
acts to withdraw from EPA consideration the remaining portion of its
PSD program submission that would have applied PSD permitting to GHG
sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In the alternative, if
Colorado does not take either action, EPA proposes to disapprove the
infrastructure SIP to the extent it incorporates that portion of the
previously-approved PSD program from which EPA withdrew its approval in
the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is the portion which would have
applied PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions increases from
GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Such
disapproval, if finalized, would not result in a need for Colorado to
resubmit a SIP revision, sanctions, or a federal implementation plan
(FIP).
Regulation of Ozone Precursors
In order for the State's SIP-approved PSD program to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the
program must properly regulate ozone precursors. On November 29, 2005,
EPA promulgated the phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS (Phase 2 Rule), which includes requirements for PSD programs to
treat nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor for ozone (72 FR
71612). On August 1, 2007, the State submitted to EPA revisions to AQCC
Regulation No. 3, Part D (PSD) which incorporate EPA's Phase 2 Rule. On
April 19, 2011, EPA proposed approval of the portions of the August 1,
2007 revisions which adopt language treating NOX as a
precursor for ozone (76 FR 21835). We
[[Page 28711]]
anticipate finalizing the approval of the portions in the April 19,
2011 proposal that satisfy the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule before
finalizing approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP. Contingent on
that approval, Colorado's PSD program meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Minor New Source Review
The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, which regulates emissions of ozone and
its precursors. On April 30, 1981, EPA approved the State's minor NSR
program for incorporation into the SIP, and there was at the time no
objection to the provisions of this program (46 FR 24180). Since then,
the State and EPA have relied on the approved minor NSR program to
assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR
permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the general
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP
that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the State's existing minor NSR
program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's
regulations governing this program. A number of states may have minor
NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for
this program. EPA intends to work with states to reconcile state minor
NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The
statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable
flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and it may be time to
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
4. Interstate transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to
contain adequate provisions prohibiting, consistent with the provisions
of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within
the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will (I)
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or (II) interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: An Interstate Transport
SIP revision was approved by the AQCC on February 15, 2007 that
demonstrates pollutants from Colorado, including ozone and
PM2.5, do not contribute to a NAAQS problem in neighboring
states. The SIP revision utilized both monitoring data and modeling to
show that neither ozone nor particulate matter originating in Colorado
contributes to NAAQS problems outside of Colorado. The SIP revision
will be forwarded to EPA after review and approval from the Colorado
Legislature and the Governor's Office.
Specific issues of interstate transport are addressed within
Colorado Regulation 3, ``Air Pollution Emission Notices.'' Regulation
3, Part B, Section IV.C.4 requires the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division to notify any state that may be affected by emissions from
that source or from a modification to that source as related to the
prevention of significant deterioration. Colorado also has a regulation
requiring installation of Best Achievable Retrofit Technology (BART) on
stationary sources if visibility impairment in any Class I Area is
reasonably attributed to such stationary source (Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission Regulation 3, Part B.XI.D).
The AQCC has a directive regarding interstate transport of
pollutants that prohibits Colorado sources from causing a violation of
the NAAQS in a neighboring state with reciprocal provisions as found in
the AQCC Common Provisions, Part 2, Section A (5CCR 1001-2).
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado did not submit its interstate transport
SIP to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with the
January 7, 2008 Infrastructure SIP. Colorado has since submitted an
interstate transport SIP and revisions to EPA for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
EPA approved portions of the State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate
transport SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in separate actions (75 FR
31306; 75 FR 71029; 76 FR 22036), and has proposed approval of the
remaining portion to meet the requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
regarding interference with measures to prevent significant
deterioration (76 FR 21835). EPA is taking no action relevant to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposal.
5. Interstate and international transport provisions: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP shall contain adequate
provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement).
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: Colorado did not
specifically address this requirement, but rather addressed
110(a)(2)(D) as a whole. See Colorado's response to requirement
110(a)(2)(D)(i), in particular the State's citation of Regulation 3,
Part B, Section IV.C.4.
b. EPA Analysis: Section 126(a) requires notification to affected,
nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections
126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the
Administrator regarding sources violating the ``interstate transport''
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains
to international transport of air pollution.
Colorado meets the requirement of section 126(a) through AQCC
Regulation No. 3 Part B, Section IV.C.4. This provision requires
notification to states whose lands may be affected by the construction
or modification of a stationary source. In addition to satisfying the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), the provision meets the
requirements of section 126(a). Final approval of the AQCC Regulation
No. 3 Part B, Section IV.C.4 became effective February 20, 1997 (62 FR
2910).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Colorado has since renumbered AQCC Regulation Number 3, Part
B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or
115(b); therefore, Colorado's SIP currently meets the requirements of
those sections. The SIP therefore meets the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
6. Adequate resources and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
states to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have
adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out
the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law
from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requires that the
state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under
section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP
provision.
[[Page 28712]]
a. Colorado's response to this requirement:
Personnel, Funding, and Authority
There are no state or federal provisions prohibiting the
implementation of any provision of the Colorado SIP. In general,
Colorado provides the necessary assurances that funding, personnel, and
authority exist and that the State of Colorado has responsibility for
implementing local provisions. All of the regulatory provisions in the
SIP were adopted by the AQCC pursuant to authority delegated to it by
statute. The AQCC's general authority to adopt the rules and
regulations necessary to implement the SIP is set out in the Colorado
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act Section 25-7-105 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The general authority for the Air
Pollution Control Division to administer and enforce the program is set
out at 25-7-111, C.R.S. Additional authority to regulate air pollution
and implement provisions in the SIP is set out elsewhere in the
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, Article 7 of Title
25. In addition, the AQCC and the Division have the authority delegated
to them in Sections 42-4-301 to 42-4-316, C.R.S. (concerning motor
vehicle emissions) and 42-4-414 (concerning emissions from diesel-
powered vehicles).
The AQCC's authority includes the authority to regulate particulate
emissions, regardless of size (C.R.S. Section 25-7-109 (2)(b)).
The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division has staff and an annual
budget to operate its six programs (Stationary Sources, Mobile Sources,
Indoor Air, Technical Services, Planning and Policy, Administrative
Services). The Division employs 154 people and has a budget of $16.5
million for fiscal year 2006-2007.
Of the total budget, 21 percent was derived from federal grants, 38
percent from mobile source fees, and 41 percent from stationary source
fees.
State Boards
Section 128 of the CAA indicates Colorado's SIP must contain
requirements that anybody that approves permits or enforcement orders
under the CAA must have a majority of members who represent the public
interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from
persons subject to permits or enforcement orders.
The Commission's Air Quality Commission Procedural Rules section
1.11.0 state that ``The Commission shall have at least a majority of
members who represent the public interest and do not derive a
significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders under this article or under the federal act. The
members of the Commission shall disclose any potential conflicts of
interest that arise during their terms of membership to the other
Commissioners in a public meeting of the Commission.''
Relationships With Other Agencies Responsible for Carrying Out State
Activities
The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division contracts with local
governments in two distinct ways:
1. Colorado grants monies to local health departments to endow them
as agents of the State to provide inspections of some local stationary
sources, asbestos abatement jobs, and CFC sources. Some local health
departments also operate gaseous and particulate monitors under
contract for the state. These efforts must comply with federal and
state regulations.
2. Colorado grants monies to local governments to help pay for
their support of SIP elements via public and private partnerships,
education and informational campaigns. Most of these agencies create
their own work plan that consists of programs they feel will help
enhance air quality in their communities in accordance with general SIP
directives.
Colorado has adopted specific regulations for local attainment/
maintenance areas to assure these areas meet requirements of the SIP.
These regulations include The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
SIP-specific regulations, 5 CCR 1001-20. These regulations provide the
necessary authority for the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division to
adequately enforce the provisions of the SIP elements in local
attainment/maintenance areas.
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado's SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The State cites the Colorado
Revised Statutes, specifically Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act
Sections 25-7-105, 25-7-111, 42-4-301 to 42-4-316, 42-4-414 and Article
7 of Title 25 to demonstrate that the APCD and AQCC have adequate
authority to carry out Colorado's SIP obligations with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS and revise its SIP as necessary. The State receives
sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership
Grant along with required state matching funds to provide funding
necessary to carry out Colorado's SIP requirements. Finally, section IV
of Colorado's Common Provisions contains requirements for members of
the AQCC to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources, (ii) period reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such
reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to the Act, which reports shall be available at
reasonable times for public inspection.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: Colorado AQCC
Regulations 1, 3, and 6 address the issue of stationary source
monitoring. Colorado Regulation 1 sets forth emission limitations,
equipment requirements and work practices (abatement and control
measures) intended to control the emissions of particulates, smoke, and
sulfur dioxides from new and existing stationary sources. Colorado
Regulation 3 requires stationary sources to report their emissions on a
regular basis through APENs. This air pollutant inventory program is
described in the Colorado Pollution Prevention and Control Act Section
25-7-114.1 (C.R.S.) and in Colorado Regulation 3, Part I.VIII that
allows for monitoring and record keeping of air pollutants. Colorado
Regulation 6 sets standards for performance of new stationary sources
in the state and establishes monitoring system requirements.
The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division may require owners and
operators of stationary air pollution sources to install, maintain, and
use instrumentation to monitor and record emission data as a basis for
periodic reports to the Division under the Colorado AQCC Common
Provisions.
b. EPA Analysis: The regulations cited by Colorado, including APEN
reporting requirements and requirements in Regulation No. 8. I.VIII,
meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans
to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: The SIP includes
contingency plans to implement emergency powers similar to Section
[[Page 28713]]
303 of the CAA. Such contingency plans, called Denver Emergency Episode
Plans, address ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. The
Colorado Pollution Prevention and Control Act Sections 25-7-112 and 25-
7-113, which have various sections similar to 42 U.S.C. 7603, generally
describe Colorado's authority regarding Emergency Episodes. For
example, 25-7-112 (2) provides the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division with authority to implement the Emergency Plan through the
Governor of Colorado issuing an order in regard to emergency power.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado Pollution Prevention and Control Act
Sections 25-7-112 and 25-7-113 provide APCD with general emergency
authority comparable to that in section 303 of the Act. In addition,
the Denver Emergency Episode Plan, applicable to the Denver
metropolitan area, satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
subpart H (See 74 FR 47888). The SIP therefore meets the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs
provide for revision of such plan (i) from time to time as may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii),
except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional
requirements under this Act.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: The State of Colorado
has the ability and authority to address and revise the SIP due to
changes in the NAAQS or due to findings of inadequacies.
The Colorado AQCC has the authority and the duty to adopt and
revise a State Implementation Plan as necessary to comply with the
federal requirements. Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act
Section 25-7-105(1)(a)(I) (C.R.S.) directs the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission to promulgate rules and regulations as related to a
comprehensive SIP which will assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and which will prevent significant deterioration of air quality
in the State of Colorado.
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act Section 25-7-109
(C.R.S.) also gives the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission the
authority to promulgate emission control regulations.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado's statutory provision at Colorado Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Act Section 25-7-105(1)(a)(I) gives
the AQCC sufficient authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H).
10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revision under Part D: Section
110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP revision for an area designated
as a nonattainment area must meet the applicable requirements of Part D
of this subchapter (relating to nonattainment areas).
a. EPA analysis for Section 110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the
specific nonattainment area plan requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(I)
are subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing
requirement of section 110(a)(1). This element is therefore not
applicable to this action. EPA will take action on part D attainment
plans through a separate process.
11. Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each
SIP meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title
(relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection).
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: Engineering and
meteorological consultation is provided by the State to local agencies.
The State assists local agencies in planning air management programs
for their respective areas. Colorado holds public meetings and hearings
on all SIP revisions in accordance with the AQCC Procedural Rules.
Public comment is solicited and accepted at Colorado AQCC meetings and
hearings. Colorado's Transportation Conformity Rule, Regulation 10,
specifies consultation procedures for SIP revisions in Section IV.F.
Also, as part of the State of Colorado's Visibility SIP, the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division consults with the Federal Land
Managers as necessary and required.
b. EPA Analysis: The State has demonstrated that it has the
authority and rules in place to provide a process of consultation with
general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having
authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, EPA previously
approved Colorado's SIP submission to meet the requirements of CAA
section 127 (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 1980).
Colorado's SIP regulations for its PSD program were federally-
approved and made part of the SIP on September 2, 1986 (51 FR 31125).
EPA has further evaluated the State's SIP-approved PSD program in this
proposed action in section IV.3, element 110(a)(2)(C).
Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the act. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under
section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In conclusion,
the Colorado SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
12. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
that each SIP provide for (i) the performance of such air quality
modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any
air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and
(ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality
modeling to the Administrator.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: Colorado has the
authority and resources to model for criteria pollutants. Air quality
modeling is done for SIP revisions and for transportation conformity.
Colorado Regulation 3 (Air Pollution Emissions Notices, Construction
Permits and Fees, Operating Permits, and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration) requires stationary sources to predict the effect of air
pollutants in attainment areas. Regulation 3 also details the State of
Colorado's program regarding permitting as related to air quality
modeling and data handling in predicting the effect of emissions of a
pollutant with an established NAAQS. Regulatory requirements for Air
Quality Related Values as related to modeling are described within
Colorado Regulation 3, Part B subsection X and XI. A permit
modification for purposes of the acid rain portion of a permit shall be
governed by regulations promulgated under Title IV of the federal act,
found in 40 CFR part 72 as described under Colorado Regulation 3, Part
C, subsection X.K.
[[Page 28714]]
The Modeling, Meteorology, and Emission Inventory Unit within the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division performs and reviews air
quality impact analyses for a variety of programs, including SIP
revisions, transportation conformity determinations, stationary source
permitting, environmental impact statements, and hazardous waste site
studies. The analyses include modeling, meteorological analysis, and
emission inventory development for mobile sources and area stationary
sources such as woodburning. The Unit also performs air quality
forecasting for the Denver-area High Pollution Season, open burning,
and for special air quality studies. Additional information regarding
these programs and authority is provided below. Some of these programs
are found in the SIP. For example, both Colorado AQCC Regulation 4
(Woodburning) and the Denver PM10 SIP address State air
quality modeling programs.
PSD and Increment Consumption: Colorado's PSD program includes a
requirement that the State periodically assess the adequacy of its plan
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. This is presented
in Regulation 3, Part B, Section VII. In addition, Regulation 3, Part
A, Section VIII ``Technical Modeling and Monitoring Requirements''
states that all estimates of ambient concentrations required under
Regulation 3 shall be based on the applicable air quality models, data
bases, and other requirements generally approved by EPA and
specifically approved by the Division.
SIP development: Modeling is performed in the development and
revision of SIPs, as needed, to ensure that specific areas of the state
will maintain compliance with the NAAQS in light of development and
increased population and traffic.
Permits: The primary Colorado regulation for air quality permits is
Colorado AQCC Regulation No.3. Certain new/modified air pollution
sources are subject to the regulatory modeling requirements in
Regulation 3. Regulation 3, Part A, subsection VIII describes
Colorado's technical modeling and monitoring requirements. Modeling is
often required to obtain a construction permit. While modeling is not
required to obtain an operating permit, it may be required if the
operating permit is modified (in Regulation 3, Part C, subsection X-
Minor Permit Modification Procedures). Operating permits may also be
subject to modeling if the application is for a combined construction/
operating permit (in Regulation 3, Part C, subsection III.C.12.d).
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In particular,
Colorado's Regulation 3 Part A.VIII requires estimates of ambient air
concentrations be based on applicable air quality models approved by
EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became effective
February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). As a result, the SIP provides for such
air quality modeling as the Administrator has prescribed.
13. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require
the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this
act, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing
and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the
owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable
costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any
such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated
with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded
with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: The State of Colorado
requires the owner or operator of a major stationary source to pay the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division any fee necessary to cover the
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any permit applications.
The collection of fees is described in Colorado AQCC Regulation 3.
Specifically, Regulation 3, Part A.VI describes how each applicant
required to obtain a permit must pay a fee, including the cost of
permit review and relevant actions. Also, stationary source owners or
operators must pay an annual fee based on total emissions. The funds
are used by the State to administer programs for the control of air
pollution from stationary sources.
b. EPA analysis: Colorado's approved title V operating permit
program meets the requirements of CAA section 111(a)(2)(L) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Final approval of the title V operating permit program
became effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim approval of
Colorado's title V operating permit program became effective February
23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As discussed in the proposed interim approval of
the title V program (59 FR 52123, Oct. 14, 1994), the State
demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the
program.
14. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
a. Colorado's response to this requirement: Colorado AQCC
Regulation 10, ``Transportation Conformity,'' defines the criteria the
Colorado AQCC uses for transportation conformity determination to
develop SIP revisions in non-attainment areas.
Colorado AQCC Regulation 3 also provides for consultation and
participation by local entities. Local governments receive notice and
have the opportunity to comment on and participate in construction
permit review procedures and operating permit application procedures.
The Colorado AQCC holds a public hearing before adopting any
regulatory revisions to the SIP. Local political subdivisions may
participate in the hearing.
b. EPA Analysis: Colorado's submittal meets the requirements of CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
V. What action is EPA taking?
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve in full the following
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for Colorado for the 1997
ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), (M).
EPA proposes to approve the section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure element
in full for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the event that Colorado takes one
of the actions described in the discussion of that element. In the
alternative, EPA proposes to disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(C)
element to the extent described and to otherwise approve this element.
EPA is taking no action on infrastructure elements (D)(i) and (I) for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
[[Page 28715]]
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 CAA; and,
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 10, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-12213 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
