Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2, 25999-26007 [2017-11574]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
Dated: May 17, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017–11681 Filed 6–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0557; FRL–9963–29–
Region 8]
Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Colorado
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
elements of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions from the State of
Colorado submitted to demonstrate that
the State meets infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010,
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on
December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires that each state submit
a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2013–0557 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25999
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, 303–312–6563,
fulton.abby@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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
the EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. 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 the 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 volume, 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 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.
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
26000
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background
On June 2, 2010, the EPA
promulgated a revised primary SO2
standard at 75 ppb, based on a threeyear average of the annual 99th
percentile of one-hour daily maximum
concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22,
2010). On December 14, 2012, the EPA
promulgated a revised annual PM2.5
standard by lowering the level to 12.0
mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5
standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR
3086, Jan. 15, 2013).
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
providing for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
NAAQS. The EPA has historically
referred to these SIP submissions made
to satisfy sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
submissions. Although the term
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in
the CAA, the EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP
submission from those intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the
CAA, such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D of title I of the
CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
to address the visibility protection
requirements of CAA section 169A; and
nonattainment new source review (NSR)
permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I,
part D.
Infrastructure SIP submissions must
contain any revisions needed for
meeting the applicable SIP requirements
of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that
the existing SIPs for SO2 and PM2.5
already satisfy those requirements. EPA
guidance on these provisions and their
implementation may be found in the
following documents: ‘‘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’’ (October 2, 2007);
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)’’ (Sep. 25, 2009); ‘‘Guidance
on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (Oct. 14,
2011); and ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (Sept. 13, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
III. What is the scope of this
rulemaking?
The EPA is acting upon the SIP
submissions from Colorado that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of
CAA section 110(a)(1). This provision
directs that, within three years after the
promulgation of a NAAQS, states make
SIP submissions that provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of the NAAQS. The
statute imposes on states the duty to
make these SIP submissions, and does
not condition this requirement on the
EPA’s taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for these
infrastructure SIP submissions, and
section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required contents of
these submissions. The section 110(a)(2)
list of required elements contains a
variety of disparate provisions, some of
which pertain to required legal
authority, some to required substantive
program provisions, and some to
requirements for both authority and
substantive program provisions.1 The
EPA has concluded that although the
timing requirement in section 110(a)(1)
is clear, some of the section 110(a)(2)
language is ambiguous with respect to
what is required for inclusion in an
infrastructure SIP submission. For
discussion of some of these ambiguities
and the EPA’s interpretation of them,
see Promulgation of State
Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone,
and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR
71040, Dec. 1, 2014), under ‘‘III. What
is the scope of this rulemaking?’’
With respect to certain other issues,
the EPA does not believe that an action
on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to
address possible deficiencies in a state’s
existing SIP. These issues include: (i)
1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
that states must have a SIP-approved program to
address certain sources as required by part C of title
I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
states must have legal authority to address
emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Existing provisions related to excess
emissions from sources during periods
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
(SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA
and the EPA’s policies addressing such
excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions
related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or
‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be
contrary to the CAA because they
purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while
limiting public process or not requiring
further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of the EPA’s
‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR
80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72
FR 32526, June 13, 2007.
IV. What infrastructure elements are
required under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2)?
CAA 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. The elements
that are the subject of this action are:
• 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): Interstate transport
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources
and authority, conflict of interest, and
oversight of local governments and
regional agencies
• 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; 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.
Section VI, below, contains a detailed
discussion of each of these elements.
Two elements identified in section
110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section
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 at
the same time nonattainment area plan
requirements are due under section 172.
The two elements are: (1) Section
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to
permit programs (known as
‘‘nonattainment NSR’’) required under
part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I),
pertaining to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D.
Therefore, 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).
Further, the EPA interprets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on
visibility as not being triggered by a new
NAAQS, because the visibility
requirements in part C, title 1 of the
CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
V. How did Colorado address the
infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
The Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE)
submitted certifications concerning
Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS on July 10, 2013, and
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December
1, 2015. Colorado’s infrastructure
certifications demonstrate how the State
has plans in place that meet the
applicable requirements of section 110
for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The Colorado infrastructure
SIPs were subject to public notice and
comment, as indicated in the cover
letter of each certification, and are
available within the electronic docket
for today’s proposed action at
www.regulations.gov. These plans
reference the current Air Quality
Control Commission (AQCC) regulations
and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.).
The cited AQCC regulations are
available at https://www.colorado.gov/
pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs and https://
www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/
colorado/. Colorado’s SIP, air pollution
control regulations, and statutes that
have been previously approved by the
EPA and incorporated into the Colorado
SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.320.
VI. Analysis of the State Submittals
1. Emission limits and other control
measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
that SIPs 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.
Colorado’s infrastructure SIP
submissions identify existing EPAapproved SIP provisions limiting
emissions of relevant pollutants. The
State references a variety of SIPapproved Colorado AQCC regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
cited under element (C), including:
Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes,
Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides;
Regulation 3, Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollution Emission
Notice Requirements; Regulation 4,
Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7,
Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors
and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11,
Motor Vehicle Inspection; Regulation
16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and
Common Provisions Regulation. Subject
to the following clarifications, the EPA
proposes to find that SIP-approved
AQCC regulations citied in Colorado’s
certifications provide enforceable
emission limitations and other control
measures, means or techniques,
schedules for compliance, and other
related matters necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
First, the 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). Furthermore, Colorado has no
areas designated as nonattainment for
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Colorado’s certifications (contained
within this docket) generally listed
provisions within its SIP which regulate
pollutants through various programs,
such as limits on emissions of
particulate matter (PM) in Regulation 1,
woodburning controls in Regulation 4,
and the State’s minor NSR and PSD
programs in Regulation 3. This suffices,
in the case of Colorado, to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Second, as previously discussed, the
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 that are contrary
to the CAA and to 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, the EPA encourages any state
having a director’s discretion or
variance provision contrary to the CAA
and EPA guidance to take steps to
correct the deficiency as soon as
possible.
As a final clarification, in this action
the EPA is also not proposing to
approve or disapprove any existing state
provision with regard to excess
emissions during SSM operations at a
facility. A number of states have SSM
provisions that are contrary to the CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26001
and existing EPA guidance,2 and the
agency is addressing such state
regulations separately (80 FR 33840,
June 12, 2015).
Subject to the above clarifications, the
EPA is proposing to approve Colorado’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable
emission limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques to meet
the applicable requirements of this
element.
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.’’
The provisions for episode
monitoring, data compilation and
reporting, public availability of
information, and annual network
reviews are found in the statewide
monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, Sept. 23,
1993). As part of the monitoring SIP,
Colorado submits an Annual Monitoring
Network Plan (AMNP) each year for
EPA approval. The EPA approved 2015
and 2016 network changes through an
AMNP response letter (contained within
the docket) mailed to CDPHE on
December 22, 2016. The Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD) also
periodically submits a Quality
Management Plan and a Quality
Assurance Project Plan to the EPA.
These plans cover procedures to
monitor and analyze data.
In our August 19, 2015 rulemaking
(80 FR 50205), we conditionally
approved element (B) for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS based on Colorado’s
commitment to install and operate a
second near-road NO2 monitoring site
no later than December 31, 2015. In a
letter dated February 17, 2016
(contained within this docket), the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
notified the EPA that the second nearroad site in Denver became operational
on October 1, 2015, thus satisfying the
requirements of 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv).
We find Colorado’s SIP adequate for
the ambient air quality monitoring and
data system requirements for the 2010
2 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air
Division Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans
(SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ (Sep. 20,
1999).
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
26002
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
therefore propose to approve the
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.
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 NAAQS are
achieved, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D.’’
To generally meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is
required to have SIP-approved PSD,
nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR
permitting programs adequate to
implement the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this
action, the EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment related provisions, such
as the nonattainment NSR program
required by part D of the Act. The 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).
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Enforcement of Control Measures
Requirement
The State’s submissions for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure
requirement cite a variety of SIPapproved Colorado AQCC regulations
that provide for enforcement of
emission limits and control measures.
These include Regulation 1,
Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide,
and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation 3,
Stationary Source Permitting and Air
Pollution Emission Notice
Requirements; Regulation 4,
Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7,
Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors
and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11,
Motor Vehicle Inspection; Regulation
16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and
Common Provisions Regulation.
PSD Requirements
With respect to elements (C) and (J),
the EPA interprets the CAA to require
each state to make an infrastructure SIP
submission for a new or revised NAAQS
that demonstrates that the air agency
has a complete PSD permitting program
meeting the current requirements for all
regulated NSR pollutants; this
demonstration will also satisfy the
requirements of element (D)(i)(II). To
meet this requirement, Colorado cited
SIP approved AQCC Regulation 3
Concerning Major Stationary Source
New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration. The EPA is
proposing to approve Colorado’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD program in
the SIP that covers all regulated
pollutants including greenhouse gases
(GHGs).
In addition to these requirements,
there are four other revisions to the
Colorado SIP that are necessary to meet
the requirements of infrastructure
element 110(a)(2)(C). These four
revisions are related to (1) the Ozone
Implementation NSR Update (November
29, 2005, 70 FR 71612); (2) the
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule’’ (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514); (3)
the NSR PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73
FR 28321); and (4) the final rulemaking
entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact
Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864,
Oct. 20, 2010).
On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), we
approved revisions to Colorado’s PSD
program that addressed the PSD
requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule promulgated on
November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). As a
result, the approved Colorado PSD
program meets the current requirements
for ozone.
With respect to GHGs, on June 23,
2014, the United States Supreme Court
addressed the application of PSD
permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group
v. Environmental Protection Agency,
134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme
Court held that the EPA may not treat
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of
determining whether a source is a major
source required to obtain a PSD permit.
The Court also held that the EPA could
continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions
of pollutants other than GHGs, (anyway
sources) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT).
In accordance with the Supreme
Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v.
EPA, 606 F. App’x. 6, at *7–8 (D.C. Cir.
April 10, 2015), issued an amended
judgment vacating the regulations that
implemented Step 2 of the EPA’s PSD
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule, but not the regulations that
implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of
the Tailoring Rule covers sources that
are required to obtain a PSD permit
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
based on emissions of pollutants other
than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources
that emitted only GHGs above the
thresholds triggering the requirement to
obtain a PSD permit. The amended
judgment preserves, without the need
for additional rulemaking by the EPA,
the application of the BACT
requirement to GHG emissions from
Step 1 or ‘‘anyway’’ sources.3 With
respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C.
Circuit’s amended judgment vacated the
regulations at issue in the litigation,
including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to
the extent they require a stationary
source to obtain a PSD permit if
greenhouse gases are the only pollutant
(i) that the source emits or has the
potential to emit above the applicable
major source thresholds, or (ii) for
which there is a significant emission
increase from a modification.’’
The EPA is planning to take
additional steps to revise the federal
PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court
and subsequent D.C. Circuit opinion.
Some states have begun to revise their
existing SIP-approved PSD programs in
light of these court decisions, and some
states may prefer not to initiate this
process until they have more
information about the planned revisions
to the EPA’s PSD regulations. The EPA
is not expecting states to have revised
their PSD programs in anticipation of
the EPA’s planned actions to revise its
PSD program rules in response to the
court decisions.
The EPA has determined that
Colorado’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with
respect to GHGs, because the PSD
permitting program previously
approved by the EPA into the SIP
continues to require that PSD permits
issued to ‘‘anyway sources’’ contain
limitations on GHG emissions based on
the application of BACT. The EPA most
recently approved revisions to
Colorado’s PSD program on January 25,
2016 (81 FR 3963). The approved
Colorado PSD permitting program still
contains some provisions regarding Step
2 sources that are no longer necessary in
light of the Supreme Court decision and
D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment. But
the presence of these provisions in the
previously-approved plan does not
render the infrastructure SIP submission
inadequate to satisfy Elements (C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J). The SIP contains the
currently necessary PSD requirements
for applying the BACT requirement to
greenhouse gas emissions from ‘‘anyway
sources.’’ And the application of those
requirements is not impeded by the
3 See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) (rulemaking for
definition of ‘‘anyway’’ sources).
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
presence of other previously approved
provisions regarding the permitting of
Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the
Supreme Court decision and subsequent
D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent
the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s
infrastructure SIP as to the requirements
of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and
(J).
Finally, we evaluate the PSD program
with respect to current requirements for
PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008,
the EPA promulgated the rule,
‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review Program for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73
FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010, the
EPA promulgated the rule, ‘‘Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards
adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a
necessary requirement when assessing a
PSD program for the purposes of
element (C).
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.),
remanded the EPA’s 2007 and 2008
rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. The court ordered the EPA to
‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to
Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’
Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1
of the CAA establishes additional
provisions for PM nonattainment areas.
The 2008 implementation rule
addressed by the court decision,
‘‘Implementation of New Source Review
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73
FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated
NSR requirements for implementation
of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain
to nonattainment areas, the EPA does
not consider the portions of the 2008
Implementation rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and
unclassifiable areas to be affected by the
decision. Moreover, the EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated in the 2008
Implementation rule in order to comply
with the court’s decision. Accordingly,
the EPA’s proposed approval of
Colorado’s infrastructure SIP as to
elements C or J with respect to the PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008
Implementation rule does not conflict
with the court’s opinion.
The court’s decision with respect to
the nonattainment NSR requirements
promulgated by the 2008
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
Implementation rule also does not affect
the EPA’s action on the present
infrastructure action. The EPA
interprets the Act to exclude
nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with
a nonattainment NSR program, from
infrastructure SIP submissions due three
years after adoption or revision of a
NAAQS. Instead, these elements are
typically referred to as nonattainment
SIP or attainment plan elements, which
would be due by the dates statutorily
prescribed under subpart 2 through 5
under part D, extending as far as 10
years following designations for some
elements.
The second PSD requirement for
PM2.5 is contained in the EPA’s October
20, 2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact
Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864).
The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5
increments as a necessary requirement
when assessing a PSD program for the
purposes of element (C).
On May 11, 2012, the State submitted
revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted
all elements of the 2008 Implementation
Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment
Rule. However, the submittal contained
a definition of Major Source Baseline
Date which was inconsistent with 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013,
the State submitted revisions to
Regulation 3 which incorporate the
definition of Major Source Baseline Date
which was consistent with 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted
revisions make Colorado’s PSD program
up to date with respect to current
requirements for PM2.5. The EPA
approved the necessary portions of
Colorado’s May 11, 2012 and May 13,
2013 submissions which incorporate the
requirements of the 2008 PM2.5
Implementation Rule and the 2010
PM2.5 Increment Rule on September 23,
2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program meets current
requirements for PM2.5. The EPA
therefore is proposing to approve
Colorado’s SIP for the 2010 SO2 and
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to
include a permit program in the SIP as
required by part C of the Act.
Minor NSR
The State has a SIP-approved minor
NSR program, adopted under section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR
program is found in Regulation 3 of the
Colorado SIP, and was originally
approved by the EPA as Regulation 3 of
the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26003
2003). Since approval of the minor NSR
program, the State and the EPA have
relied on the program to ensure that
new and modified sources not captured
by the major NSR permitting programs
do not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to approve
Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 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.
4. Interstate transport: The interstate
transport provisions in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provisions) require each state
to submit a SIP prohibiting emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality
effects in other states. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct
elements (or prongs) related to the
impacts of air pollutants transported
across state lines. The two prongs under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to
contain adequate provisions to prohibit
any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting
air pollutants that will (prong 1)
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state with
respect to any such national primary or
secondary NAAQS or (prong 2) interfere
with maintenance by any other state
with respect to the same NAAQS. The
two prongs under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will interfere with
measures required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other state under part C (prong 3) to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility.
In this action, the EPA is addressing
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5NAAQS
with regard to prongs 3 (interference
with PSD) and 4 (interference with
visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
We are not addressing prongs 1 and 2
for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in this action. These prongs
will be addressed in a later rulemaking.
A. Evaluation of Interference With
Measures To Prevent Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
The PSD portion of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may be met by a state’s
confirmation in an infrastructure SIP
submission that new major sources and
major modifications in the state are
subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in
the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR
pollutants and that satisfies the
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
26004
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
requirements of the EPA’s PSD
implementation rule(s).4 As noted in
Section VI.3 of this proposed action,
Colorado has such a program, and the
EPA is therefore proposing to approve
Colorado’s SIP for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to
include a permit program in the SIP as
required by part C of the Act.
As stated in the 2013 Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements, in-state
sources not subject to PSD for any one
or more of the pollutants subject to
regulation under the CAA because they
are in a nonattainment area for a
NAAQS related to those particular
pollutants may also have the potential
to interfere with PSD in an attainment
or unclassifiable area of another state.
One way a state may satisfy prong 3
with respect to these sources is by citing
EPA-approved nonattainment NSR
provisions addressing any pollutants for
which the state has designated
nonattainment areas. Colorado has a
SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
program that ensures regulation of major
sources and major modifications in
nonattainment areas.5
As Colorado’s SIP meets PSD
requirements for all regulated NSR
pollutants, and contains a fully
approved nonattainment NSR program,
the EPA is proposing to approve the
infrastructure SIP submission as
meeting the applicable requirements of
element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Evaluation of Interference With
Measures To Protect Visibility
To determine whether the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement
for visibility protection is satisfied, the
SIP must address the potential for
interference with visibility protection
caused by the pollutant (including
precursors) to which the new or revised
NAAQS applies. An approved regional
haze SIP that fully meets the regional
haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308
satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirement for visibility protection as
it ensures that emissions from the state
will not interfere with measures
required to be included in other state
SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence
of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a
state can still make a demonstration that
4 See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP
Elements.
5 See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section
V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a
final rulemaking dated January 25, 2016 (81 FR
3963).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
satisfies the visibility requirement
section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).6
Colorado submitted a regional haze
SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. The EPA
approved Colorado’s regional haze SIP
on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In
early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and
the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA) filed separate
petitions for reconsideration of certain
aspects of the EPA’s approval of the
Colorado’s regional haze SIP.7 After
these petitions were filed, a settlement
agreement was entered into concerning
the Craig Generating Station by the
petitioners, the EPA, CDPHE, and TriState Generation and Transmission
Association, Inc., and filed with the
court on July 10, 2014.8 In accordance
with the settlement agreement, the EPA
requested and the court granted a
voluntary remand to the EPA of the
portions of the EPA’s December 2012
regional haze SIP approval that related
to Craig Unit 1. Because the additional
controls at the Craig facility will be
implemented through a revision to the
Colorado regional haze SIP that the EPA
has not yet acted on, the EPA cannot
rely on this approval as automatically
satisfying prong 4.
The EPA does, however, consider
other aspects of our approval of
Colorado’s regional haze SIP to be
sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Specifically, the EPA found that
Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)
requirements to include in its regional
haze SIP all measures necessary to (1)
obtain its share of the emission
reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goals for any other
state’s Class I area to which Colorado
causes or contributes to visibility
impairment, and; (2) ensure it has
included all measures needed to achieve
its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through a
regional planning process. Colorado
participated in a regional planning
process with the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP). In the regional
planning process, Colorado analyzed the
WRAP modeling and determined that
emissions from the State do not
significantly impact other states’ Class I
6 See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP
Elements. In addition, EPA approved the visibility
requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action
on the State’s regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April
20, 2011).
7 WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on
February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on
March 1, 2013.
8 This settlement agreement is included in the
docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement
Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
areas.9 Colorado accepted and
incorporated the WRAP-developed
visibility modeling into its regional haze
SIP, and the SIP included the controls
assumed in the modeling. For these
reasons, the EPA determined that
Colorado had satisfied the Regional
Haze Rule requirements for consultation
and included controls in the SIP
sufficient to address the relevant
requirements related to impacts on Class
I areas in other states. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Colorado SIP
as meeting the requirements of prong 4
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
5. Interstate and International
transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include
provisions ensuring compliance with
the applicable requirements of CAA
sections 126 and 115 (relating to
interstate and international pollution
abatement). Specifically, CAA section
126(a) requires new or modified major
sources to notify neighboring states of
potential impacts from the source.
Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to
petitions by affected states to the
Administrator of the U.S. EPA
(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.
As required by 40 CFR
51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program requires notice
to states whose lands may be affected by
the emissions of sources subject to
PSD.10 This suffices to meet the notice
requirement of section 126(a).
Colorado has no pending obligations
under sections 126(c) or 115(b);
therefore, its SIP currently meets the
requirements of those sections. In
summary, the SIP satisfies the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
6. Adequate resources: Section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide
‘‘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).’’ Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state
to ‘‘comply with the requirements
respecting State boards’’ under CAA
section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)
requires states to provide ‘‘necessary
assurances that, where the State has
9 See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado
regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.
10 See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.’’
a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate
personnel, funding, and legal authority
under state law to carry out its SIP, and
related issues.
Colorado law, specifically the
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25–7–
105, 25–7–111, 42–4–301 to 42–4–316,
42–4–414 and Article 7 of Title 25,
provides adequate authority for the
State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to
carry out its SIP obligations with respect
to the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. 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. The
regulations cited by Colorado in its
certifications, which are contained
within this docket, also provide the
necessary assurances that the State has
responsibility for adequate
implementation of SIP provisions by
local governments. Therefore, we
propose to approve Colorado’s SIP as
meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Sub-element (ii): State Boards
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each
state’s SIP to contain provisions that
comply with the requirements of section
128 of the CAA. That provision contains
two explicit requirements: (i) That any
board or body that approves permits or
enforcement orders under the CAA 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 such
permits and enforcement orders; and (ii)
that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the
head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately
disclosed 11.
On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) the
EPA approved the Procedural Rules,
Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC
on January 16, 1998, into the Colorado
SIP as meeting the requirements of
section 128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0
specifies certain requirements regarding
the composition of the AQCC and
disclosure by its members of potential
11 The EPA’s proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040,
Dec. 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative
history of how states could meet the requirements
of CAA section 128.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
conflicts of interest. Details on how this
portion of the Procedural Rules meets
the requirements of section 128 are
provided in our January 4, 2012
proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our
April 10, 2012 action, we
correspondingly approved Colorado’s
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado’s
SIP continues to meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we
propose to approve the infrastructure
SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS for this element.
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) periodic 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.’’
The Colorado AQCC Regulations
listed in the State’s certifications
(Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common
Provisions Regulation) and contained
within this docket provide authority to
establish a program for measurements
and testing of sources, including
requirements for sampling and testing.
Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN)
requirements are defined in Regulation
3 and requires stationary sources to
report their emissions on a regular basis
through APENs. Regulation 3 also
requires that monitoring be performed
in accordance with EPA-accepted
procedures, and record keeping of air
pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3
provides for a permitting program that
establishes emission limitations and
standards. Emissions must be reported
by sources to the State for correlation
with applicable emissions limitations
and standards. Monitoring may be
required for both construction and
operating permits.
Additionally, Colorado is required to
submit emissions data to the EPA for
purposes of the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), which is the EPA’s
central repository for air emissions data.
The EPA published the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5,
2008, modifying the requirements for
collecting and reporting air emissions
data (73 FR 76539). The AERR
shortened the time states had to report
emissions data from 17 to 12 months,
giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26005
submit a comprehensive emissions
inventory every three years and to
report emissions for certain larger
sources annually through the EPA’s
online Emissions Inventory System.
States report emissions data for the six
criteria pollutants and their associated
precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter, and
volatile organic compounds. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions
of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado
made its latest update to the NEI on
January 18, 2016. The EPA compiles the
emissions data, supplementing it where
necessary, and releases it to the public
at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
eiinformation.html.
Based on the analysis above, we
propose to approve the Colorado’s SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 SO2
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
8. Emergency powers: Section
110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires
infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for
authority comparable to that in [CAA
section 303 12] and adequate
contingency plans to implement such
authority.’’
Under CAA section 303, the
Administrator has authority to bring suit
to immediately restrain an air pollution
source that presents an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public
health or welfare, or the environment. If
such action may not practicably ensure
prompt protection, then the
Administrator has the authority to issue
temporary administrative orders to
protect the public health or welfare, or
the environment, and such orders can
be extended if the EPA subsequently
files a civil suit. APPCA Sections 25–7–
112 and 25–7–113 provide APCD with
general emergency authority comparable
to that in section 303 of the Act.13
States must also have adequate
contingency plans adopted into their
SIP to implement the air agency’s
emergency episode authority (as
discussed above). This can be met can
by submitting a plan that meets the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS
12 Discussion of the requirements for meeting
CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of
proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State
Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008
Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040,
Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State
Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’
13 See our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 3098
(June 1, 2015), section VI.8 for a complete
discussion on how APPCA Sections 25–7–112 and
35–7–113 provide authority comparable to that in
CAA section 303.
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
26006
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
if the NAAQS is covered by those
regulations. The Denver Emergency
Episode Plan (applicable to the Denver
metropolitan area) addresses ozone,
particulate matter, and carbon
monoxide, and satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart
H (See 74 FR 47888). Furthermore,
Colorado is classified as Priority III for
SO2 and accordingly is not required to
submit emergency episode contingency
plans for SO2. Therefore, we propose
approval of Colorado’s SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
9. Future SIP revisions: Section
110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide
for revision of such plan: (i) ‘‘[f]rom
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 (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].’’
The Colorado APPCA Sections 25–7–
105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient
authority to meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to
approve Colorado’s SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
10. 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 PSD of air
quality and visibility protection).’’
The State has demonstrated that it has
the authority and rules in place through
its certifications (contained within this
docket) 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, the EPA previously
addressed the requirements of CAA
section 127 for the Colorado SIP and
determined public notification
requirements are appropriate (45 FR
53147, Aug. 11, 1980).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
As discussed above, the State has a
SIP-approved PSD program that
incorporates by reference the federal
program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA has
further evaluated Colorado’s SIP
approved PSD program in this proposed
action under element (C) and
determined the State has satisfied the
requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as
noted above. Therefore, the State has
also satisfied the requirements of
element 110(a)(2)(J).
Finally, with regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection,
the EPA recognizes 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 are no applicable
visibility requirements under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS
becomes effective.
Based on the above analysis, we
propose to approve the Colorado SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
11. Air quality and modeling/data:
Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP to
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.’’
Colorado’s Regulation 3 Part A.VIII
(Technical Modeling and Monitoring
Requirements) requires that estimates of
ambient air concentrations be based on
applicable air quality models approved
by the EPA. Final approval for
Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became
effective February 20, 1997 (62 FR
2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part
D, Section VI.C. requires the Division to
transmit to the Administrator of the EPA
a copy of each permit application
relating to a major stationary source or
major modification subject to this
regulation, and provide notice of every
action related to the consideration of
such permit.
Colorado has broad authority to
develop and implement an air quality
control program that includes
conducting air quality modeling to
predict the effect on ambient air quality
of any emissions of any air pollutant for
which a NAAQS has been promulgated
and provide that modeling data to the
EPA. This broad authority can be found
in 25–7–102, C.R.S., which requires that
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emission control measures be evaluated
against economic, environmental,
energy and other impacts, and indirectly
authorizes modeling activities. Colorado
also has broad authority to conduct
modeling and submit supporting data to
the EPA to satisfy federal nonattainment
area requirements (25–7–105, 25–7–
205.1, and 25–7–301, C.R.S.). The State
also has the authority to submit any
modeling data to the EPA on request
under the Colorado Open Records Act
(24–72–201 to 24–72–309, C.R.S.).
As a result, the SIP provides for the
air quality modeling that the
Administrator has prescribed.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 SO2
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
12. Permitting fees: Section
110(a)(2)(L) requires ‘‘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.’’
The State of Colorado requires the
owner or operator of a major stationary
source to pay the Division any fee
necessary to cover the reasonable costs
of reviewing and acting upon any
permit application. The collection of
fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3,
Part A.
We also note that the State has an
EPA-approved title V permit program
(60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) that provides
for collection of permitting fees. 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, October 14,
1994), the State demonstrated that the
fees collected were sufficient to
administer the program.
Therefore, based on the State’s
experience in relying on the collection
of fees as described in AQCC Regulation
3, and the use of title V fees to
implement and enforce PSD permits
once they are incorporated into title V
permits, we propose to approve the
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
submissions as supplemented by the
State for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
13. 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].’’
The statutory provisions cited in
Colorado’s SIP submittals (contained
within this docket) meet the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve
Colorado’s SIP as meeting these
requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve infrastructure elements for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from
26007
the State’s certifications as shown in
Table 1. Elements we propose no action
on are reflected in Table 2. A
comprehensive summary of
infrastructure elements organized by the
EPA’s proposed rule action are provided
in Table 1 and Table 2.
TABLE 1—LIST OF COLORADO INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE
Proposed for approval
July 10, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
TABLE 2—LIST OF COLORADO INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO TAKE NO
ACTION ON
Proposed for no action
(Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action)
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
July 13, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
VIII. 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, the
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:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
Oct. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
02:12 Jun 06, 2017
Jkt 241001
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, Aug. 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 the 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, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations,
Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 16, 2017.
Suzanne J. Bohan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017–11574 Filed 6–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0709; FRL–9963–27–
Region 8]
Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; South Dakota
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency.
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25999-26007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11574]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557; FRL-9963-29-Region 8]
Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the
State of Colorado submitted to demonstrate that the State meets
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) on June 2, 2010, and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0557 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563,
fulton.abby@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email.
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 the 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 volume,
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 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.
[[Page 26000]]
II. Background
On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary
SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR
35520, June 22, 2010). On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a
revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013).
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs providing for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the NAAQS. The EPA has historically referred to these SIP
submissions made to satisfy sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish
this particular type of SIP submission from those intended to satisfy
other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or
``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; ``regional haze
SIP'' submissions to address the visibility protection requirements of
CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit
program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I,
part D.
Infrastructure SIP submissions must contain any revisions needed
for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or
certifications that the existing SIPs for SO2 and
PM2.5 already satisfy those requirements. EPA guidance on
these provisions and their implementation may be found in the following
documents: ``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'' (October 2, 2007); ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)'' (Sep. 25, 2009); ``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (Oct. 14, 2011); and
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' (Sept. 13, 2013).
III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Colorado that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises
out of CAA section 110(a)(1). This provision directs that, within three
years after the promulgation of a NAAQS, states make SIP submissions
that provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement''
of the NAAQS. The statute imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and does not condition this requirement on the EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
these infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides
more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The
section 110(a)(2) list of required elements contains a variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some to required substantive program provisions, and some to
requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.\1\
The EPA has concluded that although the timing requirement in section
110(a)(1) is clear, some of the section 110(a)(2) language is ambiguous
with respect to what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission. For discussion of some of these ambiguities and the EPA's
interpretation of them, see Promulgation of State Implementation Plan
Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec.
1, 2014), under ``III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and the
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the
EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as
amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007.
IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?
CAA 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. The elements that are the subject of this action
are:
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): Interstate transport
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies
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; 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.
Section VI, below, contains a detailed discussion of each of these
elements.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submission deadline of section 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 at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due
under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section
[[Page 26001]]
110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as
``nonattainment NSR'') required under part D; and (2) section
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of
part D. Therefore, 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). Further, the EPA interprets the CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new
NAAQS, because the visibility requirements in part C, title 1 of the
CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
V. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
submitted certifications concerning Colorado's infrastructure SIP for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on July 10, 2013, and for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 1, 2015. Colorado's infrastructure
certifications demonstrate how the State has plans in place that meet
the applicable requirements of section 110 for the 2010 SO2
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Colorado infrastructure SIPs were
subject to public notice and comment, as indicated in the cover letter
of each certification, and are available within the electronic docket
for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. These plans
reference the current Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) regulations
and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The cited AQCC regulations are
available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs and
https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/. Colorado's SIP, air
pollution control regulations, and statutes that have been previously
approved by the EPA and incorporated into the Colorado SIP can be found
at 40 CFR 52.320.
VI. Analysis of the State Submittals
1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires that SIPs 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.
Colorado's infrastructure SIP submissions identify existing EPA-
approved SIP provisions limiting emissions of relevant pollutants. The
State references a variety of SIP-approved Colorado AQCC regulations
cited under element (C), including: Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes,
Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation 3, Stationary Source
Permitting and Air Pollution Emission Notice Requirements; Regulation
4, Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7, Control of Ozone via Ozone
Precursors and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11, Motor Vehicle
Inspection; Regulation 16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and Common
Provisions Regulation. Subject to the following clarifications, the EPA
proposes to find that SIP-approved AQCC regulations citied in
Colorado's certifications provide enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance,
and other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
First, the 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). Furthermore,
Colorado has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado's
certifications (contained within this docket) generally listed
provisions within its SIP which regulate pollutants through various
programs, such as limits on emissions of particulate matter (PM) in
Regulation 1, woodburning controls in Regulation 4, and the State's
minor NSR and PSD programs in Regulation 3. This suffices, in the case
of Colorado, to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Second, as previously discussed, the 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 that are contrary to the CAA and to 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, the EPA
encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance
provision contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct
the deficiency as soon as possible.
As a final clarification, in this action the EPA is also not
proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provision with
regard to excess emissions during SSM operations at a facility. A
number of states have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and
existing EPA guidance,\2\ and the agency is addressing such state
regulations separately (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air Division Directors,
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (Sep. 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to the above clarifications, the EPA is proposing to
approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or techniques to meet the applicable
requirements of this element.
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.''
The provisions for episode monitoring, data compilation and
reporting, public availability of information, and annual network
reviews are found in the statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, Sept.
23, 1993). As part of the monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an Annual
Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) each year for EPA approval. The EPA
approved 2015 and 2016 network changes through an AMNP response letter
(contained within the docket) mailed to CDPHE on December 22, 2016. The
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) also periodically
submits a Quality Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan
to the EPA. These plans cover procedures to monitor and analyze data.
In our August 19, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 50205), we conditionally
approved element (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS based on
Colorado's commitment to install and operate a second near-road
NO2 monitoring site no later than December 31, 2015. In a
letter dated February 17, 2016 (contained within this docket), the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division notified the EPA that the
second near-road site in Denver became operational on October 1, 2015,
thus satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv).
We find Colorado's SIP adequate for the ambient air quality
monitoring and data system requirements for the 2010
[[Page 26002]]
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and therefore propose
to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.
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
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C
and D.''
To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the
State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and
minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere
in this action, the EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related
provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of
the Act. The 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).
Enforcement of Control Measures Requirement
The State's submissions for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 infrastructure requirement cite a variety of SIP-
approved Colorado AQCC regulations that provide for enforcement of
emission limits and control measures. These include Regulation 1,
Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation
3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollution Emission Notice
Requirements; Regulation 4, Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7, Control
of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11, Motor
Vehicle Inspection; Regulation 16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and
Common Provisions Regulation.
PSD Requirements
With respect to elements (C) and (J), the EPA interprets the CAA to
require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new
or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete
PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all
regulated NSR pollutants; this demonstration will also satisfy the
requirements of element (D)(i)(II). To meet this requirement, Colorado
cited SIP approved AQCC Regulation 3 Concerning Major Stationary Source
New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The EPA
is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD program in
the SIP that covers all regulated pollutants including greenhouse gases
(GHGs).
In addition to these requirements, there are four other revisions
to the Colorado SIP that are necessary to meet the requirements of
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These four revisions are related
to (1) the Ozone Implementation NSR Update (November 29, 2005, 70 FR
71612); (2) the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514); (3) the
NSR PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321); and (4) the
final rulemaking entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864, Oct. 20,
2010).
On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), we approved revisions to
Colorado's PSD program that addressed the PSD requirements of the Phase
2 Ozone Implementation Rule promulgated on November 29, 2005 (70 FR
71612). As a result, the approved Colorado PSD program meets the
current requirements for ozone.
With respect to GHGs, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme
Court addressed the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court held that the EPA may
not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether
a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court
also held that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
(anyway sources) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the
application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 F.
App'x. 6, at *7-8 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015), issued an amended
judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's
PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations
that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers
sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of
pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only
GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD
permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional
rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG
emissions from Step 1 or ``anyway'' sources.\3\ With respect to Step 2
sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at
issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the
extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if
greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds,
or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a
modification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) (rulemaking for definition
of ``anyway'' sources).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise the federal
PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court and subsequent D.C. Circuit
opinion. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved
PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may
prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information
about the planned revisions to the EPA's PSD regulations. The EPA is
not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation
of the EPA's planned actions to revise its PSD program rules in
response to the court decisions.
The EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP is sufficient to satisfy
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs, because the PSD
permitting program previously approved by the EPA into the SIP
continues to require that PSD permits issued to ``anyway sources''
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT.
The EPA most recently approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program on
January 25, 2016 (81 FR 3963). The approved Colorado PSD permitting
program still contains some provisions regarding Step 2 sources that
are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision and D.C.
Circuit's amended judgment. But the presence of these provisions in the
previously-approved plan does not render the infrastructure SIP
submission inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). The
SIP contains the currently necessary PSD requirements for applying the
BACT requirement to greenhouse gas emissions from ``anyway sources.''
And the application of those requirements is not impeded by the
[[Page 26003]]
presence of other previously approved provisions regarding the
permitting of Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision
and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval
of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements
(C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J).
Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current
requirements for PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, the
EPA promulgated the rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review
Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010, the EPA
promulgated the rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of these
PM2.5 rules as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD
program for the purposes of element (C).
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), remanded the EPA's
2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart
4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D,
Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for PM
nonattainment areas.
The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4
only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the
portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for
PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by
the decision. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise
any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule in
order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, the EPA's
proposed approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or
J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not
affect the EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. The EPA
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to
as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part
D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.
The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in the
EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). The EPA
regards adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary
requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element
(C).
On May 11, 2012, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 that
adopted all elements of the 2008 Implementation Rule and the 2010
PM2.5 Increment Rule. However, the submittal contained a
definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was inconsistent with 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, the State submitted revisions to
Regulation 3 which incorporate the definition of Major Source Baseline
Date which was consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted
revisions make Colorado's PSD program up to date with respect to
current requirements for PM2.5. The EPA approved the
necessary portions of Colorado's May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013
submissions which incorporate the requirements of the 2008
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5
Increment Rule on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado's SIP-
approved PSD program meets current requirements for PM2.5.
The EPA therefore is proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2010
SO2 and PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the
SIP as required by part C of the Act.
Minor NSR
The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in
Regulation 3 of the Colorado SIP, and was originally approved by the
EPA as Regulation 3 of the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since
approval of the minor NSR program, the State and the EPA have relied on
the program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the
major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 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.
4. Interstate transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions)
require each state to submit a SIP prohibiting emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements (or prongs) related
to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The
two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (prong
1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with
respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS or (prong 2)
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same
NAAQS. The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to
contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other state under part C (prong 3) to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility.
In this action, the EPA is addressing the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5NAAQS with regard to prongs 3 (interference with
PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility protection) of
110(a)(2)(D)(i). We are not addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in this action. These
prongs will be addressed in a later rulemaking.
A. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
The PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may be met by a
state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major
sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a
comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that
applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the
[[Page 26004]]
requirements of the EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).\4\ As noted in
Section VI.3 of this proposed action, Colorado has such a program, and
the EPA is therefore proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the
SIP as required by part C of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements, in-
state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants
subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment
area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants may also have
the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable
area of another state. One way a state may satisfy prong 3 with respect
to these sources is by citing EPA-approved nonattainment NSR provisions
addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated
nonattainment areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
program that ensures regulation of major sources and major
modifications in nonattainment areas.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was
most recently approved by EPA in a final rulemaking dated January
25, 2016 (81 FR 3963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Colorado's SIP meets PSD requirements for all regulated NSR
pollutants, and contains a fully approved nonattainment NSR program,
the EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as
meeting the applicable requirements of element 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility
To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must
address the potential for interference with visibility protection
caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or
revised NAAQS applies. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets
the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures
that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required
to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the
absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a
demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements. In
addition, EPA approved the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before
taking action on the State's regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April
20, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. The
EPA approved Colorado's regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012 (77 FR
76871). In early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA) filed separate petitions for
reconsideration of certain aspects of the EPA's approval of the
Colorado's regional haze SIP.\7\ After these petitions were filed, a
settlement agreement was entered into concerning the Craig Generating
Station by the petitioners, the EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State Generation
and Transmission Association, Inc., and filed with the court on July
10, 2014.\8\ In accordance with the settlement agreement, the EPA
requested and the court granted a voluntary remand to the EPA of the
portions of the EPA's December 2012 regional haze SIP approval that
related to Craig Unit 1. Because the additional controls at the Craig
facility will be implemented through a revision to the Colorado
regional haze SIP that the EPA has not yet acted on, the EPA cannot
rely on this approval as automatically satisfying prong 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25, 2013,
and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013.
\8\ This settlement agreement is included in the docket for this
action; see also Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug.
14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA does, however, consider other aspects of our approval of
Colorado's regional haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this
requirement. Specifically, the EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include in its regional haze SIP all
measures necessary to (1) obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for any other state's
Class I area to which Colorado causes or contributes to visibility
impairment, and; (2) ensure it has included all measures needed to
achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon
through a regional planning process. Colorado participated in a
regional planning process with the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP). In the regional planning process, Colorado analyzed the WRAP
modeling and determined that emissions from the State do not
significantly impact other states' Class I areas.\9\ Colorado accepted
and incorporated the WRAP-developed visibility modeling into its
regional haze SIP, and the SIP included the controls assumed in the
modeling. For these reasons, the EPA determined that Colorado had
satisfied the Regional Haze Rule requirements for consultation and
included controls in the SIP sufficient to address the relevant
requirements related to impacts on Class I areas in other states.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the
requirements of prong 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional Haze
SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources
to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the
Administrator of the U.S. EPA (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.
As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD
program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the
emissions of sources subject to PSD.\10\ This suffices to meet the
notice requirement of section 126(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or
115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those
sections. In summary, the SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to
provide ``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).'' Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to ``comply with the
requirements respecting State boards'' under CAA section 128. Section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide ``necessary assurances
that, where the State has
[[Page 26005]]
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.''
a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate personnel, funding, and
legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related
issues.
Colorado law, specifically the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25-7-105, 25-7-111, 42-4-301 to 42-4-
316, 42-4-414 and Article 7 of Title 25, provides adequate authority
for the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to carry out its SIP
obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. 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. The regulations cited by Colorado in its
certifications, which are contained within this docket, also provide
the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate
implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we
propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2010 SO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
b. Sub-element (ii): State Boards
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain
provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA.
That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board
or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA 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 such permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that any
potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the
head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed
\11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The EPA's proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014)
includes a discussion of the legislative history of how states could
meet the requirements of CAA section 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) the EPA approved the Procedural
Rules, Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on January 16, 1998, into
the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of section 128 of the Act.
Section 1.11.0 specifies certain requirements regarding the composition
of the AQCC and disclosure by its members of potential conflicts of
interest. Details on how this portion of the Procedural Rules meets the
requirements of section 128 are provided in our January 4, 2012
proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our April 10, 2012 action, we
correspondingly approved Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 1997
ozone NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado's SIP continues to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS for this element.
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) periodic 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.''
The Colorado AQCC Regulations listed in the State's certifications
(Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Provisions Regulation) and contained
within this docket provide authority to establish a program for
measurements and testing of sources, including requirements for
sampling and testing. Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) requirements
are defined in Regulation 3 and requires stationary sources to report
their emissions on a regular basis through APENs. Regulation 3 also
requires that monitoring be performed in accordance with EPA-accepted
procedures, and record keeping of air pollutants. Additionally,
Regulation 3 provides for a permitting program that establishes
emission limitations and standards. Emissions must be reported by
sources to the State for correlation with applicable emissions
limitations and standards. Monitoring may be required for both
construction and operating permits.
Additionally, Colorado is required to submit emissions data to the
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which is
the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published
the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, modifying
the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and to report emissions for
certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions
Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria
pollutants and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and
volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report
emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado made its latest update
to the NEI on January 18, 2016. The EPA compiles the emissions data,
supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the public at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the Colorado's
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires
infrastructure SIPs to ``provide for authority comparable to that in
[CAA section 303 \12\] and adequate contingency plans to implement such
authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303
is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of
State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010
NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota
(79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under ``VI. Analysis of State
Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 303, the Administrator has authority to bring
suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or
the environment. If such action may not practicably ensure prompt
protection, then the Administrator has the authority to issue temporary
administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the
environment, and such orders can be extended if the EPA subsequently
files a civil suit. APPCA Sections 25-7-112 and 25-7-113 provide APCD
with general emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of
the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 3098 (June 1, 2015),
section VI.8 for a complete discussion on how APPCA Sections 25-7-
112 and 35-7-113 provide authority comparable to that in CAA section
303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their
SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as
discussed above). This can be met can by submitting a plan that meets
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the
relevant NAAQS
[[Page 26006]]
if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. The Denver Emergency
Episode Plan (applicable to the Denver metropolitan area) addresses
ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, and satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (See 74 FR 47888).
Furthermore, Colorado is classified as Priority III for SO2
and accordingly is not required to submit emergency episode contingency
plans for SO2. Therefore, we propose approval of Colorado's
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the
2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs
provide for revision of such plan: (i) ``[f]rom 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 (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].''
The Colorado APPCA Sections 25-7-105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC
sufficient authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H).
Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
10. 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 PSD of
air quality and visibility protection).''
The State has demonstrated that it has the authority and rules in
place through its certifications (contained within this docket) 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, the EPA previously addressed the requirements
of CAA section 127 for the Colorado SIP and determined public
notification requirements are appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 1980).
As discussed above, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that
incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA
has further evaluated Colorado's SIP approved PSD program in this
proposed action under element (C) and determined the State has
satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as noted above.
Therefore, the State has also satisfied the requirements of element
110(a)(2)(J).
Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes 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 are no applicable visibility requirements under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
each SIP to 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.''
Colorado's Regulation 3 Part A.VIII (Technical Modeling and
Monitoring Requirements) requires that estimates of ambient air
concentrations be based on applicable air quality models approved by
the EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became effective
February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part D,
Section VI.C. requires the Division to transmit to the Administrator of
the EPA a copy of each permit application relating to a major
stationary source or major modification subject to this regulation, and
provide notice of every action related to the consideration of such
permit.
Colorado has broad authority to develop and implement an air
quality control program that includes conducting air quality modeling
to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any
air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and provide that
modeling data to the EPA. This broad authority can be found in 25-7-
102, C.R.S., which requires that emission control measures be evaluated
against economic, environmental, energy and other impacts, and
indirectly authorizes modeling activities. Colorado also has broad
authority to conduct modeling and submit supporting data to the EPA to
satisfy federal nonattainment area requirements (25-7-105, 25-7-205.1,
and 25-7-301, C.R.S.). The State also has the authority to submit any
modeling data to the EPA on request under the Colorado Open Records Act
(24-72-201 to 24-72-309, C.R.S.).
As a result, the SIP provides for the air quality modeling that the
Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the
Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires ``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.''
The State of Colorado requires the owner or operator of a major
stationary source to pay the Division any fee necessary to cover the
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any permit application.
The collection of fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, Part A.
We also note that the State has an EPA-approved title V permit
program (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) that provides for collection of
permitting fees. 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, October 14, 1994), the State
demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the
program.
Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the
collection of fees as described in AQCC Regulation 3, and the use of
title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they are
incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the
[[Page 26007]]
submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2010 SO2
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
13. 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].''
The statutory provisions cited in Colorado's SIP submittals
(contained within this docket) meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting these
requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure
elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we
propose no action on are reflected in Table 2. A comprehensive summary
of infrastructure elements organized by the EPA's proposed rule action
are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1--List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the
EPA Is Proposing To Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed for approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 10, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L)
and (M).
December 1, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L)
and (M).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the
EPA Is Proposing To Take No Action On
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed for no action (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking
action)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 13, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
December 1, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. 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, the 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:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 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, Aug. 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 the 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, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 16, 2017.
Suzanne J. Bohan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-11574 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P