Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado: Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide Rule Revisions; Regulation 1, 2466-2469 [2012-713]
Download as PDF
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2466
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Switzerland, or by calling +41–22–749–
01–11, or at https://www.iso.org.
(1) ISO 2719:2002, Determination of
flash point—Pensky-Martens closed cup
method, IBR approved for § 1065.705.
(2) ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum
products—Determination of pour point,
IBR approved for § 1065.705.
(3) ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997,
Petroleum products—Transparent and
opaque liquids—Determination of
kinematic viscosity and calculation of
dynamic viscosity, IBR approved for
§ 1065.705.
(4) ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum
and liquid petroleum products—
Laboratory determination of density—
Hydrometer method, IBR approved for
§ 1065.705.
(5) ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum
products and bituminous materials—
Determination of water—Distillation
method, IBR approved for § 1065.705.
(6) ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum
products—Determination of ash, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(7) ISO 8217:2005, Petroleum
products—Fuels (class F)—
Specifications of marine fuels, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(8) ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum
products—Determination of sulfur
content—Energy-dispersive X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(9) ISO 10307–2:1993, Petroleum
products—Total sediment in residual
fuel oils—Part 2: Determination using
standard procedures for ageing, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(10) ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996,
Petroleum products—Determination of
carbon residue—Micro method, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(11) ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum
products—Determination of aluminium
and silicon in fuel oils—Inductively
coupled plasma emission and atomic
absorption spectroscopy methods, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(12) ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001,
Crude petroleum and petroleum
products—Determination of density—
Oscillating U-tube method, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(13) ISO 14596:2007, Petroleum
products—Determination of sulfur
content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry, IBR
approved for § 1065.705.
(14) ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum
products—Determination of vanadium
and nickel content—Wavelengthdispersive X-ray fluorescence
spectrometry, IBR approved for
§ 1065.705.
(15) ISO 14644–1:1999, Cleanrooms
and associated controlled environments,
IBR approved for § 1065.190.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
(e) NIST material. Copies of these
materials may be obtained from the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) by calling (800) 553–
6847 or from the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO). To purchase a
NIST publication you must have the
order number. Order numbers are
available from the Public Inquiries Unit
at (301) 975–NIST. Mailing address:
Public Inquiries Unit, NIST, 100 Bureau
Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–1070. If you have a GPO stock
number, you can purchase printed
copies of NIST publications from GPO.
GPO orders may be: Mailed to the U.S.
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box
979050, St. Louis, MO 63197–9000,
placed by telephone at (866) 512–1800
(DC Area only: (202) 512–1800), or
faxed to (202) 512–2104. More
information can also be found at
https://www.nist.gov.
(1) NIST Special Publication 811,
1995 Edition, Guide for the Use of the
International System of Units (SI), Barry
N. Taylor, Physics Laboratory, IBR
approved for §§ 1065.20, 1065.1001,
1065.1005.
(2) NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994
Edition, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST
Measurement Results, Barry N. Taylor
and Chris E. Kuyatt, IBR approved for
§ 1065.1001.
(f) SAE material. Copies of these
materials may be obtained from the
Society of Automotive Engineers
International, 400 Commonwealth Dr.,
Warrendale, PA 15096–0001, or by
calling (724) 776–4841, or at https://
www.sae.org.
(1) SAE 770141, 2001, Optimization
of Flame Ionization Detector for
Determination of Hydrocarbon in
Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D.
Reschke, IBR approved for § 1065.360.
(2) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2012–712 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0588; FRL–9614–8]
Approval, Disapproval and
Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado:
Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide
Rule Revisions; Regulation 1
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA is partially approving
and partially disapproving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to
Colorado’s Regulation 1. The partial
approval of the State’s revisions allows
for the use of obscurants during military
exercises at the Fort Carson Military
´
Base and Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site
in Colorado when precautionary steps
are taken during the exercise to
maintain air quality. EPA approves the
State’s revised determination of
averaged over time emission rates and
the expansion of recordkeeping
requirements. EPA, however, is
disapproving the revised provision
governing fuel burning equipment.
These revisions were adopted by the
State of Colorado on July 21, 2005 and
submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006.
The proposed partial approval and
partial disapproval appeared in the
Federal Register on August 10, 2011 (76
FR 49391). EPA has determined that the
approved revisions in Colorado’s
submittal are consistent with the Clean
Air Act (CAA). This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: Effective date: This final rule is
effective February 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0588. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Komp, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6022,
komp.mark@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Table of Contents
I. Summary of SIP Revisions
II. Response to Comments
III. Section 110(l) of the CAA
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
The words EPA, we, us or our mean
or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
The initials SIP mean or refer to State
Implementation Plan.
The words State or Colorado mean the
State of Colorado, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
The initials NSR mean or refer to New
Source Review, the initials PSD mean or
refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and the initials NAAQS
mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
The initials CO mean Carbon
Monoxide, NO2 mean Nitrogen Dioxide
and SO2 mean Sulfur Dioxide.
The initials BACT mean Best
Available Control Technology.
The word Base means United States
Army Fort Carson Military Base and the
´
word PCMS means Pinon Canyon
Maneuver Site.
The initials CEM mean Continuous
Emission Monitoring.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Summary of SIP Revisions
Colorado’s Regulation 1 governs
opacity, particulates, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions from sources. Colorado
adopted revisions to Regulation 1 on
July 21, 2005 and submitted them to
EPA on August 8, 2006. The State
revised regulations regarding the use of
smoke during military operations,
equipment requirements and work
practices (abatement and control
measures) intended to control the
emissions of particulates, smokes and
SO2 from new and existing stationary
sources.
The revision also provides a new
numbering scheme for each section of
the regulation. Previously, subsections
were designated only by the letter or
number (for example, A or 1) assigned
to that subsection. In the revision, every
subsection is designated by full
reference to it (for example, I.A or I.A.1).
Section I.A. provides that Regulation
1 provisions are applicable statewide.
An exception is made if a provision
within Regulation 1 is made specifically
applicable to attainment, attainment/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
maintenance or nonattainment areas.
Consistent with its use of the term
elsewhere, the State added the
attainment/maintenance nomenclature
as a revision to Section I.A.
The State adopted EPA test methods
number 1 through 9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–4) as it is applied to
Standards of Performance for Steel
Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces (40 CFR
60.275).
In the ‘‘Background’’ section of our
proposed rule for these Regulation 1
revisions (76 FR 49391), we said that the
State had submitted a revision to
Section II.A.1 requiring sources to use
EPA Test Method 9 to determine
opacity. Originally, the State had added
language to the section stating that the
use of the test method shall not
preclude the use of other credible
evidence. The use of other credible
evidence was suggested by EPA during
the State’s drafting of the revisions. The
intent of the suggestion was to clarify
that the use of the test method was not
the only evidence that could be used to
determine opacity. The State decided
that the addition of the credible
evidence wording was unnecessary
because Regulation 1 is subject to the
credible evidence provisions found in
the State’s Common Provisions.
Therefore, the State removed the
credible evidence reference from their
revisions to Regulation 1, and section
II.A.1 was unchanged in this revision.
The ‘‘Proposed Action’’ section of our
notice did not propose action on this
section, correctly reflecting that no
substantive change to this section had
been made.
Section II.A.3 was revised to clarify
that pilot plants and experimental
operations shall not emit particulate
matter in excess of 30 percent opacity
for more than six minutes during a sixty
minute time period. Prior to the revision
the sixty minute time period had not
been defined.
The State revised Regulation 1 to
address the United States Army Fort
Carson Military Base’s (Base’s) need to
use military obscurants during training
while, at the same time, maintaining the
air quality in areas accessible to the
public near the military base. Section
II.A of Regulation 1 prior to the revision
set general standards for all sources
prohibiting emissions into the
atmosphere of any air pollutant which
is in excess of 20% opacity. However in
1998 the State revised Regulation 1 in
recognition that obscurant generation
training by the United States Army
purposefully intends to be at or near 100
percent opacity. Section II.D set specific
limitations for the use of obscurants at
´
the Base and the Pinon Canyon
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2467
Maneuver Site (PCMS) at 100 percent
opacity subject to specified limitations
and conditions. These included using a
buffer zone around the military’s
training operation and limitation of the
quantity of obscurant being generated.
The August 8, 2006 submittal revised
Section II. of Regulation 1 by removing
the daily limitation to the use of
obscurants, and replaced a threekilometer buffer zone within the
military training area where obscurants
could not be generated with a
prohibition on transport of visible
emissions from obscurants outside the
boundaries of the facilities in order to
protect the air quality in public areas
outside the military boundary.
Section III.A.1.d, prior to its revision
by the State, stated that if two or more
fuel burning units connect to any
opening, the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a
process rate of pound per million heat
input (BTU) basis. The State revised this
so that the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a
design rate of pounds per hour.
A revision to Section III.B.2.a of
Regulation 1 clarified the areas where
an incinerator emission standard
applies. Previously, the emission rate
limitation of 0.10 grain of particulate
matter per standard cubic foot applied
only to incinerators located in
nonattainment areas. The revision,
consistent with changes elsewhere,
included attainment/maintenance areas
as well.
The August 8, 2006 submittal changed
Section III.C.1.a. regarding
manufacturing processes emission rates,
to clarify that the applicability of the
section is to process equipment with a
design rate of 30 tons per hour or less.
Under the revision averaging times for
existing sources of SO2 (unless specified
in other sections of Regulation 1) shall
be a three hour rolling average (Section
VI.A.1). Prior to the August 8, 2006
submittal only sources utilizing a CEM
were subject to the 3 hour rolling
average. Requirements regarding
frequency of fuel sampling were
eliminated from this section.
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements were modified in Section
VI.A.5 to allow the State to require a
longer period than the two years for
keeping records on site.
We noted in the ‘‘Background’’
section of our proposed rule for these
Regulation 1 revisions (76 FR 49391),
that the State had submitted a revision
to Section VI.B.4.i that addressed
emission limitations for new cement
manufacturing sources. This revision
was removed by the State prior to the
submittal of the revisions to EPA on
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
2468
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
August 8, 2006. The State decided that
new cement manufacturing plants will
be included in the State’s NSR permit
program that will include more
stringent SO2 emissions than are
established in Regulation 1. Therefore,
the State removed as unnecessary and
redundant the reference to new cement
manufacturing plants in Section
VI.B.4.i. The ‘‘Proposed Action’’ section
of the notice did not propose action on
this section, correctly reflecting that no
substantive change had been made.
In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the
reference to the U.S. Department of
Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site and Gates Rubber
Company as sources using oil as a
backup fuel is deleted since the sources
no longer operate in the Denver,
Colorado metropolitan area.
II. Response to Comments
EPA did not receive comments
regarding our proposed rule for
Colorado’s Regulation 1 revisions.
III. Section 110(l) of the CAA
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that
a SIP revision cannot be approved if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The Colorado
SIP revisions being approved that are
the subject of this action do not interfere
with attainment of the NAAQS or any
other applicable requirement of the Act.
In regard to the August 8, 2006
submittal, EPA is approving several
revisions to the State’s Regulation
Number 1. These portions do not relax
the stringency of the Colorado SIP. In
particular, the State reinstated previous
SO2 limits, where we had disapproved
subsequent relaxations that the State
submitted. Therefore, this action
satisfies the requirements of section
110(l).
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. Final Action
We are not acting on purported
substantive revisions made to Section
II.C. regarding the State’s Open Burning
regulation. Upon review of the
revisions, the language was unchanged
from a previous revision the State had
made to its Open Burning regulations
under the Smoke and Opacity section of
Regulation 1. EPA approved this
revision in an earlier action (76 FR
4540, January 26, 2011). EPA therefore
considers that no substantive revision
was submitted for Section II.C. As
discussed above, no substantive changes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
were made to sections II.A.1 and
VI.B.4.i.
What EPA Is Approving
We are approving the new numbering
scheme for Regulation 1. This approval
does not constitute approval of any
renumbered provisions that were not
substantively modified, including
sections II.A.1, II.C, and VII.B.4.i. We
are approving the State’s incorporation
by reference into the SIP of EPA test
method 9.
We are also approving the use of
obscurants by the United States Army
for military exercises at Fort Carson and
PCMS under the prescribed conditions
stated in Section II.D. The use of design
rates for determining allowable
emissions rates for manufacturing
processes as defined in Section III.C.1.a
of Regulation 1 is also approved.
The revision to the default averaging
time (3 hour rolling average) for existing
sources of SO2 (Section VI.A.1) is
approved. The modification to
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in Section VI.A.5 is also
approved. The reinstatement of Section
VI.B.5, requirements for new sources of
SO2 emissions not regulated elsewhere
in Regulation 1, is approved.
EPA is approving the deletion of the
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site and the Gates Rubber Company in
Section VIII.A. Minor grammatical
revisions made throughout the revisions
are also being approved. The State’s use
of the term ‘‘attainment/maintenance’’
area in Sections I.A., III.B.2.a, IV.D.2,
and IX is approved.
What EPA Is Disapproving
EPA is disapproving the revision to
Section III.A.1.d regarding the
maximum allowable emission rate for
multiple fuel units. We did not receive
information from the State showing that
changing the method for calculating
emissions would not result in an
increase in emissions. The State
considered the issue and realized that
the likelihood of two units venting to
one stack where a pound per hour
emission rate was needed would be rare.
Therefore, the State did not provide the
information and EPA is disapproving
the revision to Section III.A.1.d
V. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission;
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by March 19, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: December 20, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G—Colorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(121) to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Jan 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
§ 52.320
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(121) On August 8, 2006, the State of
Colorado submitted revisions to
Colorado’s 5 CCR 1001–3, Regulation 1,
that allows for the use of obscurants
during military exercises at the Fort
´
Carson Military Base and Pinon Canyon
Maneuver Site in Colorado while
precautionary steps are taken during the
exercise to maintain air quality. The
State modified the equipment
requirements and work practices
(abatement and control measures) in
Regulation 1 intended to control the
emissions of particulates, smokes and
SO2 from new and existing stationary
sources. Consistent with its use of the
term elsewhere, the State added the
attainment/maintenance nomenclature.
The revision also provides a new
numbering scheme for each section of
the regulation.
The State adopted EPA test method 9
(part 60 of this title, Appendix A–4) as
it is applied to Standards of
Performance for Steel Plants (§ 60.275a
of this title). The State revised
manufacturing process emission rates,
to clarify that the applicability of the
section is to process equipment with a
design rate of 30 tons per hour or less.
The averaging time for emission
standards of all existing sources of SO2
shall be a three hour rolling average.
New sources of SO2 not specifically
regulated within Regulation 1 are
limited to two tons per day and are
subject to BACT.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 5 CCR 1001–3, Regulation 1,
Emission Control for Particulate Matter,
Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur
Oxides, Section I., Applicability:
Referenced Federal Regulations; Section
II., Smoke and Opacity; Section III.,
Particulate Matter (except Subsection
III.A.1.d.); Section IV., Continuous
Emission Monitoring Requirements for
New or Existing Sources; Section V.,
Emission Standards for Existing Iron
and Steel Plant Operations; Section VI.,
Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations;
Section VII., Emission Regulations for
Certain Electric Generating Stations
Owned and Operated by the Public
Service Company of Colorado; Section
VIII., Restrictions On The Use of Oil as
a Backup Fuel; effective October 2,
2005.
[FR Doc. 2012–713 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2469
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0987; FRL–9617–4]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley
Air Quality Management District and
Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management District (AVAQMD) and
Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District (ICAPCD) portions of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
stationary gas turbines. We are
approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective on March
19, 2012 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
February 17, 2012. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0987, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM
18JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2466-2469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0588; FRL-9614-8]
Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado: Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide Rule
Revisions; Regulation 1
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1. The
partial approval of the State's revisions allows for the use of
obscurants during military exercises at the Fort Carson Military Base
and Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado when precautionary
steps are taken during the exercise to maintain air quality. EPA
approves the State's revised determination of averaged over time
emission rates and the expansion of recordkeeping requirements. EPA,
however, is disapproving the revised provision governing fuel burning
equipment. These revisions were adopted by the State of Colorado on
July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The proposed
partial approval and partial disapproval appeared in the Federal
Register on August 10, 2011 (76 FR 49391). EPA has determined that the
approved revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective February 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0588. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6022, komp.mark@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 2467]]
Table of Contents
I. Summary of SIP Revisions
II. Response to Comments
III. Section 110(l) of the CAA
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review, the initials
PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the
initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The initials CO mean Carbon Monoxide, NO2 mean Nitrogen
Dioxide and SO2 mean Sulfur Dioxide.
The initials BACT mean Best Available Control Technology.
The word Base means United States Army Fort Carson Military Base
and the word PCMS means Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site.
The initials CEM mean Continuous Emission Monitoring.
I. Summary of SIP Revisions
Colorado's Regulation 1 governs opacity, particulates, sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from
sources. Colorado adopted revisions to Regulation 1 on July 21, 2005
and submitted them to EPA on August 8, 2006. The State revised
regulations regarding the use of smoke during military operations,
equipment requirements and work practices (abatement and control
measures) intended to control the emissions of particulates, smokes and
SO2 from new and existing stationary sources.
The revision also provides a new numbering scheme for each section
of the regulation. Previously, subsections were designated only by the
letter or number (for example, A or 1) assigned to that subsection. In
the revision, every subsection is designated by full reference to it
(for example, I.A or I.A.1).
Section I.A. provides that Regulation 1 provisions are applicable
statewide. An exception is made if a provision within Regulation 1 is
made specifically applicable to attainment, attainment/maintenance or
nonattainment areas. Consistent with its use of the term elsewhere, the
State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature as a revision to
Section I.A.
The State adopted EPA test methods number 1 through 9 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A-4) as it is applied to Standards of Performance for
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces (40 CFR 60.275).
In the ``Background'' section of our proposed rule for these
Regulation 1 revisions (76 FR 49391), we said that the State had
submitted a revision to Section II.A.1 requiring sources to use EPA
Test Method 9 to determine opacity. Originally, the State had added
language to the section stating that the use of the test method shall
not preclude the use of other credible evidence. The use of other
credible evidence was suggested by EPA during the State's drafting of
the revisions. The intent of the suggestion was to clarify that the use
of the test method was not the only evidence that could be used to
determine opacity. The State decided that the addition of the credible
evidence wording was unnecessary because Regulation 1 is subject to the
credible evidence provisions found in the State's Common Provisions.
Therefore, the State removed the credible evidence reference from their
revisions to Regulation 1, and section II.A.1 was unchanged in this
revision. The ``Proposed Action'' section of our notice did not propose
action on this section, correctly reflecting that no substantive change
to this section had been made.
Section II.A.3 was revised to clarify that pilot plants and
experimental operations shall not emit particulate matter in excess of
30 percent opacity for more than six minutes during a sixty minute time
period. Prior to the revision the sixty minute time period had not been
defined.
The State revised Regulation 1 to address the United States Army
Fort Carson Military Base's (Base's) need to use military obscurants
during training while, at the same time, maintaining the air quality in
areas accessible to the public near the military base. Section II.A of
Regulation 1 prior to the revision set general standards for all
sources prohibiting emissions into the atmosphere of any air pollutant
which is in excess of 20% opacity. However in 1998 the State revised
Regulation 1 in recognition that obscurant generation training by the
United States Army purposefully intends to be at or near 100 percent
opacity. Section II.D set specific limitations for the use of
obscurants at the Base and the Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS)
at 100 percent opacity subject to specified limitations and conditions.
These included using a buffer zone around the military's training
operation and limitation of the quantity of obscurant being generated.
The August 8, 2006 submittal revised Section II. of Regulation 1 by
removing the daily limitation to the use of obscurants, and replaced a
three-kilometer buffer zone within the military training area where
obscurants could not be generated with a prohibition on transport of
visible emissions from obscurants outside the boundaries of the
facilities in order to protect the air quality in public areas outside
the military boundary.
Section III.A.1.d, prior to its revision by the State, stated that
if two or more fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum
allowable emission rate shall be calculated on a process rate of pound
per million heat input (BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the
maximum allowable emission rate shall be calculated on a design rate of
pounds per hour.
A revision to Section III.B.2.a of Regulation 1 clarified the areas
where an incinerator emission standard applies. Previously, the
emission rate limitation of 0.10 grain of particulate matter per
standard cubic foot applied only to incinerators located in
nonattainment areas. The revision, consistent with changes elsewhere,
included attainment/maintenance areas as well.
The August 8, 2006 submittal changed Section III.C.1.a. regarding
manufacturing processes emission rates, to clarify that the
applicability of the section is to process equipment with a design rate
of 30 tons per hour or less.
Under the revision averaging times for existing sources of
SO2 (unless specified in other sections of Regulation 1)
shall be a three hour rolling average (Section VI.A.1). Prior to the
August 8, 2006 submittal only sources utilizing a CEM were subject to
the 3 hour rolling average. Requirements regarding frequency of fuel
sampling were eliminated from this section. Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements were modified in Section VI.A.5 to allow the State to
require a longer period than the two years for keeping records on site.
We noted in the ``Background'' section of our proposed rule for
these Regulation 1 revisions (76 FR 49391), that the State had
submitted a revision to Section VI.B.4.i that addressed emission
limitations for new cement manufacturing sources. This revision was
removed by the State prior to the submittal of the revisions to EPA on
[[Page 2468]]
August 8, 2006. The State decided that new cement manufacturing plants
will be included in the State's NSR permit program that will include
more stringent SO2 emissions than are established in
Regulation 1. Therefore, the State removed as unnecessary and redundant
the reference to new cement manufacturing plants in Section VI.B.4.i.
The ``Proposed Action'' section of the notice did not propose action on
this section, correctly reflecting that no substantive change had been
made.
In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the reference to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and
Gates Rubber Company as sources using oil as a backup fuel is deleted
since the sources no longer operate in the Denver, Colorado
metropolitan area.
II. Response to Comments
EPA did not receive comments regarding our proposed rule for
Colorado's Regulation 1 revisions.
III. Section 110(l) of the CAA
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The Colorado SIP
revisions being approved that are the subject of this action do not
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In regard to the August 8, 2006 submittal, EPA
is approving several revisions to the State's Regulation Number 1.
These portions do not relax the stringency of the Colorado SIP. In
particular, the State reinstated previous SO2 limits, where
we had disapproved subsequent relaxations that the State submitted.
Therefore, this action satisfies the requirements of section 110(l).
IV. Final Action
We are not acting on purported substantive revisions made to
Section II.C. regarding the State's Open Burning regulation. Upon
review of the revisions, the language was unchanged from a previous
revision the State had made to its Open Burning regulations under the
Smoke and Opacity section of Regulation 1. EPA approved this revision
in an earlier action (76 FR 4540, January 26, 2011). EPA therefore
considers that no substantive revision was submitted for Section II.C.
As discussed above, no substantive changes were made to sections II.A.1
and VI.B.4.i.
What EPA Is Approving
We are approving the new numbering scheme for Regulation 1. This
approval does not constitute approval of any renumbered provisions that
were not substantively modified, including sections II.A.1, II.C, and
VII.B.4.i. We are approving the State's incorporation by reference into
the SIP of EPA test method 9.
We are also approving the use of obscurants by the United States
Army for military exercises at Fort Carson and PCMS under the
prescribed conditions stated in Section II.D. The use of design rates
for determining allowable emissions rates for manufacturing processes
as defined in Section III.C.1.a of Regulation 1 is also approved.
The revision to the default averaging time (3 hour rolling average)
for existing sources of SO2 (Section VI.A.1) is approved.
The modification to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Section
VI.A.5 is also approved. The reinstatement of Section VI.B.5,
requirements for new sources of SO2 emissions not regulated
elsewhere in Regulation 1, is approved.
EPA is approving the deletion of the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site and the Gates Rubber Company in Section VIII.A. Minor
grammatical revisions made throughout the revisions are also being
approved. The State's use of the term ``attainment/maintenance'' area
in Sections I.A., III.B.2.a, IV.D.2, and IX is approved.
What EPA Is Disapproving
EPA is disapproving the revision to Section III.A.1.d regarding the
maximum allowable emission rate for multiple fuel units. We did not
receive information from the State showing that changing the method for
calculating emissions would not result in an increase in emissions. The
State considered the issue and realized that the likelihood of two
units venting to one stack where a pound per hour emission rate was
needed would be rare. Therefore, the State did not provide the
information and EPA is disapproving the revision to Section III.A.1.d
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
[[Page 2469]]
272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 19, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 20, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(121) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(121) On August 8, 2006, the State of Colorado submitted revisions
to Colorado's 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, that allows for the use of
obscurants during military exercises at the Fort Carson Military Base
and Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado while precautionary
steps are taken during the exercise to maintain air quality. The State
modified the equipment requirements and work practices (abatement and
control measures) in Regulation 1 intended to control the emissions of
particulates, smokes and SO2 from new and existing
stationary sources. Consistent with its use of the term elsewhere, the
State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature. The revision also
provides a new numbering scheme for each section of the regulation.
The State adopted EPA test method 9 (part 60 of this title,
Appendix A-4) as it is applied to Standards of Performance for Steel
Plants (Sec. 60.275a of this title). The State revised manufacturing
process emission rates, to clarify that the applicability of the
section is to process equipment with a design rate of 30 tons per hour
or less. The averaging time for emission standards of all existing
sources of SO2 shall be a three hour rolling average. New
sources of SO2 not specifically regulated within Regulation
1 are limited to two tons per day and are subject to BACT.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 5 CCR 1001-3, Regulation 1, Emission Control for Particulate
Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Oxides, Section I.,
Applicability: Referenced Federal Regulations; Section II., Smoke and
Opacity; Section III., Particulate Matter (except Subsection
III.A.1.d.); Section IV., Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements
for New or Existing Sources; Section V., Emission Standards for
Existing Iron and Steel Plant Operations; Section VI., Sulfur Dioxide
Emission Regulations; Section VII., Emission Regulations for Certain
Electric Generating Stations Owned and Operated by the Public Service
Company of Colorado; Section VIII., Restrictions On The Use of Oil as a
Backup Fuel; effective October 2, 2005.
[FR Doc. 2012-713 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P