Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Colorado; Attainment Demonstration for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area, and Approval of Related Revisions, 14807-14826 [2018-06847]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in
specific sections.
Section 17.38 also issued under 38 U.S.C.
101, 501, 1701, 1705, 1710, 1710A, 1721,
1722, 1782, and 1786.
Section 17.63 also issued under 38 U.S.C.
1730.
Section 17.169 also issued under 38 U.S.C.
1712C.
Sections 17.380 and 17.412 are also issued
under sec. 260, Public Law 114–223, 130
Stat. 857.
Section 17.410 is also issued under 38
U.S.C. 1787.
Section 17.415 is also issued under 38
U.S.C. 7301, 7304, 7402, and 7403.
Sections 17.640 and 17.647 are also issued
under sec. 4, Public Law 114–2, 129 Stat. 30.
Sections 17.641 through 17.646 are also
issued under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and sec. 4,
Public Law 114–2, 129 Stat. 30.
2. Amend § 17.30 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 17.30
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Domiciliary care. The term
domiciliary care—
(1) Means the furnishing of:
(i) A temporary home to a veteran,
embracing the furnishing of shelter,
food, clothing and other comforts of
home, including necessary medical
services; or
(ii) A day hospital program consisting
of intensive supervised rehabilitation
and treatment provided in a therapeutic
residential setting for residents with
mental health or substance use
disorders, and co-occurring medical or
psychosocial needs such as
homelessness and unemployment.
(2) Includes travel and incidental
expenses pursuant to § 70.10 of this
chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 17.47 by removing the
word ‘‘home’’ in the second sentence of
paragraph (c) and adding, in its place,
‘‘temporary home’’.
[FR Doc. 2018–07082 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0567, FRL–9975–
09—Region 8]
Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Colorado; Attainment
Demonstration for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/
North Front Range Nonattainment
Area, and Approval of Related
Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
On May 31, 2017, the State of
Colorado submitted State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
related to attainment of the 2008 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for the Denver
Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR)
Moderate nonattainment area by the
applicable attainment date of July 20,
2018. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the
majority of the submittal, which
includes an attainment demonstration,
base and future year emission
inventories, a reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstration, a
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) analysis, a motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program in Colorado Regulation
Number 11 (Reg. No. 11), a
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program, a contingency
measures plan, 2017 motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
transportation conformity, and revisions
to Colorado Regulation Number 7 (Reg.
No. 7). The EPA is also proposing to
approve portions of the reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
analysis. Finally, the EPA proposes to
approve revisions made to Colorado’s
Reg. No. 7 in a May 5, 2013 SIP
submission. This action is being taken
in accordance with the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before May 7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2017–0567, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from 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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14807
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. What action is the Agency taking?
As explained below, the EPA is
proposing various actions on Colorado’s
proposed revisions to its SIP that it
submitted to the EPA on May 5, 2013,
and May 31, 2017. Specifically, we are
proposing to approve Colorado’s 2017
attainment demonstration for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, we
propose to approve the MVEBs
contained in the State’s submittal. We
also propose to approve all other aspects
of the submittal, except for certain area
source categories and major source
RACT, which we will be acting on at a
later date. We propose to approve the
revisions to Colorado’s Reg. 11 and 7,
except for Section X.E of Reg. 7, which
we will be acting on at a later date. We
propose to approve the revisions to
Colorado Reg. 7 Sections I, II, VI, VII,
VIII, and IX from the State’s May 5, 2013
submittal.
The specific bases for our proposed
actions and our analyses and findings
are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking. Technical information that
we rely upon in this proposal is
contained in the docket, available at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0567.
II. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised
both the primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per
million (ppm) (based on the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average concentration, averaged over 3
years) to provide increased protection of
public health and the environment (73
FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008
ozone NAAQS retains the same general
form and averaging time as the 0.08
ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at
a more protective level. Specifically, the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained
when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to
0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15.
Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA
designated as nonattainment any area
that was violating the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on the three most
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14808
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
recent years (2008–2010) of air
monitoring data (77 FR 30088, May 21,
2012). With that rulemaking, the
DMNFR area was designated
nonattainment and classified as
Marginal. Ozone nonattainment areas
are classified based on the severity of
their ozone levels. This is determined
using the area’s design value. The
design value is the 3-year average of the
annual fourth highest daily maximum 8hour average ozone concentration at a
monitoring site. See 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I. The DMNFR nonattainment
area includes Adams, Arapahoe,
Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas
and Jefferson Counties, and portions of
Larimer and Weld Counties. See 40 CFR
81.306. Areas that were designated as
Marginal nonattainment were required
to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
no later than July 20, 2015, based on
2012–2014 monitoring data.
On May 4, 2016, the EPA published
its determination that the DMNFR,
among other areas, had failed to attain
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
attainment deadline, and that the
DMNFR was accordingly reclassified to
a Moderate ozone nonattainment area
(81 FR 26697; see 40 CFR 81.306).
Moderate areas are required to attain the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later
than 6 years after the effective date of
designation, which for the DMNFR
nonattainment area is July 20, 2018. See
40 CFR 51.903.
III. Analysis of the State’s Submission
CAA Section 182, 42 U.S.C. 7511a,
outlines SIP requirements applicable to
ozone nonattainment areas in each
classification category. Moderate area
classification triggers additional state
requirements established under the
provisions of the EPA’s ozone
implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR part 51,
subpart AA. Examples of these
requirements include submission of a
modeling and attainment
demonstration, RFP, RACT, and RACM.
Moderate nonattainment areas had a
submission deadline of January 1, 2017
for these SIP revisions (81 FR 26697,
26699, May 4, 2016).
Colorado submitted revisions to its
SIP to the EPA on May 31, 2017, to meet
the requirements of a Moderate area
classification for the DMNFR
nonattainment area and attain the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Colorado’s
proposed SIP revisions consist of the
parts listed below.
• 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
(OAP), which includes monitoring
information, emission inventories, an
RFP demonstration, an attainment
demonstration using photochemical grid
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
modeling, a weight of evidence analysis,
a RACT analysis, a RACM analysis, a
motor vehicle emissions I/M program,
NNSR program certification,
contingency measures, and 2017 MVEBs
for transportation conformity.
• Revisions to Reg. No. 7.
• Revisions to Reg. No. 11.
The Reg. No. 7 revisions in the 2017
submission include rule revisions
related to the Moderate ozone
nonattainment classification and
revisions that address the EPA’s
concerns with previous SIP submittals.
In this action, we are also acting on Reg.
No. 7 revisions from a May 5, 2013 SIP
submission. Reg. No. 11 revisions
remove ‘‘state-only’’ references in Part
A, regarding Larimer and Weld
counties, thereby making the entire
motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program federally
enforceable.
The provisions we propose to approve
meet the requirements of the CAA and
our regulations. The specific bases for
our proposed actions and our analyses
and findings are discussed in this
proposed rulemaking. Technical
information that we rely on in this
proposal is contained in the docket,
available at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0567.
The CAA requires that states meet
certain procedural requirements before
submitting SIP revisions to the EPA.
Specifically, section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2), requires that
states adopt SIP revisions after
reasonable notice and public hearing.
For the May 5, 2013 submittal, the
Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC) provided notice in
the Colorado Register on September 21,
2012, and held a public hearing on
December 20, 2012. The Colorado AQCC
adopted the SIP revisions on December
20, 2012. The SIP revisions became
state-effective on February 15, 2013. For
the May 31, 2017 submission, the
Colorado AQCC provided notice in the
Colorado Register on July 29 and August
29, 2016 and held a public hearing on
the SIP revisions on November 17, 2016.
The Colorado AQCC adopted the SIP
revisions on November 17, 2016. The
SIP revisions became state-effective on
January 14, 2017. Colorado met the
CAA’s procedural requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing.
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of Colorado’s
Submission
A. Monitoring
Ozone monitoring data are used as a
basis for photochemical grid modeling
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Emissions Inventories
1. Background
A. Procedural Requirements
PO 00000
in the attainment demonstration. The
EPA requirements for ambient
monitoring are in 40 CFR part 58.
Colorado collected ozone monitoring
data in accordance with these
requirements and with the EPA’s
‘‘Quality Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Systems, Vol.
II—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program’’; 1 the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division’s (APCD) Quality
Management Plan 2 and Quality
Assurance Project Plan; 3 and Colorado’s
monitoring network plan.4
The monitoring section of Colorado’s
OAP includes:
• Information on the location of
ozone monitors in Colorado, from
southern Metropolitan Denver to
northern Fort Collins (including Rocky
Mountain National Park);
• 4th-maximum monitored 8-hour
ozone values from 2006 through 2015,
including levels recorded above the 75
parts per billion (ppb) 2008 ozone
NAAQS; 5
• A description of the State’s ambient
air quality data assurance program; and
• Relevant 8-hour-average ozone
monitoring data and recovery rates from
2006 through September 2015.
CAA section 172(c)(3), 42 U.S.C.
7502(c)(3), requires that each SIP
include a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of the relevant
pollutant or pollutants in [the] area.’’
The accounting required by this section
provides a ‘‘base year’’ inventory that
serves as the starting point for
attainment demonstration air quality
modeling, for assessing RFP, and for
determining the need for additional SIP
control measures. An attainment year
inventory is a projection of future
emissions and is necessary to show the
effectiveness of SIP control measures.
Both the base year and attainment year
inventories are necessary for
1 QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems: ‘‘Volume II: Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Program’’ (EPA–454/B–13–003, May
2013) (available in the docket). The current version
of the Handbook is available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/
FinalHandbookDocument1_17.pdf (EPA–454/B–
17–001, Jan. 2017).
2 Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, Quality Management Plan (March
2016), available in the docket.
3 Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, Quality Assurance Project Plan (July
2015), available in the docket.
4 Annual Network Plans available at https://
www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_
repository.aspx.
5 OAP Table 3.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14809
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
photochemical modeling to demonstrate
attainment. Section D includes
additional discussion on how these
inventories are used in the attainment
modeling.
Colorado’s DMNFR area attainment
plan includes a 2011 base year
inventory and a 2017 attainment year
inventory. The inventories catalog NOX
and VOC emissions, because these
pollutants are precursors to ozone
formation, across all source categories
during a typical summer day, when
ozone formation is pronounced. Carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions are reported
as well, because they also impact ozone
chemistry.
In our 2008 ozone NAAQS
implementation rule, the EPA
recommends using 2011 as the baseline
year (80 FR 12264, 12272). In addition,
analysis of meteorological conditions in
the DMNFR area leads to the conclusion
that the summer of 2011 was a ‘‘typical’’
ozone season from a meteorological
standpoint. The modeling analysis uses
a base year of 2011 to develop the
modeling inputs for the base year
modeling analysis and model
performance evaluation.
2. Evaluation
The 2011 base year emissions
inventory and the 2017 attainment year
emissions inventory were developed
using EPA-approved guidelines for
stationary, mobile, and area emission
sources. Stationary source emissions
data for 2011 were self-reported to the
State by individual sources; the State
then used the submitted 2011
information to project stationary source
emissions for 2017. On-road and nonroad mobile source emissions were
calculated using the EPA’s MOVES2014
model combined with local activity
inputs including vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and average speed data, as well
as local fleet, age distribution,
meteorology, and fuels information.
Area sources include many categories of
emissions. The EPA finds that these
sources (including those in the oil and
gas sector) were adequately accounted
for in the emissions inventory. The
methodology used to calculate
emissions for each respective category
followed relevant EPA guidance; 6 7 as
applicable, employed approved
emission factors and National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) data; and was
sufficiently documented in the SIP and
in the State’s technical support
documents (TSD).8
Projected future emissions in 2017
were based on anticipated growth,
technological advancements, and
expected emissions controls that were to
be implemented by the 2017 ozone
season. Table 1 shows the emissions by
source category from the 2011 base year
and 2017 attainment year emission
inventories.
TABLE 1—EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FOR SPECIFIC SOURCE
[Tons/avg. episode day] 9
2011
2017
Description
VOC
NOX
CO
VOC
NOX
CO
Oil and Gas Sources:
Point Sources Subtotal .....................................................................
Condensate Tanks Subtotal .............................................................
Area Sources Subtotal ......................................................................
14.8
216
48.9
18.1
1.1
22.2
17.0
2.3
12.9
16.3
78.7
59.0
20.6
0.6
44.6
19.7
2.3
31.4
Total ...........................................................................................
279.7
41.4
32.2
154
65.8
53.4
Point Sources (EGU and Non-Oil and Gas):
Electric Generating Units (EGUs) .....................................................
Point (Non-Oil and Gas) ...................................................................
0.7
25.9
39.7
21.0
3.6
14.1
0.4
28.0
19.2
20.9
2.9
14.4
Total ...........................................................................................
26.6
60.7
17.7
28.4
40.1
17.3
60.6
0.0
1.4
67.5
................
1.6
Total ...........................................................................................
58.2
75.9
800.2
44.3
54.9
759.7
On-Road Mobile Sources:
Light-Duty Vehicles ...........................................................................
90.0
102.5
812.2
52.4
50.3
538.6
Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles ...........................................................
3.7
39.6
20.6
2.6
23.0
16.2
Total ...........................................................................................
93.7
142.1
832.8
55.0
73.3
554.8
Total Anthropogenic Emissions ..........................................
518.8
320.1
1,684.3
349.2
234.1
1,386.8
Total Biogenic Sources ......................................................
170.5
6.1
21.6
170.5
6.1
21.6
Area Sources (Non-Oil and Gas):
Total ...........................................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Non-Road Mobile Sources:
6 Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA–454/B–17–
003, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_
may_2017_final_rev.pdf (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance’’) (July 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
7 MOVES2014 and MOVES2014a Technical
Guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission
Inventories for State Implementation Plans and
Transportation Conformity, EPA–420–B–15–093,
available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/
P100NN9L.PDF?Dockey=P100NN9L.PDF
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘MOVES Guidance’’)
(Nov. 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011–2017
Mobile and Area Sources Emissions Inventory
Development, p. 1202.
9 Emissions in Table 1 are reflective of an average
summer day.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14810
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—EMISSIONS INVENTORY DATA FOR SPECIFIC SOURCE—Continued
[Tons/avg. episode day] 9
2011
2017
Description
VOC
Total Nonattainment Area Emissions .................................
Details of Colorado’s emissions
inventory development are in
Colorado’s supporting TSD.10 The
inventories in the SIP are based on the
most current and accurate information
available to the State and the Regional
Air Quality Council (RAQC) at the time
the SIP was being developed.
Additionally, the inventories
comprehensively address all source
categories in the DMNFR nonattainment
area, and were developed consistent
with the relevant EPA inventory
guidance. For these reasons, we propose
to approve the 2011 baseline emissions
inventory as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3), 42 U.S.C.
7502(c)(3). The EPA also finds that the
2017 inventory, which will be used to
meet RFP and attainment demonstration
requirements, was developed consistent
with relevant EPA Emissions Inventory
Guidance and MOVES Guidance.
Further discussion on RFP and
attainment demonstration is provided in
their respective sections.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration
1. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1), and the EPA’s 2008
Ozone Implementation Rule require
each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
designated Moderate and above to
submit an RFP demonstration for review
and approval into its SIP that describes
how the area will achieve actual VOC
and NOX emissions reductions from a
baseline emissions inventory. Section
182(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1), which
is part of the ozone-specific
requirements of Subpart 2 of the CAA’s
nonattainment plan requirements,
requires RFP to demonstrate a 15%
reduction in VOC emissions. This
requirement applies before the more
general Subpart 1 RFP requirements of
CAA Section 172(c)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7502(c)(2), which permits a combination
of VOC and NOX emission reductions to
show RFP. Colorado has not previously
submitted a 15% RFP SIP under Section
10 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011–2017
Mobile and Area Sources Emissions Inventory
Development, p. 1202.
10 Emissions in Table 1 are reflective of an
average summer day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
NOX
689.3
326.2
182(b)(1). Therefore, on May 31, 2017,
the State submitted an RFP
demonstration showing VOC emission
reductions greater than 15% within six
years after the 2011 base year inventory
(between 2012–2017).
RFP plans must also include an
MVEB, which provides the allowable
on-road mobile emissions an area can
produce while still demonstrating RFP.
The State’s RFP submittal included
MVEBs for the DMNFR area for the year
2017 (see Chapter 11 of the State’s
OAP). The MVEBs are discussed in
detail in Section M of this notice.
2. Evaluation
To demonstrate compliance with RFP
requirements, the State compared its
2011 base year VOC emissions
inventory against its projected 2017
VOC emissions inventory and
demonstrated that the projected
milestone year inventory (2017)
emissions of VOC will be at least 15%
below the 2011 base year inventory.
Colorado projects a 32.7% reduction in
VOC emissions from 2011–2017 (see
OAP, Table 25 on page 4–21). As
discussed above in section IV.B., the
EPA reviewed the procedures Colorado
used to develop its projected inventories
and found them to be reasonable.
D. Photochemical Grid Modeling
1. Background
Under the 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule, Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas are required to
demonstrate attainment using
‘‘photochemical modeling or another
equivalent analytical method that is
determined to be at least as
effective. . . .’’ 80 FR at 12268. The
EPA explained that ‘‘photochemical
modeling is the most scientifically
rigorous technique to determine NOX
and/or VOC emissions reductions
needed to show attainment of the
NAAQS.’’ Id. at 12269. Consistent with
the 2015 Ozone Implementation Rule,
the SIP includes photochemical grid
modeling with supplemental analyses to
demonstrate that the emissions control
strategy leads to attainment of the
NAAQS by 2017. The modeling effort
was led by the RAQC in coordination
with the Colorado Department of Public
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CO
VOC
1,705.9
519.7
NOX
240.2
CO
1,408.4
Health and Environment (CDPHE). The
RAQC first developed a modeling
protocol 11 that describes the model
configuration, domain, input data, and
analyses to be performed for the SIP. As
described in the protocol, the RAQC
selected summer 2011 for the
attainment demonstration base case
model simulation using the 2011 base
year emissions inventory. The modeling
platform used the Weather Research and
Forecasting Model (WRF) 12 to simulate
meteorological data fields, and the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) as the
photochemical air quality model. The
modeling platform used a high
resolution 4-km grid for the State of
Colorado, nested within a western U.S.
12-km grid and a 36-km North America
CAMx simulation developed by the
Western Air Quality Study.13 Dayspecific boundary conditions for the 36km CAMx simulation were derived from
a 2011 simulation of the MOZART
model.14 The Sparse Matrix Operating
Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) model 15
was used to process emissions data, and
the Model of Emissions of Gases and
Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) 16 was
11 ENVIRON International Corporation, User’s
Guide Comprehensive Air-quality Model with
Extensions Version 6.2, available at https://
www.camx.com/files/camxusersguide_v6-20.pdf
(March 2015).
12 Weather Research and Forecasting model web
page available at https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/
weather-research-and-forecasting-model.
13 Adelman, Z., Shanker, U., Yang, and Morris, R.,
CAMx Photochemical Grid Model Draft Model
Performance Evaluation Simulation Year 2011,
available at https://vibe.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/
Attachments/Modeling/3SAQS_Base11a_MPE_
Final_18Jun2015.pdf (June 2015); Ramboll Environ,
Attainment Demonstration Modeling for the Denver
Metro/North Front Range 2017 8-Hour Ozone State
Implementation Plan, Draft Modeling Protocol,
Prepared for Regional Air Quality Council, available
at https://raqc.egnyte.com/dl/gFls58KHSM/Model_
Protocol_Denver_RAQC_2017SIPv4.pdf (Aug.
2015).
14 Emmons, L. K., et al., Description and
Evaluation of the Model for Ozone and Related
Chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART–4), Geosci.
Model Dev., 3, 4367, 2010, 3, pp. 43–67 (Jan. 2010).
15 UNC, SMOKE v3.6.5 User’s Manual, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute for the
Environment, available at https://
www.cmascenter.org/smoke/documentation/3.6.5/
html/ (2015).
16 Sakulyanontvittaya, T., G. Yarwood and A.
Guenther. 2012. Improved Biogenic Emission
Inventories across the West, ENVIRON International
Corporation, available at https://www.wrapair2.org/
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
used to estimate biogenic emissions of
VOC and NOX. The anthropogenic
precursor emissions data were based on
the 2011 NEI 17 with updates in key
source categories, including oil and gas
emissions,18 mobile and area source
emissions,19 and point source
emissions.20 The EPA reviewed each of
the modeling documents listed above
and determined that the modeling is
consistent with the recommendations in
the relevant EPA guidance.21
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Evaluation
EPA guidance recommends that
model performance be evaluated by
comparing model-simulated
concentrations to observed
concentrations. Model performance
evaluation is used to evaluate the model
for historical ozone episodes in the base
year and to assess the model’s reliability
in projecting future year ozone
concentrations. Using meteorological
and emissions data from a historical
base period, ozone and other species
concentrations predicted by the model
are compared to monitored
concentrations to evaluate model
performance. EPA modeling guidance
emphasizes the use of graphical and
diagnostic evaluation techniques to
ensure that the modeling captures the
correct chemical regimes and emission
sources causing high ozone. Consistent
with the guidance, Colorado’s model
performance evaluation included a
comprehensive suite of graphical and
diagnostic evaluation techniques, such
as time-series plots of modeled and
observed ozone at key monitoring sites,
spatial plots of ozone, tabulations of
model bias and error metrics, and
diagnostic model simulations using
sensitivity and source apportionment
techniques. The WRF and CAMx
configuration and MPE are described in
Ramboll Environ’s 2011 base case
modeling and model performance
evaluation report,22 which used both
pdf/WGA_BiogEmisInv_FinalReport_March20_
2012.pdf (March 2012).
17 2011 NEI web page available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
18 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011 and 2017
Oil and Gas Emissions Inventory Development, p.
1429.
19 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011 and 2017
Mobile and Area Sources Emissions Inventory
Development, p. 1202.
20 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011 and 2017
Point Source Emissions Inventory Development, p.
1443.
21 Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5
and Regional Haze, EPA, available at https://
www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/Draft_O3PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf (Dec. 2014).
22 Ramboll Environ, Denver Metro/North Front
Range 2017 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
quantitative (model performance
statistics) and qualitative (graphical
displays) MPE approaches. At the four
key monitoring sites in the Denver
nonattainment area, the model achieved
typical performance goals for model bias
and error. However, as to the Chatfield
monitor, which had the highest ozone
design value, the model was biased low
for some days in May and June and
biased high for some days in July and
August. While the model achieved the
performance goal, it failed to accurately
simulate some of the days with the
highest monitored ozone.23
Because of concerns with model
underestimates of ozone on some of the
highest days at the Chatfield monitor
and other monitoring sites, Colorado
performed additional weight of
evidence (WOE) analysis to assess
model performance and the effect of
model performance on the model
attainment demonstration, as discussed
in Sections E and F below.
E. Modeled Attainment Demonstration
In the modeled attainment
demonstration, emissions inventories
are developed for the attainment year
(here, 2017) that reflect emissions
control measures adopted in the SIP as
well as other emissions reductions
expected to be achieved through
federally enforceable national programs,
such as reduced tailpipe emissions for
mobile sources. The Colorado 2017
emissions inventory is described in the
RAQC’s model attainment
demonstration report.24 The
photochemical model is then used to
simulate air quality using the projected
2017 emissions. Because of the concerns
with bias and error in the model
performance discussed in the previous
section, absolute model results are not
used to evaluate attainment. Instead, the
model is used in a relative sense by
calculating the ratio of the model’s
future (here, 2017) to base case (here,
2011) predictions at ozone monitors in
the nonattainment area. We call these
ratios ‘‘Relative Response Factors’’
(RRFs). Future ozone concentrations are
Plan: 2011 Base Case Modeling and Model
Performance Evaluation, available at https://
raqc.egnyte.com/dl/pxHfZAhquy/TSD_2011_
BaseCaseModeling%26MPE.pdf (Sept. 2017).
23 As discussed in EPA guidance, it is normal for
an air quality model to have some under-prediction
or over-prediction bias and error in modeled ozone
because of uncertainties and errors in model input
data. The relative response factor (RRF) approach
that is recommended in the guidance and that is
used in the State’s SIP attainment demonstration is
designed to correct for bias in the model predictions
for ozone.
24 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 2, Denver Metro/
North Front Range 2017 8-Hour Ozone State
Implementation Plan: 2017 Attainment
Demonstration Modeling, p. 1564.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14811
then estimated at existing monitoring
sites by multiplying the modeled RRF at
locations near each monitor by the
observation-based, monitor-specific,
baseline design value. The resulting
predicted future concentrations are then
compared with the 2008 8-hour average
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. If the
predicted future concentrations of ozone
are lower than 76 ppb at all monitors,
attainment is demonstrated.25 The
EPA’s ‘‘Model Attainment Test
Software’’ (MATS, Abt., 2014 26) is used
to calculate RRFs and to perform the
attainment demonstration.
Table 2 summarizes Colorado’s 2011
base case design values, the RRFs from
the 2017 control measure case
modeling, and the projected 2017 future
design values. Table 2 shows results for
two different approaches for calculating
the model RRF. EPA guidance
recommends that the RRFs be calculated
using the maximum modeled ozone in
a 3x3 matrix of grid cells surrounding
each monitor. The 3x3 matrix is used
because of the possibility that errors in
model inputs or physics can result in
under predictions in the grid cell with
the monitor, and because of the
possibility that emissions point sources
could be located close to the edges of
grid cells, as discussed in more detail in
the modeling guidance (EPA, 2014, pp.
102–103).
Using the 3x3 RRFs, the maximum
projected 8-hour ozone design values for
the 2017 control measure case are 76
ppb at the Chatfield and the Rocky Flats
North monitoring sites. Thus, the
primary model attainment
demonstration did not project NAAQSattaining future design values (that is,
less than 76 ppb) at all monitor sites.
When the primary model attainment
demonstration is close to but fails to
attain the NAAQS, EPA guidance
recommends that states consider
whether it is appropriate to perform an
attainment demonstration using a WOE
demonstration. Colorado performed a
25 In determining compliance with the NAAQS,
ozone design values are truncated to integers. For
example, a design value of 75.9 ppb is truncated to
75 ppb. Accordingly, design values at or above 76.0
ppb are considered nonattainment. See p. 100,
footnote 34 of Draft Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, EPA, available at
https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/
Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf
(Dec. 2014), and p. 41 of Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze, EPA–454/B–07–002, available
at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/
final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf (April 2007).
26 Abt Associates Inc., Modeled Attainment Test
Software—User’s Manual. available at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/MATS_26-1_manual.pdf (April 2014).
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14812
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
WOE attainment demonstration as
described in Section F below.
TABLE 2—CURRENT YEAR OBSERVED 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES (DVB), RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS (RRF)
AND PROJECTED 8-HOUR OZONE 2017 FUTURE CASE DESIGN VALUES (DVFS), FROM TABLE 3–1 IN RAMBOLL ENVIRON 2016b
Monitor
Chatfield ..............................
Rocky Flats North ...............
NREL ...................................
Fort Collins West ................
Highland ..............................
Welby ..................................
Welch ..................................
Rocky Mountain NP ............
South Boulder Creek ..........
Greeley/Weld Co. Tower ....
Aspen Park .........................
Arvada .................................
Aurora East .........................
Carriage ..............................
Rist Canyon ........................
Fort Collins CSU .................
DMAS NCore ......................
County
Douglas ..............................
Jefferson .............................
Jefferson .............................
Larimer ...............................
Arapahoe ............................
Adams ................................
Jefferson .............................
Larimer ...............................
Boulder ...............................
Weld ...................................
Jefferson .............................
Jefferson .............................
Arapahoe ............................
Denver ................................
Larimer ...............................
Larimer ...............................
Denver ................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Weight of Evidence Analysis
As noted above, the primary model
attainment demonstration predicted
future design values of 76 ppb at two
monitors (Rocky Flats North and
Chatfield), and thus these two monitors
are not projected to attain the 75 ppb
NAAQS by 2017. EPA guidance
recommends a WOE analysis in cases
for which future design values are close
to the NAAQS, using the following
criteria for a WOE attainment
demonstration:
• A fully-evaluated, high-quality
modeling analysis that projects future
values that are close to the NAAQS;
• A description of each of the
individual supplemental analyses,
preferably from multiple categories.
Analyses that use well-established
analytical procedures and are grounded
with sufficient data should be weighted
higher; and
• A written description as to why the
full set of evidence leads to a conclusive
determination regarding the future
attainment status of the area that differs
from the results of the modeled
attainment test alone.
The WOE analysis can include
monitoring and emissions inventory
trend analysis; review of the conceptual
model for ozone formation in the
nonattainment area; additional
modeling metrics; alternative attainment
test methods; and assessment of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Base
year
(2011)
DVB
(ppb)
Jkt 244001
80.7
80.3
78.7
78.0
76.7
76.0
75.7
75.7
74.7
74.7
74.5
74.0
73.5
71.0
71.0
68.7
65.0
3x3 Grid array
(4 km)
RRF
0.9453
0.9493
0.9591
0.9179
0.9517
0.9512
0.9538
0.9464
0.9477
0.9422
0.9389
0.9723
0.9373
0.9695
0.9248
0.9217
0.9697
Future
year
(2017)
DVF
(ppb) **
7x7 Grid array
(4 km)
Final
2017
DVB
(ppb) **
76.2
76.2
75.4
71.5
72.9
72.2
72.2
71.6
70.7
70.3
69.9
71.9
68.8
68.8
65.6
63.3
63.0
76
76
75
71
72
72
72
71
70
70
69
71
68
68
65
63
63
RRF
0.9391
0.9441
0.9442
0.9098
0.9431
0.9712
0.9428
0.9385
0.9445
0.9226
0.9370
0.9495
0.9367
0.9595
0.9161
0.9096
0.9522
Future
year
(2017)
DVF
(ppb) **
75.7
75.8
74.3
70.9
72.3
73.8
71.3
71.0
70.5
68.9
69.8
70.2
68.8
68.1
65.0
62.4
61.8
Final
2017
DVF
(ppb) **
75
75
74
70
72
73
71
71
70
68
69
70
68
68
65
62
61
efficacy of SIP-approved regulations,
state-only regulations, and voluntary
control measures. Considering this
information and applying the criteria
described in the guidance, the WOE
analysis is then used to assess whether
the planned emissions reductions will
result in attainment of the NAAQS at
the monitors that modeled ozone future
design values of 76 ppb or higher.
As part of its WOE analysis, Colorado
evaluated the model attainment
demonstration using a 7x7 matrix of
grid cells around each monitor site,
because the model performed better in
simulating the 2011 period when
monitored concentrations were
compared to model results in the 7x7
matrix.27 This performance difference
may be a result of challenges in
accurately simulating meteorological
data in Colorado’s complex terrain
combined with the use of a high
resolution 4-km grid in the Colorado
modeling platform. It is possible that
small errors in wind speed or wind
direction could result in modelsimulated plumes being offset by more
than 4 km from a monitoring site. When
using a 7x7 matrix of grid cells, the
monitored concentration is compared to
modeled concentrations up to 12 km
from the monitor site to assess whether
the model more accurately simulated
the observed ozone in grid cells close to
the monitor site. Table 2 shows that
when the model attainment test is
performed using the 7x7 matrix, all
monitor sites are projected to attain the
75 ppb NAAQS.
Colorado also evaluated high ozone
days from 2009 to 2013 that were likely
influenced by atypical activities such as
wildfire or stratospheric intrusion, but
were included in the calculation of the
2011 baseline ozone design value (see
Table 3; CDPHE, 2016d 28). While
Colorado did not submit formal
demonstrations under the Exceptional
Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) for these
days because they do not affect the
attainment status, which is evaluated
based on 2015–2017 monitoring data,
these days do affect the baseline design
value and thus affect the model
projected future design value for 2017.
Table 4 shows the revised 2011 baseline
design value when the data likely
influenced by atypical activities are
excluded, and Table 4 also shows the
results of the model attainment
demonstration using both the 3x3 and
7x7 matrices for calculating the model
RRF. All future design values are below
27 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 2, Denver Metro/
North Front Range 2008 Ozone Standard Moderate
Area State Implementation Plan: Air Quality
Technical Support Document (AQTSD), p. 1608.
28 See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 2, Analyses in
Support of Exceptional Event Flagging and
Exclusion for the Weight of Evidence Analysis, p.
1662.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14813
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the 75 ppb NAAQS using both
approaches when data possibly
influenced by atypical activities are
excluded in the calculation of the 2011
design values.
The EPA concurs with Colorado’s
assessment that the model was properly
configured, met EPA performance
requirements, and was appropriately
used in its application. The EPA finds
that the WOE analysis supports a
determination that the area will attain
the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS by 2017.
TABLE 3—OZONE MONITORING DATA FLAGGED AS EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS AND EXCLUDED FROM THE 2011 BASELINE
DESIGN VALUE IN THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
[Table 1 from CDPHE, 2016d] 29
8-hour ozone concentrations
(ppb)
Date
Chatfield
April 13, 2010 .......................................................................
April 14, 2010 .......................................................................
June 7, 2011 ........................................................................
May 15, 2012 .......................................................................
June 17, 2012 ......................................................................
June 22, 2012 ......................................................................
July 4, 2012 .........................................................................
July 5, 2012 .........................................................................
August 9, 2012 .....................................................................
August 21, 2012 ...................................................................
August 25, 2012 ...................................................................
August 31, 2012 ...................................................................
August 17, 2013 ...................................................................
79
................
84
................
................
................
96
................
98
80
................
................
................
Rocky
Flats
North
NREL
................
................
................
................
................
101
92
88
84
80
80
................
86
................
................
................
................
................
83
95
81
88
80
................
................
84
Exceptional event type
Fort
Collins
West
Stratospheric
ozone
intrusion
Wildfire smoke
influence
Regional
Local
................
75
................
76
77
93
76
................
86
................
................
80
87
x
x
x
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
................
................
................
x
x
x
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
TABLE 4—BASE YEAR (DVB) AND 2017 FUTURE YEAR (DVF) OZONE DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT KEY OZONE MONITORS
WITH FLAGGED EXCEPTIONAL EVENT DAYS REMOVED FROM THE 2009–2013 DVB
Monitor
Chatfield ..............................
Rocky Flats North ...............
NREL ...................................
Fort Collins West ................
County
Douglas ..............................
Jefferson .............................
Jefferson .............................
Larimer ...............................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Unmonitored Area Analysis
The EPA guidance recommends that
an ‘‘unmonitored area analysis’’ (UAA)
be performed to examine ozone
concentrations in unmonitored areas.
The UAA is intended to be a means for
identifying high ozone concentrations
outside of traditionally monitored
locations, particularly in nonattainment
areas where modeling or other data
analyses have indicated potential high
concentration areas of ozone outside of
the existing monitoring network. This
review can help ensure that a control
strategy leads to reductions in ozone at
other locations that could have base
case (and future) design values
exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor
deployed there. The UAA uses a
29 CDPHE
did not identify any exceptional events
in 2009 in their weight of evidence analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Base
year
(2011)
DVB
(ppb)
Jkt 244001
78.7
78.7
77.7
76.3
Exceptional events omitted 3x3
grid array
(4 km)
2017
DVF
(ppb)
RRF
0.9453
0.9493
0.9591
0.9179
H. Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Analysis
1. Background
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), requires that SIPs for
nonattainment areas ‘‘provide for the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Final
2017
DVF
(ppb)
74.4
74.7
74.5
70.0
combination of model output and
ambient data to identify areas that might
exceed the NAAQS but that are not
currently monitored. Colorado used the
MATS to perform the UAA and found
estimated 2011 ozone DVBs in excess of
76 ppb to the south, west, and
northwest of Denver, stretching to Fort
Collins and then west of Fort Collins.
Colorado also found that the projected
DVFs for 2017 showed all areas have
values below 76 ppb. The maximum
2017 estimated design value was 75.9
ppb near the Jefferson/Boulder County
border.
Exceptional events omitted 7x7
grid array
(4 km)
74
74
74
70
RRF
0.9391
0.9441
0.9442
0.9098
2017
DVF
(ppb)
73.9
74.3
73.4
69.4
Final
2017
DVF
(ppb)
73
74
73
69
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology).’’ The EPA has
defined RACT as the lowest emissions
limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and
economic feasibility (44 FR 53761, Sep.
17, 1979).
The EPA provides guidance
concerning what types of controls could
constitute RACT for a given source
category by issuing Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) and Alternative
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14814
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Control Techniques (ACT) documents.30
States must submit a SIP revision
requiring the implementation of RACT
for each source category in the area for
which the EPA has issued a CTG, and
for any major source in the area not
covered by a CTG.31
For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe
area a major stationary source is one
that emits, or has the potential to emit,
100, 50, or 25 tons per year (tpy) or
more, respectively, of VOCs or NOX (see
CAA sections 182(b), 42 U.S.C.
7511a(b); 182(c), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c);
182(d), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(d); and 302(j),
42 U.S.C. 7602(j)). For the DMNFR
Moderate nonattainment area, a major
stationary source is one that emits, or
has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or
more of VOCs or NOX. RACT can be
adopted in the form of emission
limitations or ‘‘work practice standards
or other operation and maintenance
requirements,’’ as appropriate.32 The
Division identified 51 major sources in
the DMNFR area, operated by 32
companies. The EPA will be acting on
Colorado’s major stationary source
RACT submission in a separate action.
Colorado did not rely on any emission
reductions from major stationary
sources in their 2017 modeling analysis.
The remainder of this section will
address Colorado’s RACT submission
related to CTG sources.
2. Evaluation
1. CTG Source Category Sources
Addressed in This Action
As part of its May 31, 2017 submittal,
the Division conducted a RACT analysis
to demonstrate that the RACT
requirements for CTG sources in the
DMNFR 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area have been fulfilled.
The Division conducted its RACT
analysis for VOC and NOX by: (1)
Identifying all categories of CTG and
major non-CTG sources of VOC and
NOX emissions within the DMNFR
nonattainment area; (2) Listing the state
regulation that implements or exceeds
RACT requirements for that CTG or nonCTG category; (3) Detailing the basis for
concluding that these regulations fulfill
RACT through comparison with
established RACT requirements
described in the CTG guidance
documents and rules developed by
other state and local agencies; and (4)
Submitting negative declarations when
there are no CTG or major non-CTG
sources within the DMNFR area.
The EPA has reviewed Colorado’s
new and revised VOC rules for the
source categories covered by the CTGs
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS listed
in Tables 5 and 6 and proposes to find
that these rules are consistent with the
control measures, definitions,
recordkeeping, and test methods in
these CTGs and applicable EPA RACT
guidance.33 Tables 5 and 6 contain a list
of CTG source categories, EPA reference
documents, and the corresponding
sections of Reg. No. 7 that fulfill the
applicable RACT requirements for EPAissued CTGs.34 Colorado’s Reg. No. 7,
Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors
and Control of Hydrocarbons Via Oil
and Gas Emissions, contains SIPapproved provisions (see 76 FR 47443,
Aug. 4, 2011) that meet RACT
requirements for the source categories
listed in Table 5. Reg. No. 7 also
contains general RACT provisions for
the CTG source category listed in Table
6. To meet RACT requirements for the
source category in Table 6, Colorado
submitted several changes to Reg. No. 7
for adoption into its SIP (see Section N
of this notice).
TABLE 5—SIP APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC RULES MEETING RACT
Source category in
DMNFR area
CTG reference document 35
Date of CTG
Bulk Gasoline Plants .............................
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Bulk Gasoline Plants.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing Plants.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks
and Vapor Collection Systems.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
Equipment.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Manufacture of Synthesized
Pharmaceutical Products.
Control Techniques Guidelines for the
Oil and Natural Gas Industry.
Control Techniques Guidelines for Film
Coatings.
1977 .......................
Sections V, VI, and XV.
1983 .......................
Sections V and XII.
1978 .......................
Sections V, VI, and XV.
1978 .......................
Sections V and VIII.
1978 .......................
Sections V, IX, and XIV.
2016 .......................
Sections V, XII, XVII, and XVIII.
2007 .......................
Sections V and IX.
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
Gasoline Processing Plants.
Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and
Vapor Collection Systems.
Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.
Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products.
Oil and Natural Gas Industry 36 .............
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings ..............
30 See https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/
control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternativecontrol-techniques-documents-reducing (accessed
Sep. 21, 2017) for a list of EPA-issued CTGs and
ACTs.
31 See CAA section 182(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7511a(b)(2)); see also Note, RACT Qs & As—
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT):
Questions and Answers, William Harnett, Director,
Air Quality Policy Division, EPA (May 2006),
available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
aqmguide/collection/cp2/20060518_harnett_ract_
q&a.pdf.
32 See Memorandum, ‘‘Approval Options for
Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the nonCTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain NOX
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
RACT Requirements,’’ Sally Shaver, Director, Air
Quality Strategies & Standards Division, EPA (Nov.
7, 1996), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-08/documents/shavermemo
genericract_7nov1996.pdf.
33 See https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ractinformation.
34 See The EPA’s TSD for a full analysis of
Colorado’s rules as they relate to EPA guidelines
and available technical information. We will be
acting on the following CTG source categories in a
future action: Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007;
Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, 2008;
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 1996;
Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 2006; and Aerospace,
1997.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Chapter 7 sections
fulfilling RACT
35 EPA Control Techniques Guidelines and
Alternative Control Techniques Documents for
Reducing Ozone-Causing Emissions, https://
www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/control-techniquesguidelines-and-alternative-control-techniquesdocuments-reducing.
36 The EPA published a final CTG on October 27,
2016 to reduce VOC emissions from the oil and gas
industry (see 81 FR 74798 and https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/
documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf). The CTG
gives states two years from the date of issuance to
submit SIP revisions to address requirements of the
oil and gas CTG. Therefore, Colorado did not
submit a RACT analysis with their May 31, 2017
submission for this source category.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
14815
TABLE 5—SIP APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC RULES MEETING RACT—Continued
Source category in
DMNFR area
CTG reference document 35
Date of CTG
Petroleum Liquid Storage in External
Floating Roof Tanks.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Petroleum Liquid Storage in
External Floating Roof Tanks.
Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing
Systems, Wastewater Separators,
and Process Unit Turnarounds.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Solvent Metal Cleaning.
Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in
Fixed-Roof Tanks.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources—
Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans,
Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles,
and Light-Duty Trucks.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources—
Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans,
Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles,
and Light-Duty Trucks.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Solvent Metal Cleaning.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources—
Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products.
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank
Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Use of Cutback Asphalt.
1978 (ACT 1994) ...
Sections V and VI.
1977 .......................
Sections V and VIII.
1977 .......................
Sections V and X.
1975 .......................
Sections V and VI.
1977 .......................
Sections V and VI.
1977 .......................
Sections V and IX.
1977 .......................
Sections V and IX.
1977 .......................
Section V and IX.
1978 .......................
Sections V and IX.
1997 .......................
Section V, VI and XV.
1977 .......................
Sections V and XI.
Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
Wastewater Separators, and Process
Unit Turnarounds.
Solvent Metal Cleaning .........................
Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations.
Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed
Roof Tanks.
Surface Coating of Cans .......................
Surface Coating of Coils .......................
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture .......
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products.
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals.
Use of Cutback Asphalt .........................
Chapter 7 sections
fulfilling RACT
TABLE 6—GENERAL RULES WITH PROPOSED SIP REVISIONS MEETING RACT FOR SOURCE CATEGORY
CTG reference document
Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Source category in
DMNFR area
Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing.
The Division also reviewed four ACT
VOC source categories to determine if
additional VOC reductions could be
achieved (see section 6.2.4 of the OAP):
1. Organic Waste Process Vents (EPA
1990, ACT);
2. Bakery Ovens (EPA 1992, ACT);
3. Industrial Wastewater Alternative
Control Technology (EPA 1994, ACT);
and
4. Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Batch
Processes (EPA 1994, ACT).
These four categories were evaluated
because they are not addressed by a
CTG, federal consumer product rule, or
directly by a New Source Performance
Standard (NSPS) or National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant
(NESHAP) and are not included in a
State source-specific RACT provision.
Colorado found in its analysis that there
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
2006
are more recent NSPS and NESHAPs
that cover the source categories, and
that the State has incorporated by
reference in Reg. No. 6 and implements.
Additionally, Reg. No. 7 establishes
work practices and disposal practices
similar to the ACTs. Accordingly,
Colorado did not identify any additional
requirements to include in their RACT
analysis through their review of the
ACTs.
We have reviewed the emission
limitations and control requirements for
the above source categories (Tables 5
and 6 in Reg. No. 7) and compared them
against the EPA’s CTG and ACT
documents, available technical
information, and guidelines. The
emission limitations and control
requirements in Reg. No. 7 for the above
source categories are consistent with our
guidance.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Chapter 7 sections
fulfilling RACT
Date of CTG
Sections V and XIII.
Based on available information, we
find that the corresponding sections in
Reg. No. 7 provide for the lowest
emission limitation through application
of control techniques that are reasonably
available considering technological and
economic feasibility. For more
information, see the EPA TSD prepared
in conjunction with this action.
Therefore, we propose to find that the
control requirements for the source
categories identified in Tables 5 and 6
are RACT for all affected sources in the
DMNFR area under the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
I. Negative Declarations
States are not required to adopt RACT
limits for source categories for which no
sources exist in a nonattainment area,
and can submit a negative declaration to
that effect. Colorado has reviewed its
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14816
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
emissions inventory and determined
that there are no subject sources for
source categories listed in Table 7 in the
DMNFR area. We are also unaware of
any such facilities operating in the
DMNFR nonattainment area, and thus
we propose to approve the negative
declarations made for the source
categories in Table 7 for the DMNFR
area under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
TABLE 7—NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
FOR CTG VOC SOURCE CATEGORIES
Source category negative declarations for
DMNFR area
Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (2008).
Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling.
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
(2008).
Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (2006).
Flexible Packaging Printing Materials (2006).
Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic
Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment.
Graphic Arts—Rotogravure and Flexography.
Large Appliance Coatings (2007).
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene,
Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins.
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires.
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (2008).
Oil and Natural Gas Industry (2016).
Plastic Parts Coatings (2008).
SOCMI Air Oxidation Processes.
SOCMI Distillation and Reactor Processes.
Shipbuilding/repair.
Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet
Wire.
Surface Coating of Automobiles and LightDuty Trucks.
Surface Coating of Fabrics.
Surface Coating of Large Appliances.
Surface Coating of Paper.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) Analysis
1. Background
With the attainment demonstration,
Colorado submitted a demonstration
that the DMNFR area has adopted all
RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, as required by CAA section
172(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), and 40
CFR 51.912(d). The EPA interprets the
CAA RACM provision to require a
demonstration that: (1) The state has
adopted all reasonable measures
(including RACT) to meet RFP
requirements and to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as possible;
and (2) no additional measures that are
reasonably available will advance the
attainment date or contribute to RFP for
the area. States should consider all
available measures, including those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
being implemented in other areas, but
must adopt measures for an area only if
those measures are economically and
technologically feasible and will
advance the attainment date or are
necessary for RFP.
The EPA provided guidance
interpreting the RACM requirements of
section 172(c)(1) in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I
of the CAA of 1990.37 The EPA
explained that states should consider all
potentially available measures to
determine whether they are reasonably
available for implementation in the area,
and whether they will advance the
attainment date. Id. Potentially available
measures that would not advance the
attainment date for an area are not
considered RACM; likewise, states can
reject potential RACM if adopting them
would cause substantial widespread and
long-term adverse impacts. Id. Local
conditions, such as economics or
implementation concerns, may also be
considered. To allow the EPA to
determine whether the RACM
requirement has been satisfied, states
should provide in the SIP submittals a
discussion of whether measures ‘‘within
the arena of potentially reasonable
measures’’ are in fact reasonably
available.38 If the measures are
reasonably available, they must be
adopted as RACM.
2. Evaluation
To demonstrate that the area meets
the RACM requirement, Colorado
identified potentially available control
measures with input from stakeholders
and analyzed whether the measure
would be considered a RACM measure.
In 2011, the RAQC issued a Report to
the Governor that identified and
evaluated potential control strategies.
Later in 2011, the RAQC and CDPHE
evaluated control measures for all
source categories that could be
implemented over the next five years
and included them in a report to the
RAQC Board in November 2011. Since
2011, Colorado has adopted oil and gas
regulations, implemented Clean Air—
Clean Jobs Act 39 controls through the
Regional Haze SIP, and continued
alternative fuels, transportation, and
land use programs. In May 2015, the
RAQC reconvened discussions with the
CDPHE and other partners to review
37 General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April
16, 1992).
38 ‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,’’ John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA
(Nov. 30, 1999).
39 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40–3.2–201 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
control strategies for the 2008 ozone SIP
as well as future SIPs. Three
subcommittees made up of RAQC Board
members were assembled. Areas of
analysis included stationary/areas
sources, mobile sources/fuels, and
transpiration/land use/pricing/outreach.
Subcommittee meetings were open to
the public, and stakeholders provided
input on the topics discussed.
Colorado determined that all control
measures necessary to demonstrate
attainment are currently being
implemented. Table 43 of Colorado’s
OAP lists control measures included in
Colorado’s SIP as they relate to the
State’s 2017 emissions inventory,
photochemical modeling in the
attainment demonstration, and weight
of evidence analysis. As discussed in
Chapter 7.3.2 of the OAP, the AQCC
adopted modifications to Reg. No. 11 to
incorporate the portions of Larimer and
Weld Counties that are within the
DMNFR nonattainment area into
Colorado’s I/M program. This change
was submitted as a SIP revision and is
being acted on in this action (see section
J of this notice). Additionally, Chapter
7.3.5.1. describes SIP-strengthening
revisions made to Colorado’s oil and gas
control program in Reg. No. 7 (see
section N of this notice). These revisions
include adoption of two ‘‘state-only’’
provisions into the Ozone SIP,
pertaining to (1) auto-igniter
requirements for combustion devices;
and (2) audio, visual, and olfactory
inspection of storage tanks and
associated equipment.
As part of the RACM analysis, CDPHE
examined emission reduction measures
(see Table 44 of the OAP) being
implemented in the DMNFR area that
are not included in the SIP modeling
and emissions inventory because they
are voluntary or difficult to quantify.
Non-federally-enforceable emission
reduction measures were evaluated for
stationary and mobile sources, lawn and
garden, outreach and education, and the
transportation system. Additionally,
Colorado evaluated CAA 108(f), 42
U.S.C. 7408(f) transportation measures
(see Table 48 of the OAP) to determine
whether sources have applied RACM.
Emission measures that were
evaluated but determined not to be
RACM are discussed in Chapter 7.5 of
the OAP. Colorado used the following
criteria to determine whether measures
were considered RACM:
• Necessary to demonstrate
attainment;
• Technologically or economically
feasible;
• Implemented successfully in other
Moderate areas;
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
• Could be implemented by January
1, 2017; and
• Could qualify as SIP measures by
being quantifiable, enforceable,
permanent, and surplus.
Emission reduction measures
evaluated for RACM were broken into
area sources, on-road mobile sources,
non-road mobile sources, fuels,
transportation, alternative
transportation, and land use categories.
Tables 50 and 51 of the OAP
summarizes the measures evaluated and
Colorado’s RACM determination for
each measure. Colorado also reviewed
the EPA’s Menu of Control Measures for
NAAQS Implementation 40 and
voluntary and mandatory control
measures in other ozone nonattainment
areas. Table 53 of the OAP lists control
measures identified, and indicates
which measures were included in the
State’s RACM review. Although
Colorado’s analysis demonstrated that
none of the additional measures
identified met the criteria for RACM, the
State plans to continue evaluating
strategies in various areas including
fuels, on- and off-road vehicles, and
land use.
In its analysis, Colorado evaluated all
source categories that could contribute
meaningful emission reductions, and
identified and evaluated an extensive
list of potential control measures. To
determine reasonableness and
availability, the State considered the
time needed to develop and adopt
regulations, and the time it would take
to see the benefit from these measures.
The EPA has reviewed the RACM
analysis and finds that there are no
additional RACM that would advance
the Moderate area attainment date of
2018 for the DMNFR nonattainment
area. Therefore, the EPA proposes to
approve Colorado’s Moderate area
RACM SIP for the DMNFR Moderate
nonattainment area.
J. Motor Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program (I/M) Program
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Background
As a Moderate ozone nonattainment
area, Colorado is required to implement
an I/M program. Colorado’s Reg. No. 11
is entitled ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program’’ and addresses the
implementation of the State’s I/M
program. Under Reg. No. 11 and state
law (5 CCR 1001–13), all eligible
40 The Menu of Control Measures gives state, local
and tribal air agencies information on existing
emissions reduction measures, as well as relevant
information concerning the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of the measures. Available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/
menu-control-measures-naaqs-implementation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
automobiles registered in the
Automobile Inspection and
Readjustment (AIR) program area (the
current nine-county AIR program area is
depicted in Chapter 8, Figure 27, page
8–3 of the OAP) are subject to periodic
emissions inspection. Currently there is
an exemption from emissions inspection
requirements for the first seven model
years. Thereafter, an On-BoardDiagnostics (OBD) vehicle computer
inspection is conducted during the first
two inspection cycles (vehicles 8
through 11 model years old). Vehicles
older than 11 model years are given a
dynamometer-based IM240 test for 1982
and newer light-duty gasoline
vehicles 41 and a two-speed idle test
(TSI) 42 for 1981 and older light-duty
gasoline vehicles. To improve motorist
convenience and reduce program
implementation costs, the State also
administers a remote sensing-based
‘‘Clean Screen’’ program component of
the I/M program. Remote sensing is a
method for measuring vehicle
emissions, while simultaneously
photographing the license plate, when a
vehicle passes through infrared or
ultraviolet beams of light. Owners of
vehicles meeting the Clean Screen
criteria are notified by the respective
County Clerk that their vehicle has
passed the motor vehicle inspection
process and are exempt from their next
regularly scheduled IM240 test.43
2. Evaluation
The AIR program and Reg. No. 11
were expanded into portions of Larimer
41 See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete
description of EPA’s IM240 test. The IM240 test is
essentially an enhanced motor vehicle emissions
test to measure mass tailpipe emissions while the
vehicle follows a computer generated driving cycle
trace for 240 seconds and while the vehicle is on
a dynamometer.
42 See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete
description of EPA’s two-speed idle test. The twospeed idle test essentially measures the mass
tailpipe emissions of a stationary vehicle; one
reading is at a normal idle of approximately 700 to
800 engine revolutions per minute (RPM) and one
reading at 2,500 RPM.
43 The Clean Screen program component of Reg.
No. 11 was originally approved for implementation
in the Denver area with the EPA’s approval of the
original Denver carbon monoxide (CO)
redesignation to attainment and the related
maintenance plan. See 66 FR 64751 (Dec. 14, 2001).
The Clean Screen criteria approved in 2001
required two valid passing remote sensing readings,
on different days or from different sensors and
within a twelve-month period. Colorado revised
Reg. No. 11 to expand the definition and
requirements for a ‘‘clean-screened vehicle’’ to also
include vehicles identified as low-emitting vehicles
in the state-determined Low Emitting Index (LEI)
that have one passing remote sensing reading,
before the vehicle’s registration renewal date. These
improvements and other associated revisions to the
Clean Screen program were approved by the EPA
on October 21, 2016. 81 FR 72720.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14817
and Weld counties in the Colorado 2009
Legislative session, with the passage of
Senate Bill 09–003. The startup date of
the I/M program in these two counties
was November 1, 2010. The purpose of
this expansion of the AIR program and
Reg. No. 11 into portions of Larimer and
Weld counties was to further reduce
vehicle emissions of NOX and VOC
ozone precursors in the 2008 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The DMNFR
was then only classified as a Marginal
ozone nonattainment area, and an I/M
program was not required in Larimer
and Weld counties. Therefore, the State
decided to make this portion of the I/M
program, for these two counties, a
‘‘State-only’’ provision, and not to
submit it as a SIP revision.
With the reclassification of the
DMNFR nonattainment area to Moderate
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
in light of the associated CAA
requirements, the State chose to submit
the I/M program in Larimer and Weld
counties into the federal SIP. Adding
these requirements into the federal SIP
required several minor revisions, which
were adopted by the Colorado AQCC on
November 17, 2016, and submitted to
the EPA on May 31, 2017. These
revisions involved changes to ‘‘PART A:
General Provisions, Area of
Applicability, Schedules for Obtaining
Certification of Emissions Control,
Definitions, Exemptions, and Clean
Screening/Remote Sensing.’’
Specifically, definition number 43 was
modified to remove the notation that the
‘‘North Front Range Area’’ was a Stateonly program and not included in the
SIP. In addition, Part A, section V,
‘‘Expansion of The Enhanced Emissions
Program to the North Front Range
Area,’’ was modified to remove the
notation that the I/M program was only
a State-only program for portions of
Larimer and Weld counties and not part
of the SIP. By making these changes to
Part A of Reg. No. 11, and submitting
them for approval by the EPA into the
federal SIP, the State made the I/M
program in portions of Larimer and
Weld counties federally enforceable.
Incorporating the formerly State-only
portions of the I/M program into the SIP
permitted Colorado to include the motor
vehicle emissions reductions received
from operation of the AIR program in
these areas of Larimer and Weld
counties in the DMNFR attainment
demonstration.
Based on our review and as discussed
above, we propose approval of the
submitted Reg. No. 11 SIP revisions.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14818
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
As a Moderate ozone nonattainment
area, Colorado is required to implement
a nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program. Applicable NNSR
requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas are described in CAA section 182,
42 U.S.C. 7511a, and further defined in
40 CFR part 51, subpart I (Review of
New Sources and Modifications). Under
these requirements, new major sources
and major modifications at existing
sources must achieve the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) and
obtain emission offsets in an amount
based on the specific ozone
nonattainment classification. The
emission offset ratio required for
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas is
1.15 to 1. CAA section 182(b)(5), 42
U.S.C. 7511a(b)(5).
provide additional emissions reductions
of 3% of the adjusted base year
inventory for the nonattainment area (or
the state may implement contingency
measures that achieve a lesser
percentage that will make up the
identified shortfall in RFP or
attainment). Contingency measures may
include federal measures and local
measures already scheduled for
implementation, as long as their
emission reductions are in excess of
those needed for attainment or to meet
RFP in the nonattainment plan. The
EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude
a state from implementing such
measures before they are triggered by a
failure to meet RFP or failure to attain.
For more information on contingency
measures, see the General Preamble (57
FR at 13510) and the 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule (80 FR 12264,
12285).
2. Evaluation
2. Evaluation
The Colorado SIP includes Regulation
No. 3, Part D, Section V.A. (Concerning
Major Stationary Source New Source
Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, Requirements Applicable
to Nonattainment Areas). This provision
requires new major sources and major
modifications at existing sources in the
DMNFR area to comply with LAER and
obtain emission offsets at the Moderate
classification ratio of 1.15 to 1. The EPA
approved these provisions on January
25, 2016 (81 FR 3963). In addition, in
their OAP, Colorado recertified that the
State’s NNSR program is fully up to date
with all requirements of the Marginal
designation, including offset ratios of at
least 1.1 to 1. Therefore, since the
provisions in the Colorado SIP satisfy
the CAA NNSR requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal and Moderate, we propose
approval of this portion of the OAP.
To meet the contingency measures
requirement, the State identified
specific measures that provide
emissions reductions in excess of those
needed for RFP and for attainment as
contingency measures. See Chapter 10,
Tables 54 and 55 of the OAP. The
submitted contingency measures consist
of NOX reductions from two EGUs
addressed in the Colorado Clean Air—
Clean Jobs Act and previously adopted
as part of the Colorado Regional Haze
SIP. These two projects are: (1) The
retirement of Valmont Unit 5, a 184
megawatt coal fired steam turbine
located in Boulder County, and (2)
switching the 352 MW coal fired steam
turbine of Cherokee Unit 4 located in
Adams County from coal to natural gas.
The sources completed these projects by
the end of 2017 and they will result in
an additional 11 tons per day of NOX
reductions, equating to 3.4% of the 2011
base year NOX emissions inventory. Per
EPA guidance for purposes of the Ozone
NAAQS, contingency measures should
achieve reductions of 3% of the baseline
emissions inventory for the
nonattainment area. The State’s
contingency measures therefore are
consistent with Agency guidance,
because they in fact result in more than
3% reductions over the relevant
baseline. The purpose of the
contingency measures is to provide for
further emission reductions to make up
the shortfall needed for RFP or for
attainment, during the period in which
the State and the EPA determine
whether the nonattainment plan for the
K. Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)
1. Background
L. Contingency Measures Plan
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Background
Nonattainment plan provisions must
provide for the implementation of
contingency measures. CAA section
172(c)(9), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9). These
are specific measures to provide
additional emission reductions if a
nonattainment area fails to make RFP, or
to attain the NAAQS, by the applicable
date. Contingency measures must take
effect without further action by the state
or the EPA. While the CAA does not
specify the type of measures or quantity
of emissions reductions required, the
EPA has interpreted the CAA for
purposes of the Ozone NAAQS to mean
that contingency measures should
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
area needs further revision to achieve
the NAAQS expeditiously.44
The appropriateness of relying on
already-implemented reductions to meet
the contingency measures requirement
has been addressed in two federal
circuit court decisions. See Louisiana
Environmental Action Network (LEAN)
v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir.
2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836
F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied,
199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58
(Jan. 8, 2018). The EPA believes that the
language of section 172(c)(9) is
ambiguous with respect to this issue,
and that it is reasonable for the agency
to interpret the statutory language to
allow approval of already implemented
measures as contingency measures, so
long as they meet other parameters such
as providing excess emissions
reductions that the state has not relied
upon to make RFP or for attainment in
the nonattainment plan for the NAAQS
at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under
the EPA’s longstanding interpretation of
CAA section 172(c)(9), states could rely
on control measures that were already
implemented (so called ‘‘early
triggered’’ contingency measures) as a
valid means to meet the Act’s
contingency measures requirement. The
Ninth Circuit decision in Bahr leaves a
split among the federal circuit courts,
with the Fifth Circuit upholding the
Agency’s interpretation of section
172(c)(9) to allow early triggered
contingency measures and the Ninth
Circuit rejecting that interpretation. The
Tenth Circuit, in which Colorado is
located, has not addressed the issue, nor
has the Supreme Court or any other
circuit court other than the Fifth and
Ninth.
Because there is a split in the federal
circuits on this issue, the EPA expects
that states located in circuits other than
the Ninth may elect to rely on the EPA’s
longstanding interpretation of section
172(c)(9) allowing early triggered
measures to be approved as contingency
measures, in appropriate circumstances.
The EPA’s recently revised Regional
Consistency regulations pertaining to
SIP provisions authorize the Agency to
follow this interpretation of section
172(c)(9) in Circuits other than the
Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure
that early triggered contingency
measures appropriately satisfy all other
relevant CAA requirements, the EPA
will carefully review each such
measure, and intends to consult with
states considering such measures early
in the nonattainment plan development
process.
44 See General Preamble, section III.A.3.c (57 FR
13498 at 13511).
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14819
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Table 55 of Colorado’s
OAP, the NOX reductions projected
through 2018 are sufficient to meet the
requirements for contingency measures,
consistent with the EPA’s interpretation
of the CAA to allow approval of already
implemented control measures as
contingency measures in states outside
the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose
approval of the contingency measure
submitted by the state in the OAP.
M. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
(MVEB)/Transportation Conformity
1. Background
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7506. Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
176(c)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B)).
The EPA’s conformity rule at 40 CFR
part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to SIPs, and
establishes the criteria and procedures
for determining whether or not they
conform. The conformity rule requires a
demonstration that emissions from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
(MPO) Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) are
consistent with the MVEB in the control
strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan. 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and
93.124. The MVEBs are defined as the
portion allocated to mobile source
emissions out of the total allowable
emissions of a pollutant defined in the
SIP for a certain date for the purpose of
demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or for
meeting reasonable further progress
milestones.45
2. Evaluation
Colorado derived the MVEBs for NOX
and VOCs from its 2017 DMNFR
attainment demonstration, and defined
the MVEBs in Chapter 11, section 11.4
of the OAP.
TABLE 8—2017 NOX AND VOC MVEBS FOR DMNFR
2017 NOX
emissions
(tons per day)
Area of applicability
2017 VOC
emissions
(tons per day)
12
61
8
47
Total Nonattainment Area ................................................................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Northern Subarea ....................................................................................................................................
Southern Subarea ....................................................................................................................................
73
55
These MVEBs are consistent with, and
clearly related to, the emissions
inventory and the control measures in
the SIP; are consistent (when considered
together with all other emissions
sources) with attainment of the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS in 2017; and satisfy
the minimum criteria at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). Therefore, we propose
approval of the MVEBs as reflected in
Table 8. This proposed approval applies
to the Northern Subarea and Southern
Subarea MVEBs as well as the Total
Nonattainment Area MVEBs. The
transportation conformity subareas are
defined in Chapter 11, section 11.3 of
the OAP and are listed below.
• The Northern Subarea is the area
denoted by the ozone nonattainment
area north of the Boulder County
northern boundary and extended
through southern Weld County to the
Morgan County line. This area includes
the North Front Range MPO’s
(NFRMPO) regional planning area as
well as part of the Upper Front Range
Transportation Planning Region (TPR)
in Larimer and Weld counties.
• The Southern Subarea is the area
denoted by the ozone nonattainment
area south of the Boulder County
northern boundary and extended
through southern Weld County to the
Morgan County line. This area includes
the nonattainment portion of the Denver
Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG) regional planning area and the
southern Weld County portion of the
Upper Front Range TPR.
• Both subareas are further described
in the OAP in Figure 29, ‘‘8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area Subareas.’’
In addition to proposing approval of
the MVEBs, we also propose to approve
the process described in Chapter 11,
section 11.6 in the OAP for the use of
the Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs or
the subarea MVEBs for the respective
MPOs to determine transportation
conformity for their respective RTP. As
described in section 11.6 of Colorado’s
OAP, the OAP identifies subarea MVEBs
for DRCOG and the NFRMPO. These
SIP-identified subarea MVEBs allow
either MPO to make independent
conformity determinations for the
applicable subarea MVEBs whose
frequency and timing needs for
conformity determinations differ. As
noted in section 11.6, DRCOG and the
NFRMPO may switch from using the
Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs to
using the subarea MVEBs for
determining conformity. To switch to
use of the subarea MVEBs (or to
subsequently switch back to use of the
45 40 CFR 93.101; see 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124
for criteria and other requirements related to
MVEBs. Further discussion of MVEBs is in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs)
DRCOG and the NFRMPO must use the
process described in the DMNFR OAP
in section 11.6 (see pages 11–5 and 11–
6). This process of demonstrating
transportation conformity to the total or
subarea area MVEBs, as described in
section 11.6 of the OAP, was previously
approved by the EPA for the Denver
Ozone Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (76 FR 47443, Aug. 5, 2011).
Now, as to the 2008 8-hour standard, the
EPA finds that this process remains
consistent with the CAA and with
applicable EPA regulations, and
therefore proposes to approve it.
N. SIP Control Measures
1. Background
This section describes revisions to
Colorado Reg. No. 7 submitted as a part
of the SIP, including emission control
requirements for oil and gas operations,
graphic arts and printing processes,
stationary and portable engines, and
other combustion equipment. The
revisions also establish RACT
requirements for emission points at
major sources of VOC and NOX in the
DMNFR area.
preamble to the transportation conformity rule. 58
FR 62188, 62193–62196 (Nov. 24, 1993).
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14820
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Reg. No. 7 contains various
requirements intended to reduce
emissions of ozone precursors. These
are in the form of specific emission
limits applicable to various industries
and general RACT requirements.46 The
EPA approved the repeal and repromulgation of Reg. No. 7 in 1981 (46
FR 16687, March 13, 1981) and has
approved various revisions to parts of
Reg. No. 7 over the years. In 2008, the
EPA approved revisions to the control
requirements for condensate storage
tanks in Section XII (73 FR 8194, Feb.
13, 2008). The EPA later approved
revisions to Reg. No. 7, Sections I
through XI and Section XIII through XVI
(76 FR 47443, Aug. 5, 2011). Most
recently, the EPA approved Reg. No. 7
revisions to control emissions from rich
burn reciprocating internal combustion
engines in Section XVII.E.3.a (77 FR
76871, Dec. 31, 2012).
Colorado submitted proposed
revisions to Reg. No. 7 on May 5, 2013,
and submitted revised Reg. No. 7
revisions with the OAP on May 31,
2017. The 2017 revisions address EPA
concerns about the May 5, 2013
submittal regarding monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in Sections XII.H.5 and
XII.H.6 and other concerns in Sections
XII.C.1.c, XII.C.1.d, XII.C.2.a.(ii)(B),
XII.E.3, and XII.H.4. The May 31, 2017
submittal also includes changes to Reg.
No. 7 regarding RACT requirements for
lithographic and letterpress printing,
industrial cleaning solvents, and major
sources of VOCs or NOX. Colorado made
substantive revisions to certain limited
parts of Reg. No. 7, particularly Sections
X, XII, XIII, XVI and new Section XIX.,
and also made non-substantive revisions
to numerous parts of the regulation. For
ease of review, Colorado submitted the
full text of Reg. No. 7 as a SIP revision
(with the exception of provisions
designated ‘‘State Only’’). The EPA is
only seeking comment on Colorado’s
proposed substantive changes to the
SIP-approved version of Reg. No. 7,
which are described below. We are not
seeking comment on incorporation into
the SIP of the revised portions of the
regulation that were previously
approved into the SIP and have not been
substantively modified by the State as
part of this submission.
As noted above, Colorado designated
various parts of Reg. No. 7 ‘‘State Only’’
and in Section I.A.1.c indicated that
sections designated State Only are not
federally enforceable. The EPA
concludes that provisions designated
State Only have not been submitted for
EPA approval, but for informational
purposes. Hence, the EPA is not
proposing to act on the portions of Reg.
No. 7 designated State Only and this
proposed rule does not discuss them
further except as relevant to discussion
of the portions of the regulation that
Colorado intended to be federally
enforceable.
2. Evaluation
current SIP provides for a weekly 75%
system-wide VOC reduction during the
summer ozone season beginning May 1,
2007, and 78% beginning May 1, 2012.
The revised section significantly
increases the summer ozone season
weekly VOC reduction requirements
from the current EPA-approved
requirements, to 85% beginning in 2010
(revised Section XII.D.2.a.(ix)) and 90%
beginning May 1, 2011, and each year
thereafter (revised Section XII.D.2.a.(x)).
The revised Section XII.D.2.a provides
more stringent emission reductions than
the current SIP and therefore serves to
strengthen the SIP.
b. Analysis by Section of Reg. No. 7
Changes in May 31, 2017 Submittal
(i) Sections I, II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX
The changes in these sections are
clerical 48 in nature and do not affect the
substance of the requirements.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
changes.
a. Analysis of Reg. No. 7 Changes in
May 5, 2013 Submittal
The EPA proposes to approve the
changes made to Section XII.D
(currently SIP-approved Section XII.A.2)
with Colorado’s May 5, 2013
submission.47
(ii) Section X
(i) Section XII.D
Section XII.D contains an
introductory statement regarding the
control requirements for atmospheric
condensate storage tanks. The changes
to current SIP-approved Section XII.A.2
are minor and do not change the
substance of the corresponding EPAapproved provisions.
Section XII contains emission control
requirements for VOCs from oil and gas
operations. The State originally
reorganized Section XII and included
additional control requirements for
condensate tanks in their June 18, 2009
SIP submittal. The EPA disapproved
revisions to Reg. No. 7, Section XII in
our August 5, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR
47443) because of deficiencies in
Colorado’s proposed revisions (see 75
FR 42355, July 21, 2010). The State once
again submitted proposed revisions to
Section XII with their May 31, 2017
submissions. Table 9 outlines the
reorganization/renumbering in
Colorado’s proposed revisions to
Section XII:
a. Section XII.D.2.a
Section XII.D.2.a contains the systemwide control requirements for
condensate storage tanks. Owners and
operators of storage tanks that emit
greater than two tons per year of actual
uncontrolled VOCs are subject to the
requirements in Section XII.D.2.a. The
Section X. regulates VOC emissions
from the use of cleaning solvents. We
will be acting on Section X revisions in
a future action.
(iii) Section XII
TABLE 9—REORGANIZATION/RENUMBERING IN COLORADO’S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SECTION XII
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed section XII numbering
Corresponding EPA-approved
section XII numbering
XII.A .................................................
XII.A.1 ..............................................
XII.A.1.a through d.(ii) .....................
XII.A.2 ..............................................
XII.A ...............................................
XII.A ...............................................
XII.A.1.a through c .........................
XII.D.4 ............................................
46 On October 20, 2016, the EPA issued final
CTGs for existing sources in the oil and natural gas
industry (see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-10/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf).
In accordance with the timing set forth in the CTG,
Colorado has two years from this date (October 20,
2018) to submit SIP revisions to EPA to update
RACT for this source category (see Memo:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
Subject
Applicability.
Applicability.
Applicability.
Exception to applicability of oil refineries.
Implementing Reasonably Available Control
Technology Requirements for Sources Covered by
the 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil
and Natural Gas Industry, available within the
docket for this action).
47 All other sections of Reg. No. 7 addressed in
the May 5, 2013 submission have been superseded
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
by the State’s May 31, 2017 submission. The EPA
is not acting on the superseded earlier submissions.
48 When we describe changes as clerical in this
proposed action, we are referring to changes like
section renumbering, alphabetizing of definitions,
minor grammatical and editorial revisions, and
changes in capitalization.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
14821
TABLE 9—REORGANIZATION/RENUMBERING IN COLORADO’S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SECTION XII—Continued
Corresponding EPA-approved
section XII numbering
Subject
XII.A.3 ..............................................
None ..............................................
XII.A.4 ..............................................
None ..............................................
XII.A.5 ..............................................
XII.A.8 ............................................
XII.B .................................................
XII.B.1, 2, 3, 9, and 14 ....................
XII.B.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 ...
XII.C ................................................
XII.C.1 .............................................
XII.C.1.a ..........................................
None ..............................................
XII.D.5, 8, 6, 1, and 9. ...................
None ..............................................
XII.D ...............................................
None ..............................................
XII.D.2.a .........................................
XII.C.1.b ..........................................
XII.C.1.c ...........................................
XII.D.2.b .........................................
XII.A.7 and XII.A.4.h ......................
XII.C.1.d ..........................................
XII.C.1.e ..........................................
XII.C.1.e.(iii) .....................................
XII.C.2 and XII.C.2.a .......................
XII.D ................................................
XII.D.2.a.(i) through (x) ...................
XII.D.2.b ..........................................
XII.E .................................................
XII.E.1 ..............................................
XII.E.2, XII.E.2.a and b ...................
XII.E.3 ..............................................
XII.E.3.a.–e ......................................
XII.F .................................................
XII.F.1 and 2 ...................................
XII.F.3 ..............................................
XII.F.3.a(i) ........................................
XII.F.3.a(ii) and (iii) ..........................
XII.F.3.a(iv) ......................................
XII.D.2.c .........................................
None ..............................................
None ..............................................
XII.D.3 ............................................
XII.A.2 ............................................
XII.A.2.a through h ........................
XII.A.9 ............................................
XII.A.3 ............................................
None ..............................................
XII.A.3.a and b ...............................
XII.A.4.j ..........................................
XII.A.3.c.–f .....................................
XII.A.4 and XII.A.5 .........................
XII.A.10 and 11 ..............................
XII.A.4 ............................................
XII.A.4.a .........................................
XII.A.4.b and c ...............................
XII.A.4.d.i .......................................
XII.F.3.a(v)–(vii) ...............................
XII.A.4.d.ii–iv ..................................
XII.F.3.a(viii) ....................................
XII.F.3.a(ix)–(x) ................................
XII.F.3.b–d .......................................
XII.A.4.e .........................................
XII.A.4.f–g ......................................
XII.A.4.h–j ......................................
XII.F.4 ..............................................
XII.F.4.a ...........................................
XII.F.4.b–c .......................................
XII.F.4.d ...........................................
XII.A.5 ............................................
XII.A.5.a .........................................
XII.A.5.b–c .....................................
XII.A.5.d .........................................
XII.F.4.e ...........................................
XII.A.5.e .........................................
XII.F.4.f ............................................
XII.A.5.f ..........................................
XII.F.4.g ...........................................
XII.F.4.h ...........................................
XII.F.4.i ............................................
XII.F.4.j ............................................
XII.F.4.k ...........................................
XII.A.5.g .........................................
XII.A.5.h .........................................
XII.A.5.i ..........................................
XII.A.5.j ..........................................
XII.A.5.k .........................................
XII.F.4.l ............................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed section XII numbering
XII.A.5.l ..........................................
XII.F.5 ..............................................
XII.A.6 ............................................
XII.G ................................................
XII.G.1 .............................................
XII.G.2 .............................................
XII.G.3 .............................................
XII.G.4 .............................................
XII.B ...............................................
XII.B.1 ............................................
XII.B.2 ............................................
XII.B.3 ............................................
XII.B.4 ............................................
Applicability for natural gas-processing plants and certain natural gas
compressor stations. Subject to Section XII.G. and XII.I.
Applicability for certain glycol natural gas dehydrators, natural gas
compressor stations, drip stations, or gas processing plants. Only
subject to XII.B and XII.H.
Exception to applicability based on uncontrolled actual VOC emissions threshold of 30 tons per year.
Definitions specific to section XII.
Definitions of various terms.
Definitions of various terms.
General provisions to section XII.
General requirements for air pollution control equipment, leaks.
General requirements for operation/maintenance of control equipment.
General requirement to minimize leakage of VOCs.
Air pollution control—equipment control efficiency. Failure to operate
and maintain control equipment at indicated locations is a violation.
Requirements for combustion devices.
State-only requirements related to combustion devices.
Auto-igniter requirements for combustion devices.
Emission factors for emission estimates.
Emission control requirements for condensate tanks.
System-wide control requirements for condensate storage tanks.
Alternative emission control equipment.
Monitoring.
Requirements for control equipment other than a combustion device.
Checks for combustion devices.
Documentation of inspections.
Requirements for the weekly check.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Marking of AIRS numbers on tanks.
Introductory language for recordkeeping.
List of tanks and production volumes.
Listing of emission factors and location and control efficiencies.
List weekly and monthly production values. Describes how to determine the averages.
List weekly and monthly uncontrolled actual and controlled actual
emissions by tank and system-wide. List percent reductions weekly
and monthly.
Note any downtime and account for it.
Maintaining and mailing of spreadsheet.
Failure to have control equipment as indicated on spread sheet is
violation. Retain spread sheets for five years. Maintain records of
inspections.
Reporting for system-wide requirements.
List tanks and production volumes.
List emission factor and location and control efficiency.
What different reports must show based on time of year. Emissions
from individual tanks must be included.
What different reports must show based on time of year. Emissions
system-wide.
What different reports must show based on time of year. Percent reduction system-wide.
Note shutdown of control equipment and account for same in totals.
State whether required reductions were achieved.
Include any information requested by the Division.
Retention period.
Additional reporting, monthly reporting of problems and corrective actions.
Before ozone season, identify tanks being controlled to meet systemwide control requirements.
Exemption from record-keeping and reporting requirements for natural gas compressor stations and drip stations authorized to operate pursuant to a construction or operating permit.
Requirements for gas processing plants. Introductory statement.
Part 60 leak detection applies.
Applicability of control equipment.
Compliance date for existing plants.
Compliance date for new plants.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14822
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—REORGANIZATION/RENUMBERING IN COLORADO’S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SECTION XII—Continued
Proposed section XII numbering
Corresponding EPA-approved
section XII numbering
Subject
XII.H.1 .............................................
XII.C ...............................................
XII.H.3 .............................................
XII.H.3.b ..........................................
XII.H.4 .............................................
XII.H.5 .............................................
XII.C ...............................................
XII.C ...............................................
None ..............................................
None ..............................................
XII.H.6 .............................................
XII.I ..................................................
None ..............................................
........................................................
Requirements that apply to vents from gas-condensate-glycol separators or tanks on glycol natural gas dehydrators at an oil and gas
exploration and production operation, natural gas compressor station, drip station or gas-processing plant.
Control requirements application.
Control requirements application.
Method for calculating emissions from vents.
Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for glycol natural gas
dehydrators.
Reporting requirements for glycol natural gas dehydrators.
Natural gas compressor and drip station section XII requirements exemptions.
Section XII revises requirements for
system-wide reductions in condensate
storage tank VOC emissions. The
current EPA-approved Section XII
requires that uncontrolled actual
condensate tank VOC emissions in the
DMNFR area be reduced on a weekly
basis during the summer ozone season
by 75% system-wide beginning May 1,
2007, and 78% beginning May 1, 2012.
Revised Section XII (Section XII.D.2)
requires an 81% system-wide reduction
in uncontrolled actual weekly
condensate tank VOC emissions during
the summer ozone season beginning
May 1, 2009, an 85% reduction
beginning May 1, 2010, and a 90%
reduction beginning May 1, 2011.
Section XII proposed revisions also
include combustion device auto-igniter
requirements, a leak detection and
repair (LDAR) program applicable to
natural gas processing plants, and
emission reductions from glycol natural
gas dehydrators requirements. Below,
we describe in detail Colorado’s
proposed revisions to Section XII and
the basis for our proposed approval of
such revisions.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
a. Section XII.A
Section XII.A defines the applicability
of Section XII requirements and is
consistent with the current EPAapproved applicability provisions in
Section XII.
b. Section XII.B
Section XII.B contains definitions
specific to Section XII. The substance of
the definitions in Sections XII.B.1, 2, 3,
9, 12, and 14 is unchanged from the
definitions contained in SIP approved
Sections XII.D.1 and XII.D.5 through 9.
The other definitions in revised Section
XII.B define the following terms that are
used in Section XII: Auto-igniter,
calendar week, condensate storage tank,
downtime, existing, modified or
modification, and new. The definitions
are clear, straightforward, and accurate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
The definition of existing is only
pertinent to State-only provisions and
thus has no meaning for our SIP action.
c. Section XII.C.1
Section XII.C.1 contains general
requirements for air pollution control
equipment and prevention of leakage.
Section XII.C.1.e includes a provision
requiring all combustion devices
installed on or after January 1, 2017,
used to control emissions of VOCs to be
equipped with an operational autoigniter. This new provision strengthens
Colorado’s SIP. The remaining Section
XII.C.1 revisions do not change the
substance of the corresponding EPAapproved provisions.
d. Section XII.C.2
Section XII.C.2 describes the emission
factors to be used for estimating
emissions and emissions reductions
from condensate storage tanks under
Section XII. In the current EPAapproved SIP (Sections XII.D.3.b and
3.b.i), the emission factors to be used are
specified for condensate storage tanks at
natural gas compressor stations, natural
gas drip stations, and gas-condensateglycol separators. In revised Sections
XII.C.2.a.(ii) and a.(ii)(A), Colorado
deleted the reference to gas-condensateglycol separators. Revised Section XII.H
still requires a 90 percent reduction in
emissions at certain gas-condensateglycol separators. Emission calculation
and monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements established in XII.H.4, 5,
and 6 provide for enforcement and
compliance of emission reduction
requirements in XII.H.1.
At the EPA’s request, Colorado
deleted the EPA approval requirement
in XII.C.2.a.(ii)(B). The EPA is not
involved in formal approval of sitespecific emission factors and the EPA
was concerned with previous SIPapproved language in XII.D.b.3.ii, which
allowed for default SIP approval if the
EPA did not object within 30 days to a
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
test method approved by the Division to
determine an emission factor.
e. Section XII.D
Section XII.D contains an
introductory statement regarding the
control requirements for atmospheric
condensate storage tanks. The changes
to current SIP-approved Section XII.A.2
are minor and do not change the
substance of the corresponding EPAapproved provisions.
f. Section XII.D.2.a
Section XII.D.2.a. contains the systemwide control requirements for
condensate storage tanks and adds an
introductory statement clarifying
requirements for installing air pollution
control equipment on condensate
storage tanks to achieve reductions
outlined in Sections XII.D.2.a.(i)
through (x). The current SIP provides
for a weekly 75% system-wide VOC
reduction during the summer ozone
season beginning May 1, 2007, and 78%
beginning May 1, 2012. The revised
section significantly increases the
summer ozone season weekly VOC
reduction requirements from the current
EPA-approved requirements, to 85%
beginning in 2010 (revised Section
XII.D.2.a.(ix)) and 90% beginning May
1, 2011, and each year thereafter
(revised Section XII.D.2.a.(x)). The
revised Section XII.D.2.a. provides more
stringent emission reductions than the
current SIP and therefore strengthens
the SIP.
g. Section XII.D.2.b
Section XII.D.2.b is a renumbered
version of current EPA-approved
Section XII.A.9. This section contains a
process for approval of alternative
emissions control equipment and
pollution prevention devices and
processes. Among other things, the
section specifies requirements for public
participation and EPA approval.
Colorado did not change the substance
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
j. Section XII.F.3
of this provision, but simply
renumbered it from Section XII.A.9 to
XII.D.2.b.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
h. Section XII.E
Section XII.E contains the monitoring
requirements that are currently
specified in EPA-approved Sections
XII.A.3 and XII.A.4.j. Colorado retained
the basic requirement for weekly
inspections or monitoring. Colorado
improved certain provisions. For
example, under revised Section XII.E,
an owner or operator must ensure not
only that the control equipment is
operating, but that it is operating
properly. Revised Section XII.E.1 adds a
requirement that owners or operators of
control equipment other than a
combustion device follow
manufacturer’s recommended
maintenance and inspect the equipment
to ensure proper maintenance and
operation. Revised Section XII.E.3
(current XII.A.4.j) adds a requirement
that the owner or operator document
any corrective actions taken and the
name of the individual performing the
corrective actions resulting from a
weekly inspection. Revised Sections
XII.E.3.a through d. add the requirement
that the owner or operator not only
perform certain checks, but that the
owner or operator document those
checks. Revised Section XII.E.3.e adds a
new requirement for owners or
operators to conduct and document
audio, visual, and olfactory inspections
during liquids unloading events for
tanks with uncontrolled actual
emissions of VOCs equal to or greater
than six tons per year. These provisions
strengthen the SIP.
i. Section XII.F
Section XII.F contains recordkeeping
and reporting requirements that are
currently in EPA-approved Sections
XII.A.4 and XII.A.5. The recordkeeping
requirements specify information that
must be listed on a spreadsheet that
owners/operators must maintain. Many
of the provisions are identical to those
in the current EPA approved SIP.
In Sections XII.F.1 through 4,
Colorado made a few substantive
changes to the existing provisions. In
revised Section XII.F.3, Colorado added
a sentence requiring the owner or
operator to track VOC reductions on a
calendar weekly and calendar monthly
basis to demonstrate compliance with
system-wide VOC reduction
requirements. Colorado also specified
that owners/operators would need to
use the Division-approved spreadsheet
to track VOC emissions and reductions.
These changes are reasonable and
consistent with CAA requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
14823
l. Section XII.F.5
In revised Section XII.F.3.a(i), which
requires the spreadsheet to list the
condensate storage tanks subject to
Section XII and the production volumes
for each tank, Colorado specified that
the spreadsheet must list monthly
production volumes. Revised Section
XII.F.3.a(iv) also requires the owner/
operator to list the production volume
for each tank as a weekly and monthly
average based on the most recent
measurement available and specifies the
method for pro-rating that measurement
over the weekly or monthly period.
Revised Section XII.F.3.c requires
owners/operators to retain a copy of
each weekly and monthly spreadsheet
for five years instead of the three years
required by current EPA-approved
Section XII.A.4.i. Revised Section
XII.F.3.d requires owners/operators to
maintain records of inspections required
by Sections XII.C. and XII.E. for five
years.
Section XII.F.5 contains an exemption
from Section XII’s record-keeping and
reporting requirements for owners/
operators of natural gas compressor
stations (NGCSs) or natural gas drip
stations (NGDSs) authorized to operate
pursuant to a construction permit or
Title V operating permit if certain
conditions are met. In our August 5,
2011 (76 FR 47443) proposed
rulemaking, we expressed our concern
with Colorado’s removal of one of the
conditions for this exemption contained
in current EPA-approved Section
XII.A.6. Colorado’s current submission
reinstates this exemption. Colorado
therefore did not change the substance
of this provision, but simply
renumbered it from Section XII.A.6 to
section XII.F.5, made minor
typographical corrections, and updated
section references.
k. Section XII.F.4
In revised Section XII.F.4, Colorado
made minor changes to current EPAapproved reporting requirements.
Revised Section XII.F.4.a requires the
semiannual reports to list all condensate
storage tanks subject to or used to
comply with the system-wide reduction
requirements, not just the tanks that are
subject to such requirements. This
reflects the change to the regulation that
allows owners/operators to control
tanks with emissions below the Air
Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) filing
levels to meet the percent reduction
requirement in Section XII.D.2. In
revised Sections XII.F.4.d through f.
Colorado clarified that the April 30
reports must include the monthly
emissions information and the
November 30 reports must include the
weekly emissions information. In
revised Section XII.F.4.g, Colorado
deleted the requirement in current EPAapproved Section XII.A.5.g that the
owner/operator note in the report list
‘‘the date the source believes the
shutdown [of control equipment]
occurred, including the basis for such
belief.’’ This deletion is reasonable
because the owner/operator is not likely
to be able to make an accurate estimate
of the date the shutdown occurred, and,
thus, the information is not likely to be
meaningful in an enforcement context.
In revised Section XII.F.4.h, Colorado
clarified monthly versus weekly
reporting requirements. In revised
Section XII.F.4.j, Colorado increased the
retention period for reports from 3 years
to 5 years. These changes are consistent
with CAA requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
m. Section XII.G
Section XII.G specifies the control
requirements applicable to gas
processing plants and corresponds to
current EPA-approved Section XII.B.
The EPA-approved Section XII.B
requires gas processing plants to meet
the requirements in Section XII.B
specifically applicable to such plants as
well as the requirements in current
EPA-approved Section XII.C, pertaining
to certain still vents and vents from gas
condensate-glycol separators, and
Section XVI, pertaining to emissions
from stationary and portable engines.
Revised Section XII.G requires gas
processing plants to additionally
comply with the requirements of revised
Section XII.B, the definitions section,
revised Sections XII.C.1.a and XII.C.1.b,
which specify maintenance and design
requirements for control equipment and
the obligation to minimize leakage of
VOCs to the atmosphere, and revised
Section XII.H, which specifies control
requirements for still vents and vents
flash separators or flash tanks on glycol
natural gas dehydrators located at oil
and gas exploration and production
operations, natural gas compressor
stations, drip stations, or gas-processing
plants. It appears that this change would
strengthen the requirements applicable
to gas-processing plants.
n. Section XII.G.1
Section XII.G.1 specifies that NSPS
leak detection and repair requirements
apply regardless of the date of
construction of the facility, and adds a
reference to LDAR requirements in
NSPS OOOO and OOOOa. Colorado
made no substantive changes to this
provision.
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14824
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
o. Section XII.G.2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Section XII.G.2 is a renumbered and
revised version of current EPAapproved Section XII.B.2. This
provision specifies the applicability
threshold for installation of control
equipment at gas processing plants and
the efficiency requirement for the
control equipment. The EPA approved
current Section XII.B.2 on August 19,
2005 (70 FR 48652). In current EPAapproved Section XII.B.2, the
requirement to install control
equipment is triggered if condensate
storage tank throughput exceeds ‘‘APEN
de minimis levels,’’ as set in the State’s
Reg. No. 3, Part A, Section II.D. That
regulation in turn specified that in
attainment areas, the APEN requirement
applied to sources with uncontrolled
emissions of any criteria pollutant of
less than two tons per year. For
nonattainment areas, this de minimis
threshold dropped to one ton per year.
When the State submitted and the EPA
approved section XII.B.2, the 8-hour
ozone control area was still in
attainment,49 and therefore the APEN de
minimis level referenced in Section
XII.B.2 was two tons per year.
In 2008, along with renumbering
section XII.B.2 to XII.G.2, Colorado
revised the threshold in this provision
to accurately reflect the original twoton-per-year level.50 The two-ton
threshold in revised Section XII.G.2,
therefore, would capture the same tanks
as were being captured at the time
Section XII.B.2 was approved into the
State’s SIP, and would also provide
clarity as to the SIP requirements by
removing a cross-reference that is
arguably ambiguous. We propose to find
that the revised section XII.G.2 is
approvable because it clarifies the
applicability threshold for determining
which condensate storage tanks are
subject to control requirements.
49 The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment
designation for the DMNFR became effective
November 20, 2007 (72 FR 53952 and 53953,
September 21, 2007).
50 Colorado submitted this to the EPA as a SIP
revision on July 18, 2009, but we disapproved the
proposed revisions to section XII, including XII.G.2,
with our August 11, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR
47443). In our proposal, as to XII.G.2. we stated that
our proposed disapproval rested in part on
uncertainty about the effect of the change from
‘‘APEN de minimis levels’’ to ‘‘greater than or equal
to two tons per year,’’ and in part on a revised
control efficiency requirement that introduced a
twelve-month averaging period. (75 FR 42346,
42358, July 21, 2010). Colorado has since removed
the twelve-month averaging period, and as
described in this notice we have concluded that the
effect of the change to a specific two-ton-per-year
threshold has the effect of clarifying the SIP, not
weakening it. Accordingly, we are proposing to find
that this provision is approvable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
p. Section XII.G.3
Section XII.G.3 specifies the
compliance date for existing natural gas
processing plants. Colorado did not
change the substance of this provision.
q. Section XII.G.4
Revised Section XII.G.4, which
specifies the compliance date for new
gas processing plants, adds a reference
to Section XII.G. Colorado did not
change the substance of this provision.
r. Section XII.H.1
Section XII.H.1. specifies control
requirements in current EPA-approved
Section XII.C. for still vents and vents
from gas-condensate-glycol separators
on glycol natural gas dehydrators at oil
and gas exploration and production
operations, natural gas compressor
stations, drip stations, or gas-processing
plants. Colorado did not change the
substance of this provision.
s. Section XII.H.3
XII.H.3 specifies that control
requirements in Sections XII.H.1 and 2
apply where uncontrolled emissions of
VOCs from glycol gas dehydrators are
equal to or greater than one ton per year
and the sum of actual uncontrolled
emissions of VOCs from any single or
grouping of glycol natural gas
dehydrators at a single source is greater
than 15 tons per year. Revised Section
XII.H clarifies current EPA-approved
Section XII.C’s applicability threshold
for control requirements.
t. Section XII.H.4
Section XII.H.4 adds a requirement for
calculating emissions from still vents
and vents from flash separators or flash
tanks on glycol natural gas dehydrators
to ensure the 90 percent VOC emission
reduction requirements in XII.H.1 are
achieved. This provision strengthens the
SIP.
u. Section XII.H.5
Section XII.H.5. adds monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for
enforcement and compliance of
emission reduction requirements in
XII.H.1. XII.H.5.a requires owners and
operators of natural gas dehydrators to
check on a weekly basis that condensers
and air pollution equipment control
equipment are operating properly, and
to document dates of inspections,
problems observed, and descriptions
and dates of corrective actions taken.
XII.H.5.b requires owners and operators
to check and document on a weekly
basis that pilot lights on combustion
devices are lit, that valves for piping gas
to pilot lights are open, and to check for
smoke. XII.H.5.c requires owners and
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
operators to document any maintenance
of the condenser or air pollution control
equipment consistent with
manufacturer specifications or good
engineering practices, and XII.H.5.d
requires owners or operators to retain
records for a period of 5 years. Although
there are requirements to check for and
document any problems observed while
inspecting condenser or air pollution
control equipment, the State does not
require any corrective action be taken to
fix the problem. The EPA recommends
the State add requirements for
corrective action to be taken. However,
even as is, the provision strengthens the
SIP, and therefore the absence of a
corrective action requirement within it
does not form a basis for disapproval.
v. Section XII.H.6
The reporting requirements included
in section XII.H.6 support additional
enforcement and compliance efforts in
connection with the emission reduction
requirements in XII.H.1. Under
XII.H.6.a, owners or operators submit to
the Division on a semiannual basis a list
of glycol natural gas dehydrators subject
to section XII.H, a list of condensers or
air pollution control equipment used to
control emissions of VOCs, and dates of
inspections when condensers or air
pollution control equipment was found
not to be operating properly. This
provision strengthens the SIP.
w. Section XII.I
Section XII.I is entirely new. It adds
an exemption from the otherwise
applicable requirements of Section XII
for an owner or operator of any natural
gas compressor station or natural gas
drip station, but only if the owner or
operator applies control equipment
designed to achieve a VOC control
efficiency of at least 95% to each
condensate storage tank or tank battery
with uncontrolled VOC emissions
greater than or equal to two tons per
year and meets certain other
requirements. This is more stringent
than the system-wide requirement
because it requires 95% control at each
tank or tank battery over the threshold
rather than a maximum of 90% control
system-wide. Recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in XII.I.4
provide for enforcement and
compliance of emission reduction
requirements in XII.I. This provision
strengthens the SIP.
Based on our analysis of Section XII
changes, we find that revisions are
clerical in nature, do not change the
substance of currently approved SIP
provisions, or are SIP strengthening
provisions. The State has not yet
submitted a RACT analysis for this
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
source category. Colorado has until
October 27, 2018, to submit SIP
revisions to address requirements of the
EPA’s oil and gas CTG published in
2016 (see footnote 37 of this notice). We
therefore we propose approving the
changes in Section XII.
a. Section XVI.A.–XVI.C
(iv) Section XIII
Section XIII regulates VOC emissions
from graphic arts and printing
processes.
b. Section XVI.D
a. Sections XIII.A
Changes to Section XIII.A are clerical
in nature and do not affect the substance
of the requirements.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Section XIII.B
Section XIII.B addresses VOC
emissions from the use of fountain
solutions, cleaning materials, and inks
at lithographic and letterpress printing
operations. XIII.B.1 includes general
provisions of the rule including
definitions, applicability, and work
practice requirements, and VOC content
limits for inks. Section XIII.B.2 outlines
requirements for cleaning materials
used at offset lithographic printing and
letterpress printing operations and
exempted materials and operations.
Section XIII.B.3 contains requirements
for the use of fountain solutions at offset
lithographic printing operations, sheetfed printing operations, and for nonheatset web printing. Section XIII.B.4
sets forth control requirements for
heatset web offset lithographic and
heatset web letterpress printing
operations. Requirements include
reducing VOC emissions from heatset
dryers thorough an emission control
system with a control efficiency of 90%
or greater and 95% or greater for control
devices installed on or after January 1,
2017. Section XIII.B.4.d outlines
exemptions from control requirements
in Section XIII.B.4. Finally, XIII.B.5 51
contains monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for compliance
with VOC emission reduction
requirements in XIII.B.4. We find that
the provisions are consistent with CAA
requirements and CTGs, and that they
strengthen the SIP.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
changes in Section XIII.
(v) Section XVI
Section XVI specifies emission
control requirements for stationary and
portable engines and other combustion
equipment.
51 Section XIII.B.5. contains a numbering error.
The State has committed to correcting the errors in
Section XIII.B.5.a. in a subsequent SIP revision
which are currently numbered ‘‘XIII.E.5.a.,’’
‘‘XIII.E.5.b.,’’ and ‘‘XIII.E.5.c.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
Revisions in Sections XVI.A through
XVI.C make grammatical changes and
update references to section numbers.
Colorado did not change the substance
of this provision.
Section XVI.D. adds a combustion
adjustment requirement for individual
pieces of combustion equipment at
major sources of NOX in Section XVI.D.
The requirements in Section XVI.D
apply to some equipment that is not
subject to work practices under the
NESHAPs that have uncontrolled actual
NOX emissions equal to or greater than
5 tpy. Sections XVI.D.2.a–d include
inspection and adjustment requirements
for boilers, process heaters, duct
burners, stationary combustion turbines,
and stationary internal combustion
engines. Section XVI.D.2.e requires
owners and operators to operate and
maintain equipment subject to Section
XVI.D consistent with manufacturer’s
specifications or good engineering and
maintenance practices. Section
XVI.D.2.f outlines combustion
adjustment frequency requirements and
Section XVI.D.3 includes recordkeeping
requirements for owners and operators
when implementing combustion process
adjustments. Section XVI.D.4 sets forth
alternative options to the requirements
in Sections XVI.D.2.a–e and XVI.D.3.a
including conducting combustion
process adjustments according to
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures and schedules, or
conducting tune-ups or adjustments
according to schedules and procedures
of applicable NSPS or NESHAPs. We
find that the provisions in Section
XVI.D are consistent with Clean Air Act
requirements and CTGs, and that they
strengthen the SIP.
For the reasons previously explained,
we propose to approve the changes in
Section XVI.
(vi) Section XIX
Section XIX establishes RACT
requirements for emission points at
major sources of VOC and NOX in the
DMNFR area. We will be acting on
Colorado’s RACT demonstration for
major sources and revisions to Section
XIX in a future rulemaking.
V. Proposed Action
We propose to approve the SIP
submittal from the State of Colorado for
the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area
submitted on May 31, 2017.
Specifically, we propose to approve the
following:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14825
• Attainment demonstration with
weight of evidence analysis for the 2008
ozone NAAQS;
• Base and future year emissions
inventories;
• RFP Demonstration;
• Demonstration of RACT for VOC
CTG sources (except for the following
CTG source categories as to which we
are not taking any action at this time:
Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007;
Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings,
2008; Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations, 1996; Industrial Cleaning
Solvents, 2006; Aerospace, 1997; and
Oil and Natural Gas Industry, 2016.);
• Demonstration of RACM
implementation;
• Motor vehicle I/M program
revisions in Colorado’s Reg. No. 11;
• NNSR program;
• Contingency measures plan;
• MVEBs; and
• Revisions to Colorado’s Reg. No. 7
(except for revisions to Reg. No. 7,
Section X pertaining to VOC controls of
industrial cleaning solvents and Reg.
No. 7, Section XIX revisions pertaining
to RACT requirements for major sources
as to which we are not taking any
action).
We also propose to approve SIP
revisions to Reg. No. 7 submitted by the
State on May 13, 2013, except for
provisions that have been superseded by
later submissions, as to which we are
not taking any action. We propose these
actions in accordance with section 110
and part D of the CAA.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
Colorado Regulation Number 11
pertaining to regulation of the State’s
motor vehicle emissions inspection
program and Colorado Regulation
Number 7 pertaining to regulation of
sources of VOC and NOX emissions
discussed in section IV., J. Motor
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program (I/M) Program and N. SIP
Control Measures of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the appropriate EPA office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
14826
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this final 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);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
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: March 29, 2018
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018–06847 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
48 CFR Parts 831, 833, 852 and 871
RIN 2900–AQ02APxx
Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition
Regulation—Parts 831 and 833
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend and
update its VA Acquisition Regulation
(VAAR) in phased increments to revise
or remove any policy superseded by
changes in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR), to remove any
procedural guidance internal to VA into
the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM),
and to incorporate any new agency
specific regulations or policies. These
changes seek to streamline and align the
VAAR with the FAR and remove
outdated and duplicative requirements
and reduce burden on contractors. The
VAAM incorporates portions of the
removed VAAR as well as other internal
agency acquisition policy. VA will
rewrite certain parts of the VAAR and
VAAM, and as VAAR parts are
rewritten, we will publish them in the
Federal Register. VA will combine
related topics, as appropriate. In
particular, this rulemaking revises
VAAR parts 831—Contract Cost
Principles and Procedures and 833—
Protests, Disputes, and Appeals, as well
as affected parts 852—Solicitation
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Provisions and Contract Clauses, and
871—Loan Guaranty and Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment
Programs.
Comments must be received on
or before June 5, 2018 to be considered
in the formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through
www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to Director, Regulation Policy
and Management (00REG), Department
of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont
Avenue NW, Room 1063B, Washington,
DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026.
Comments should indicate that they are
submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–
AQ02—Revise and Streamline VA
Acquisition Regulation—Parts 831 and
833).’’ Copies of comments received will
be available for public inspection in the
Office of Regulation Policy and
Management, Room 1063B, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for
an appointment. (This is not a toll-free
number.) In addition, during the
comment period, comments may be
viewed online through the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) at
www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Rafael N. Taylor, Senior Procurement
Analyst, Procurement Policy and
Warrant Management Services, 003A2A,
425 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001,
(202) 382–2787. This is not a toll-free
telephone number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act, which
provides the authority for an agency
head to issue agency acquisition
regulations that implement or
supplement the FAR.
VA is proposing to revise the VAAR
to add new policy or regulatory
requirements and to remove any
redundant guidance and guidance that
is applicable only to VA’s internal
operating processes or procedures.
Codified acquisition regulations may be
amended and revised only through
rulemaking. All amendments, revisions,
and removals have been reviewed and
concurred with by VA’s Integrated
Product Team of agency stakeholders.
The VAAR uses the regulatory
structure and arrangement of the FAR
and headings and subject areas are
consistent with FAR content. The VAAR
is divided into subchapters, parts (each
of which covers a separate aspect of
E:\FR\FM\06APP1.SGM
06APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14807-14826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06847]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0567, FRL-9975-09--Region 8]
Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Colorado;
Attainment Demonstration for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the
Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area, and Approval of
Related Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 31, 2017, the State of Colorado submitted State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 2008
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the
Denver Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR) Moderate nonattainment area by
the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2018. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the majority of the
submittal, which includes an attainment demonstration, base and future
year emission inventories, a reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstration, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analysis,
a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Colorado
Regulation Number 11 (Reg. No. 11), a nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program, a contingency measures plan, 2017 motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for transportation conformity, and revisions
to Colorado Regulation Number 7 (Reg. No. 7). The EPA is also proposing
to approve portions of the reasonably available control technology
(RACT) analysis. Finally, the EPA proposes to approve revisions made to
Colorado's Reg. No. 7 in a May 5, 2013 SIP submission. This action is
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0567, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from 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,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is the Agency taking?
As explained below, the EPA is proposing various actions on
Colorado's proposed revisions to its SIP that it submitted to the EPA
on May 5, 2013, and May 31, 2017. Specifically, we are proposing to
approve Colorado's 2017 attainment demonstration for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In addition, we propose to approve the MVEBs contained in
the State's submittal. We also propose to approve all other aspects of
the submittal, except for certain area source categories and major
source RACT, which we will be acting on at a later date. We propose to
approve the revisions to Colorado's Reg. 11 and 7, except for Section
X.E of Reg. 7, which we will be acting on at a later date. We propose
to approve the revisions to Colorado Reg. 7 Sections I, II, VI, VII,
VIII, and IX from the State's May 5, 2013 submittal.
The specific bases for our proposed actions and our analyses and
findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking. Technical
information that we rely upon in this proposal is contained in the
docket, available at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0567.
II. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (based on
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration,
averaged over 3 years) to provide increased protection of public health
and the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS
retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS
set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Specifically, the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality
ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR
50.15.
Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three
most
[[Page 14808]]
recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data (77 FR 30088, May 21,
2012). With that rulemaking, the DMNFR area was designated
nonattainment and classified as Marginal. Ozone nonattainment areas are
classified based on the severity of their ozone levels. This is
determined using the area's design value. The design value is the 3-
year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration at a monitoring site. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I. The DMNFR nonattainment area includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, and portions of
Larimer and Weld Counties. See 40 CFR 81.306. Areas that were
designated as Marginal nonattainment were required to attain the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014
monitoring data.
On May 4, 2016, the EPA published its determination that the DMNFR,
among other areas, had failed to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
the attainment deadline, and that the DMNFR was accordingly
reclassified to a Moderate ozone nonattainment area (81 FR 26697; see
40 CFR 81.306). Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by no later than 6 years after the effective date of
designation, which for the DMNFR nonattainment area is July 20, 2018.
See 40 CFR 51.903.
III. Analysis of the State's Submission
CAA Section 182, 42 U.S.C. 7511a, outlines SIP requirements
applicable to ozone nonattainment areas in each classification
category. Moderate area classification triggers additional state
requirements established under the provisions of the EPA's ozone
implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR part
51, subpart AA. Examples of these requirements include submission of a
modeling and attainment demonstration, RFP, RACT, and RACM. Moderate
nonattainment areas had a submission deadline of January 1, 2017 for
these SIP revisions (81 FR 26697, 26699, May 4, 2016).
Colorado submitted revisions to its SIP to the EPA on May 31, 2017,
to meet the requirements of a Moderate area classification for the
DMNFR nonattainment area and attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Colorado's proposed SIP revisions consist of the parts listed below.
8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP), which includes
monitoring information, emission inventories, an RFP demonstration, an
attainment demonstration using photochemical grid modeling, a weight of
evidence analysis, a RACT analysis, a RACM analysis, a motor vehicle
emissions I/M program, NNSR program certification, contingency
measures, and 2017 MVEBs for transportation conformity.
Revisions to Reg. No. 7.
Revisions to Reg. No. 11.
The Reg. No. 7 revisions in the 2017 submission include rule
revisions related to the Moderate ozone nonattainment classification
and revisions that address the EPA's concerns with previous SIP
submittals. In this action, we are also acting on Reg. No. 7 revisions
from a May 5, 2013 SIP submission. Reg. No. 11 revisions remove
``state-only'' references in Part A, regarding Larimer and Weld
counties, thereby making the entire motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program federally enforceable.
The provisions we propose to approve meet the requirements of the
CAA and our regulations. The specific bases for our proposed actions
and our analyses and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking. Technical information that we rely on in this proposal is
contained in the docket, available at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0567.
A. Procedural Requirements
The CAA requires that states meet certain procedural requirements
before submitting SIP revisions to the EPA. Specifically, section
110(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2), requires that states adopt
SIP revisions after reasonable notice and public hearing. For the May
5, 2013 submittal, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC)
provided notice in the Colorado Register on September 21, 2012, and
held a public hearing on December 20, 2012. The Colorado AQCC adopted
the SIP revisions on December 20, 2012. The SIP revisions became state-
effective on February 15, 2013. For the May 31, 2017 submission, the
Colorado AQCC provided notice in the Colorado Register on July 29 and
August 29, 2016 and held a public hearing on the SIP revisions on
November 17, 2016. The Colorado AQCC adopted the SIP revisions on
November 17, 2016. The SIP revisions became state-effective on January
14, 2017. Colorado met the CAA's procedural requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing.
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Colorado's Submission
A. Monitoring
Ozone monitoring data are used as a basis for photochemical grid
modeling in the attainment demonstration. The EPA requirements for
ambient monitoring are in 40 CFR part 58. Colorado collected ozone
monitoring data in accordance with these requirements and with the
EPA's ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Vol. II--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program''; \1\ the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division's (APCD) Quality Management
Plan \2\ and Quality Assurance Project Plan; \3\ and Colorado's
monitoring network plan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: ``Volume
II: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program'' (EPA-454/B-13-003, May
2013) (available in the docket). The current version of the Handbook
is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/FinalHandbookDocument1_17.pdf (EPA-454/B-17-001, Jan. 2017).
\2\ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
Quality Management Plan (March 2016), available in the docket.
\3\ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
Quality Assurance Project Plan (July 2015), available in the docket.
\4\ Annual Network Plans available at https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitoring section of Colorado's OAP includes:
Information on the location of ozone monitors in Colorado,
from southern Metropolitan Denver to northern Fort Collins (including
Rocky Mountain National Park);
4th-maximum monitored 8-hour ozone values from 2006
through 2015, including levels recorded above the 75 parts per billion
(ppb) 2008 ozone NAAQS; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OAP Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A description of the State's ambient air quality data
assurance program; and
Relevant 8-hour-average ozone monitoring data and recovery
rates from 2006 through September 2015.
B. Emissions Inventories
1. Background
CAA section 172(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3), requires that each SIP
include a ``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in
[the] area.'' The accounting required by this section provides a ``base
year'' inventory that serves as the starting point for attainment
demonstration air quality modeling, for assessing RFP, and for
determining the need for additional SIP control measures. An attainment
year inventory is a projection of future emissions and is necessary to
show the effectiveness of SIP control measures. Both the base year and
attainment year inventories are necessary for
[[Page 14809]]
photochemical modeling to demonstrate attainment. Section D includes
additional discussion on how these inventories are used in the
attainment modeling.
Colorado's DMNFR area attainment plan includes a 2011 base year
inventory and a 2017 attainment year inventory. The inventories catalog
NOX and VOC emissions, because these pollutants are
precursors to ozone formation, across all source categories during a
typical summer day, when ozone formation is pronounced. Carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions are reported as well, because they also impact ozone
chemistry.
In our 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule, the EPA recommends
using 2011 as the baseline year (80 FR 12264, 12272). In addition,
analysis of meteorological conditions in the DMNFR area leads to the
conclusion that the summer of 2011 was a ``typical'' ozone season from
a meteorological standpoint. The modeling analysis uses a base year of
2011 to develop the modeling inputs for the base year modeling analysis
and model performance evaluation.
2. Evaluation
The 2011 base year emissions inventory and the 2017 attainment year
emissions inventory were developed using EPA-approved guidelines for
stationary, mobile, and area emission sources. Stationary source
emissions data for 2011 were self-reported to the State by individual
sources; the State then used the submitted 2011 information to project
stationary source emissions for 2017. On-road and non-road mobile
source emissions were calculated using the EPA's MOVES2014 model
combined with local activity inputs including vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and average speed data, as well as local fleet, age distribution,
meteorology, and fuels information. Area sources include many
categories of emissions. The EPA finds that these sources (including
those in the oil and gas sector) were adequately accounted for in the
emissions inventory. The methodology used to calculate emissions for
each respective category followed relevant EPA guidance; \6\ \7\ as
applicable, employed approved emission factors and National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) data; and was sufficiently documented in the SIP and in
the State's technical support documents (TSD).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations, EPA-454/B-17-003, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf (hereinafter referred to as
``Emissions Inventory Guidance'') (July 2017).
\7\ MOVES2014 and MOVES2014a Technical Guidance: Using MOVES to
Prepare Emission Inventories for State Implementation Plans and
Transportation Conformity, EPA-420-B-15-093, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NN9L.PDF?Dockey=P100NN9L.PDF
(hereinafter referred to as ``MOVES Guidance'') (Nov. 2015).
\8\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011-2017 Mobile and Area
Sources Emissions Inventory Development, p. 1202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected future emissions in 2017 were based on anticipated
growth, technological advancements, and expected emissions controls
that were to be implemented by the 2017 ozone season. Table 1 shows the
emissions by source category from the 2011 base year and 2017
attainment year emission inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Emissions in Table 1 are reflective of an average summer
day.
Table 1--Emissions Inventory Data for Specific Source
[Tons/avg. episode day] \9\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2017
Description -----------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX CO VOC NOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas Sources:
Point Sources Subtotal.................... 14.8 18.1 17.0 16.3 20.6 19.7
Condensate Tanks Subtotal................. 216 1.1 2.3 78.7 0.6 2.3
Area Sources Subtotal..................... 48.9 22.2 12.9 59.0 44.6 31.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 279.7 41.4 32.2 154 65.8 53.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources (EGU and Non-Oil and Gas):
Electric Generating Units (EGUs).......... 0.7 39.7 3.6 0.4 19.2 2.9
Point (Non-Oil and Gas)................... 25.9 21.0 14.1 28.0 20.9 14.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 26.6 60.7 17.7 28.4 40.1 17.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Area Sources (Non-Oil and Gas):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 60.6 0.0 1.4 67.5 ......... 1.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Road Mobile Sources:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 58.2 75.9 800.2 44.3 54.9 759.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Mobile Sources:
Light-Duty Vehicles....................... 90.0 102.5 812.2 52.4 50.3 538.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles................ 3.7 39.6 20.6 2.6 23.0 16.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 93.7 142.1 832.8 55.0 73.3 554.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic Emissions..... 518.8 320.1 1,684.3 349.2 234.1 1,386.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Biogenic Sources............ 170.5 6.1 21.6 170.5 6.1 21.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14810]]
Total Nonattainment Area Emissions 689.3 326.2 1,705.9 519.7 240.2 1,408.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details of Colorado's emissions inventory development are in
Colorado's supporting TSD.\10\ The inventories in the SIP are based on
the most current and accurate information available to the State and
the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) at the time the SIP was being
developed. Additionally, the inventories comprehensively address all
source categories in the DMNFR nonattainment area, and were developed
consistent with the relevant EPA inventory guidance. For these reasons,
we propose to approve the 2011 baseline emissions inventory as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3). The
EPA also finds that the 2017 inventory, which will be used to meet RFP
and attainment demonstration requirements, was developed consistent
with relevant EPA Emissions Inventory Guidance and MOVES Guidance.
Further discussion on RFP and attainment demonstration is provided in
their respective sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011-2017 Mobile and Area
Sources Emissions Inventory Development, p. 1202.
\10\ Emissions in Table 1 are reflective of an average summer
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
1. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1), and the EPA's
2008 Ozone Implementation Rule require each 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area designated Moderate and above to submit an RFP demonstration for
review and approval into its SIP that describes how the area will
achieve actual VOC and NOX emissions reductions from a
baseline emissions inventory. Section 182(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1),
which is part of the ozone-specific requirements of Subpart 2 of the
CAA's nonattainment plan requirements, requires RFP to demonstrate a
15% reduction in VOC emissions. This requirement applies before the
more general Subpart 1 RFP requirements of CAA Section 172(c)(2), 42
U.S.C. 7502(c)(2), which permits a combination of VOC and
NOX emission reductions to show RFP. Colorado has not
previously submitted a 15% RFP SIP under Section 182(b)(1). Therefore,
on May 31, 2017, the State submitted an RFP demonstration showing VOC
emission reductions greater than 15% within six years after the 2011
base year inventory (between 2012-2017).
RFP plans must also include an MVEB, which provides the allowable
on-road mobile emissions an area can produce while still demonstrating
RFP. The State's RFP submittal included MVEBs for the DMNFR area for
the year 2017 (see Chapter 11 of the State's OAP). The MVEBs are
discussed in detail in Section M of this notice.
2. Evaluation
To demonstrate compliance with RFP requirements, the State compared
its 2011 base year VOC emissions inventory against its projected 2017
VOC emissions inventory and demonstrated that the projected milestone
year inventory (2017) emissions of VOC will be at least 15% below the
2011 base year inventory. Colorado projects a 32.7% reduction in VOC
emissions from 2011-2017 (see OAP, Table 25 on page 4-21). As discussed
above in section IV.B., the EPA reviewed the procedures Colorado used
to develop its projected inventories and found them to be reasonable.
D. Photochemical Grid Modeling
1. Background
Under the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule, Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas are required to demonstrate attainment using
``photochemical modeling or another equivalent analytical method that
is determined to be at least as effective. . . .'' 80 FR at 12268. The
EPA explained that ``photochemical modeling is the most scientifically
rigorous technique to determine NOX and/or VOC emissions
reductions needed to show attainment of the NAAQS.'' Id. at 12269.
Consistent with the 2015 Ozone Implementation Rule, the SIP includes
photochemical grid modeling with supplemental analyses to demonstrate
that the emissions control strategy leads to attainment of the NAAQS by
2017. The modeling effort was led by the RAQC in coordination with the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The RAQC
first developed a modeling protocol \11\ that describes the model
configuration, domain, input data, and analyses to be performed for the
SIP. As described in the protocol, the RAQC selected summer 2011 for
the attainment demonstration base case model simulation using the 2011
base year emissions inventory. The modeling platform used the Weather
Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) \12\ to simulate meteorological
data fields, and the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx) as the photochemical air quality model. The modeling platform
used a high resolution 4-km grid for the State of Colorado, nested
within a western U.S. 12-km grid and a 36-km North America CAMx
simulation developed by the Western Air Quality Study.\13\ Day-specific
boundary conditions for the 36-km CAMx simulation were derived from a
2011 simulation of the MOZART model.\14\ The Sparse Matrix Operating
Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) model \15\ was used to process emissions data,
and the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN)
\16\ was
[[Page 14811]]
used to estimate biogenic emissions of VOC and NOX. The
anthropogenic precursor emissions data were based on the 2011 NEI \17\
with updates in key source categories, including oil and gas
emissions,\18\ mobile and area source emissions,\19\ and point source
emissions.\20\ The EPA reviewed each of the modeling documents listed
above and determined that the modeling is consistent with the
recommendations in the relevant EPA guidance.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ENVIRON International Corporation, User's Guide
Comprehensive Air-quality Model with Extensions Version 6.2,
available at https://www.camx.com/files/camxusersguide_v6-20.pdf
(March 2015).
\12\ Weather Research and Forecasting model web page available
at https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/weather-research-and-forecasting-model.
\13\ Adelman, Z., Shanker, U., Yang, and Morris, R., CAMx
Photochemical Grid Model Draft Model Performance Evaluation
Simulation Year 2011, available at https://vibe.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/Attachments/Modeling/3SAQS_Base11a_MPE_Final_18Jun2015.pdf
(June 2015); Ramboll Environ, Attainment Demonstration Modeling for
the Denver Metro/North Front Range 2017 8-Hour Ozone State
Implementation Plan, Draft Modeling Protocol, Prepared for Regional
Air Quality Council, available at https://raqc.egnyte.com/dl/gFls58KHSM/Model_Protocol_Denver_RAQC_2017SIPv4.pdf (Aug. 2015).
\14\ Emmons, L. K., et al., Description and Evaluation of the
Model for Ozone and Related Chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4),
Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 4367, 2010, 3, pp. 43-67 (Jan. 2010).
\15\ UNC, SMOKE v3.6.5 User's Manual, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute for the Environment, available at
https://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/documentation/3.6.5/html/ (2015).
\16\ Sakulyanontvittaya, T., G. Yarwood and A. Guenther. 2012.
Improved Biogenic Emission Inventories across the West, ENVIRON
International Corporation, available at https://www.wrapair2.org/pdf/WGA_BiogEmisInv_FinalReport_March20_2012.pdf (March 2012).
\17\ 2011 NEI web page available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
\18\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011 and 2017 Oil and Gas
Emissions Inventory Development, p. 1429.
\19\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011 and 2017 Mobile and Area
Sources Emissions Inventory Development, p. 1202.
\20\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 1, 2011 and 2017 Point Source
Emissions Inventory Development, p. 1443.
\21\ Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, EPA,
available at https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf (Dec. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Evaluation
EPA guidance recommends that model performance be evaluated by
comparing model-simulated concentrations to observed concentrations.
Model performance evaluation is used to evaluate the model for
historical ozone episodes in the base year and to assess the model's
reliability in projecting future year ozone concentrations. Using
meteorological and emissions data from a historical base period, ozone
and other species concentrations predicted by the model are compared to
monitored concentrations to evaluate model performance. EPA modeling
guidance emphasizes the use of graphical and diagnostic evaluation
techniques to ensure that the modeling captures the correct chemical
regimes and emission sources causing high ozone. Consistent with the
guidance, Colorado's model performance evaluation included a
comprehensive suite of graphical and diagnostic evaluation techniques,
such as time-series plots of modeled and observed ozone at key
monitoring sites, spatial plots of ozone, tabulations of model bias and
error metrics, and diagnostic model simulations using sensitivity and
source apportionment techniques. The WRF and CAMx configuration and MPE
are described in Ramboll Environ's 2011 base case modeling and model
performance evaluation report,\22\ which used both quantitative (model
performance statistics) and qualitative (graphical displays) MPE
approaches. At the four key monitoring sites in the Denver
nonattainment area, the model achieved typical performance goals for
model bias and error. However, as to the Chatfield monitor, which had
the highest ozone design value, the model was biased low for some days
in May and June and biased high for some days in July and August. While
the model achieved the performance goal, it failed to accurately
simulate some of the days with the highest monitored ozone.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ramboll Environ, Denver Metro/North Front Range 2017 8-Hour
Ozone State Implementation Plan: 2011 Base Case Modeling and Model
Performance Evaluation, available at https://raqc.egnyte.com/dl/pxHfZAhquy/TSD_2011_BaseCaseModeling%26MPE.pdf (Sept. 2017).
\23\ As discussed in EPA guidance, it is normal for an air
quality model to have some under-prediction or over-prediction bias
and error in modeled ozone because of uncertainties and errors in
model input data. The relative response factor (RRF) approach that
is recommended in the guidance and that is used in the State's SIP
attainment demonstration is designed to correct for bias in the
model predictions for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of concerns with model underestimates of ozone on some of
the highest days at the Chatfield monitor and other monitoring sites,
Colorado performed additional weight of evidence (WOE) analysis to
assess model performance and the effect of model performance on the
model attainment demonstration, as discussed in Sections E and F below.
E. Modeled Attainment Demonstration
In the modeled attainment demonstration, emissions inventories are
developed for the attainment year (here, 2017) that reflect emissions
control measures adopted in the SIP as well as other emissions
reductions expected to be achieved through federally enforceable
national programs, such as reduced tailpipe emissions for mobile
sources. The Colorado 2017 emissions inventory is described in the
RAQC's model attainment demonstration report.\24\ The photochemical
model is then used to simulate air quality using the projected 2017
emissions. Because of the concerns with bias and error in the model
performance discussed in the previous section, absolute model results
are not used to evaluate attainment. Instead, the model is used in a
relative sense by calculating the ratio of the model's future (here,
2017) to base case (here, 2011) predictions at ozone monitors in the
nonattainment area. We call these ratios ``Relative Response Factors''
(RRFs). Future ozone concentrations are then estimated at existing
monitoring sites by multiplying the modeled RRF at locations near each
monitor by the observation-based, monitor-specific, baseline design
value. The resulting predicted future concentrations are then compared
with the 2008 8-hour average ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. If the predicted
future concentrations of ozone are lower than 76 ppb at all monitors,
attainment is demonstrated.\25\ The EPA's ``Model Attainment Test
Software'' (MATS, Abt., 2014 \26\) is used to calculate RRFs and to
perform the attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 2, Denver Metro/North Front
Range 2017 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan: 2017 Attainment
Demonstration Modeling, p. 1564.
\25\ In determining compliance with the NAAQS, ozone design
values are truncated to integers. For example, a design value of
75.9 ppb is truncated to 75 ppb. Accordingly, design values at or
above 76.0 ppb are considered nonattainment. See p. 100, footnote 34
of Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze, EPA,
available at https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf (Dec. 2014), and p. 41 of Guidance
on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment
of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
EPA-454/B-07-002, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf (April 2007).
\26\ Abt Associates Inc., Modeled Attainment Test Software--
User's Manual. available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/MATS_2-6-1_manual.pdf (April 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 summarizes Colorado's 2011 base case design values, the
RRFs from the 2017 control measure case modeling, and the projected
2017 future design values. Table 2 shows results for two different
approaches for calculating the model RRF. EPA guidance recommends that
the RRFs be calculated using the maximum modeled ozone in a 3x3 matrix
of grid cells surrounding each monitor. The 3x3 matrix is used because
of the possibility that errors in model inputs or physics can result in
under predictions in the grid cell with the monitor, and because of the
possibility that emissions point sources could be located close to the
edges of grid cells, as discussed in more detail in the modeling
guidance (EPA, 2014, pp. 102-103).
Using the 3x3 RRFs, the maximum projected 8-hour ozone design
values for the 2017 control measure case are 76 ppb at the Chatfield
and the Rocky Flats North monitoring sites. Thus, the primary model
attainment demonstration did not project NAAQS-attaining future design
values (that is, less than 76 ppb) at all monitor sites. When the
primary model attainment demonstration is close to but fails to attain
the NAAQS, EPA guidance recommends that states consider whether it is
appropriate to perform an attainment demonstration using a WOE
demonstration. Colorado performed a
[[Page 14812]]
WOE attainment demonstration as described in Section F below.
Table 2--Current Year Observed 8-Hour Ozone Design Values (DVB), Relative Response Factors (RRF) and Projected 8-Hour Ozone 2017 Future Case Design
Values (DVFs), From Table 3-1 in Ramboll Environ 2016b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3x3 Grid array (4 km) 7x7 Grid array (4 km)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Base year Future Future
Monitor County (2011) year Final year Final
DVB (ppb) RRF (2017) 2017 DVB RRF (2017) 2017 DVF
DVF (ppb) (ppb) ** DVF (ppb) (ppb) **
** **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield.................................. Douglas....................... 80.7 0.9453 76.2 76 0.9391 75.7 75
Rocky Flats North.......................... Jefferson..................... 80.3 0.9493 76.2 76 0.9441 75.8 75
NREL....................................... Jefferson..................... 78.7 0.9591 75.4 75 0.9442 74.3 74
Fort Collins West.......................... Larimer....................... 78.0 0.9179 71.5 71 0.9098 70.9 70
Highland................................... Arapahoe...................... 76.7 0.9517 72.9 72 0.9431 72.3 72
Welby...................................... Adams......................... 76.0 0.9512 72.2 72 0.9712 73.8 73
Welch...................................... Jefferson..................... 75.7 0.9538 72.2 72 0.9428 71.3 71
Rocky Mountain NP.......................... Larimer....................... 75.7 0.9464 71.6 71 0.9385 71.0 71
South Boulder Creek........................ Boulder....................... 74.7 0.9477 70.7 70 0.9445 70.5 70
Greeley/Weld Co. Tower..................... Weld.......................... 74.7 0.9422 70.3 70 0.9226 68.9 68
Aspen Park................................. Jefferson..................... 74.5 0.9389 69.9 69 0.9370 69.8 69
Arvada..................................... Jefferson..................... 74.0 0.9723 71.9 71 0.9495 70.2 70
Aurora East................................ Arapahoe...................... 73.5 0.9373 68.8 68 0.9367 68.8 68
Carriage................................... Denver........................ 71.0 0.9695 68.8 68 0.9595 68.1 68
Rist Canyon................................ Larimer....................... 71.0 0.9248 65.6 65 0.9161 65.0 65
Fort Collins CSU........................... Larimer....................... 68.7 0.9217 63.3 63 0.9096 62.4 62
DMAS NCore................................. Denver........................ 65.0 0.9697 63.0 63 0.9522 61.8 61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Weight of Evidence Analysis
As noted above, the primary model attainment demonstration
predicted future design values of 76 ppb at two monitors (Rocky Flats
North and Chatfield), and thus these two monitors are not projected to
attain the 75 ppb NAAQS by 2017. EPA guidance recommends a WOE analysis
in cases for which future design values are close to the NAAQS, using
the following criteria for a WOE attainment demonstration:
A fully-evaluated, high-quality modeling analysis that
projects future values that are close to the NAAQS;
A description of each of the individual supplemental
analyses, preferably from multiple categories. Analyses that use well-
established analytical procedures and are grounded with sufficient data
should be weighted higher; and
A written description as to why the full set of evidence
leads to a conclusive determination regarding the future attainment
status of the area that differs from the results of the modeled
attainment test alone.
The WOE analysis can include monitoring and emissions inventory
trend analysis; review of the conceptual model for ozone formation in
the nonattainment area; additional modeling metrics; alternative
attainment test methods; and assessment of the efficacy of SIP-approved
regulations, state-only regulations, and voluntary control measures.
Considering this information and applying the criteria described in the
guidance, the WOE analysis is then used to assess whether the planned
emissions reductions will result in attainment of the NAAQS at the
monitors that modeled ozone future design values of 76 ppb or higher.
As part of its WOE analysis, Colorado evaluated the model
attainment demonstration using a 7x7 matrix of grid cells around each
monitor site, because the model performed better in simulating the 2011
period when monitored concentrations were compared to model results in
the 7x7 matrix.\27\ This performance difference may be a result of
challenges in accurately simulating meteorological data in Colorado's
complex terrain combined with the use of a high resolution 4-km grid in
the Colorado modeling platform. It is possible that small errors in
wind speed or wind direction could result in model-simulated plumes
being offset by more than 4 km from a monitoring site. When using a 7x7
matrix of grid cells, the monitored concentration is compared to
modeled concentrations up to 12 km from the monitor site to assess
whether the model more accurately simulated the observed ozone in grid
cells close to the monitor site. Table 2 shows that when the model
attainment test is performed using the 7x7 matrix, all monitor sites
are projected to attain the 75 ppb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 2, Denver Metro/North Front
Range 2008 Ozone Standard Moderate Area State Implementation Plan:
Air Quality Technical Support Document (AQTSD), p. 1608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado also evaluated high ozone days from 2009 to 2013 that were
likely influenced by atypical activities such as wildfire or
stratospheric intrusion, but were included in the calculation of the
2011 baseline ozone design value (see Table 3; CDPHE, 2016d \28\).
While Colorado did not submit formal demonstrations under the
Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) for these days because they do
not affect the attainment status, which is evaluated based on 2015-2017
monitoring data, these days do affect the baseline design value and
thus affect the model projected future design value for 2017. Table 4
shows the revised 2011 baseline design value when the data likely
influenced by atypical activities are excluded, and Table 4 also shows
the results of the model attainment demonstration using both the 3x3
and 7x7 matrices for calculating the model RRF. All future design
values are below
[[Page 14813]]
the 75 ppb NAAQS using both approaches when data possibly influenced by
atypical activities are excluded in the calculation of the 2011 design
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Colorado OAP, TSD Part 2, Analyses in Support of
Exceptional Event Flagging and Exclusion for the Weight of Evidence
Analysis, p. 1662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA concurs with Colorado's assessment that the model was
properly configured, met EPA performance requirements, and was
appropriately used in its application. The EPA finds that the WOE
analysis supports a determination that the area will attain the 75 ppb
ozone NAAQS by 2017.
Table 3--Ozone Monitoring Data Flagged as Exceptional Events and Excluded From the 2011 Baseline Design Value in
the Weight of Evidence Analysis
[Table 1 from CDPHE, 2016d] \29\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-hour ozone concentrations (ppb) Exceptional event type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildfire smoke
Date Rocky Fort Stratospheric influence
Chatfield Flats NREL Collins ozone -----------------------
North West intrusion Regional Local
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 13, 2010............... 79 ......... ......... ......... x .......... ..........
April 14, 2010............... ......... ......... ......... 75 x .......... ..........
June 7, 2011................. 84 ......... ......... ......... x .......... ..........
May 15, 2012................. ......... ......... ......... 76 ............. .......... x
June 17, 2012................ ......... ......... ......... 77 ............. .......... x
June 22, 2012................ ......... 101 83 93 ............. .......... x
July 4, 2012................. 96 92 95 76 ............. x ..........
July 5, 2012................. ......... 88 81 ......... ............. x ..........
August 9, 2012............... 98 84 88 86 ............. x ..........
August 21, 2012.............. 80 80 80 ......... ............. x ..........
August 25, 2012.............. ......... 80 ......... ......... ............. x ..........
August 31, 2012.............. ......... ......... ......... 80 ............. x ..........
August 17, 2013.............. ......... 86 84 87 ............. x ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Base Year (DVB) and 2017 Future Year (DVF) Ozone Design Values (ppb) at Key Ozone Monitors With Flagged Exceptional Event Days Removed From the
2009-2013 DVB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptional events omitted 3x3 Exceptional events omitted 7x7
grid array (4 km) grid array (4 km)
Base year -----------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor County (2011) Final Final
DVB (ppb) RRF 2017 DVF 2017 DVF RRF 2017 DVF 2017 DVF
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield.................................. Douglas....................... 78.7 0.9453 74.4 74 0.9391 73.9 73
Rocky Flats North.......................... Jefferson..................... 78.7 0.9493 74.7 74 0.9441 74.3 74
NREL....................................... Jefferson..................... 77.7 0.9591 74.5 74 0.9442 73.4 73
Fort Collins West.......................... Larimer....................... 76.3 0.9179 70.0 70 0.9098 69.4 69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Unmonitored Area Analysis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ CDPHE did not identify any exceptional events in 2009 in
their weight of evidence analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA guidance recommends that an ``unmonitored area analysis''
(UAA) be performed to examine ozone concentrations in unmonitored
areas. The UAA is intended to be a means for identifying high ozone
concentrations outside of traditionally monitored locations,
particularly in nonattainment areas where modeling or other data
analyses have indicated potential high concentration areas of ozone
outside of the existing monitoring network. This review can help ensure
that a control strategy leads to reductions in ozone at other locations
that could have base case (and future) design values exceeding the
NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. The UAA uses a combination of
model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the
NAAQS but that are not currently monitored. Colorado used the MATS to
perform the UAA and found estimated 2011 ozone DVBs in excess of 76 ppb
to the south, west, and northwest of Denver, stretching to Fort Collins
and then west of Fort Collins. Colorado also found that the projected
DVFs for 2017 showed all areas have values below 76 ppb. The maximum
2017 estimated design value was 75.9 ppb near the Jefferson/Boulder
County border.
H. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis
1. Background
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), requires that
SIPs for nonattainment areas ``provide for the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology).'' The EPA has defined RACT as
the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR
53761, Sep. 17, 1979).
The EPA provides guidance concerning what types of controls could
constitute RACT for a given source category by issuing Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) and Alternative
[[Page 14814]]
Control Techniques (ACT) documents.\30\ States must submit a SIP
revision requiring the implementation of RACT for each source category
in the area for which the EPA has issued a CTG, and for any major
source in the area not covered by a CTG.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques-documents-reducing
(accessed Sep. 21, 2017) for a list of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs.
\31\ See CAA section 182(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2)); see also
Note, RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT):
Questions and Answers, William Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy
Division, EPA (May 2006), available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20060518_harnett_ract_q&a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe area a major stationary source
is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25 tons
per year (tpy) or more, respectively, of VOCs or NOX (see
CAA sections 182(b), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b); 182(c), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c);
182(d), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(d); and 302(j), 42 U.S.C. 7602(j)). For the
DMNFR Moderate nonattainment area, a major stationary source is one
that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of VOCs or
NOX. RACT can be adopted in the form of emission limitations
or ``work practice standards or other operation and maintenance
requirements,'' as appropriate.\32\ The Division identified 51 major
sources in the DMNFR area, operated by 32 companies. The EPA will be
acting on Colorado's major stationary source RACT submission in a
separate action. Colorado did not rely on any emission reductions from
major stationary sources in their 2017 modeling analysis. The remainder
of this section will address Colorado's RACT submission related to CTG
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Memorandum, ``Approval Options for Generic RACT Rules
Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain
NOX RACT Requirements,'' Sally Shaver, Director, Air
Quality Strategies & Standards Division, EPA (Nov. 7, 1996),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/shavermemogenericract_7nov1996.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Evaluation
1. CTG Source Category Sources Addressed in This Action
As part of its May 31, 2017 submittal, the Division conducted a
RACT analysis to demonstrate that the RACT requirements for CTG sources
in the DMNFR 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area have been fulfilled.
The Division conducted its RACT analysis for VOC and NOX by:
(1) Identifying all categories of CTG and major non-CTG sources of VOC
and NOX emissions within the DMNFR nonattainment area; (2)
Listing the state regulation that implements or exceeds RACT
requirements for that CTG or non-CTG category; (3) Detailing the basis
for concluding that these regulations fulfill RACT through comparison
with established RACT requirements described in the CTG guidance
documents and rules developed by other state and local agencies; and
(4) Submitting negative declarations when there are no CTG or major
non-CTG sources within the DMNFR area.
The EPA has reviewed Colorado's new and revised VOC rules for the
source categories covered by the CTGs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
listed in Tables 5 and 6 and proposes to find that these rules are
consistent with the control measures, definitions, recordkeeping, and
test methods in these CTGs and applicable EPA RACT guidance.\33\ Tables
5 and 6 contain a list of CTG source categories, EPA reference
documents, and the corresponding sections of Reg. No. 7 that fulfill
the applicable RACT requirements for EPA-issued CTGs.\34\ Colorado's
Reg. No. 7, Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors and Control of
Hydrocarbons Via Oil and Gas Emissions, contains SIP-approved
provisions (see 76 FR 47443, Aug. 4, 2011) that meet RACT requirements
for the source categories listed in Table 5. Reg. No. 7 also contains
general RACT provisions for the CTG source category listed in Table 6.
To meet RACT requirements for the source category in Table 6, Colorado
submitted several changes to Reg. No. 7 for adoption into its SIP (see
Section N of this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ract-information.
\34\ See The EPA's TSD for a full analysis of Colorado's rules
as they relate to EPA guidelines and available technical
information. We will be acting on the following CTG source
categories in a future action: Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007;
Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, 2008; Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, 1996; Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 2006;
and Aerospace, 1997.
\35\ EPA Control Techniques Guidelines and Alternative Control
Techniques Documents for Reducing Ozone-Causing Emissions, https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques-documents-reducing.
\36\ The EPA published a final CTG on October 27, 2016 to reduce
VOC emissions from the oil and gas industry (see 81 FR 74798 and
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf). The CTG gives states two years from the date
of issuance to submit SIP revisions to address requirements of the
oil and gas CTG. Therefore, Colorado did not submit a RACT analysis
with their May 31, 2017 submission for this source category.
Table 5--SIP Approved Source Specific Rules Meeting RACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG reference Chapter 7 sections
Source category in DMNFR area document \35\ Date of CTG fulfilling RACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk Gasoline Plants.............. Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Sections V, VI, and
Organic Emissions XV.
from Bulk Gasoline
Plants.
Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/ Control of Volatile 1983.......................... Sections V and XII.
Gasoline Processing Plants. Organic Compound
Equipment Leaks from
Natural Gas/Gasoline
Processing Plants.
Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks Control of Volatile 1978.......................... Sections V, VI, and
and Vapor Collection Systems. Organic Compound XV.
Leaks from Gasoline
Tank Trucks and
Vapor Collection
Systems.
Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Control of Volatile 1978.......................... Sections V and VIII.
Equipment. Organic Compound
Leaks from Petroleum
Refinery Equipment.
Manufacture of Synthesized Control of Volatile 1978.......................... Sections V, IX, and
Pharmaceutical Products. Organic Emissions XIV.
from Manufacture of
Synthesized
Pharmaceutical
Products.
Oil and Natural Gas Industry \36\. Control Techniques 2016.......................... Sections V, XII,
Guidelines for the XVII, and XVIII.
Oil and Natural Gas
Industry.
Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings.... Control Techniques 2007.......................... Sections V and IX.
Guidelines for Film
Coatings.
[[Page 14815]]
Petroleum Liquid Storage in Control of Volatile 1978 (ACT 1994)............... Sections V and VI.
External Floating Roof Tanks. Organic Emissions
from Petroleum
Liquid Storage in
External Floating
Roof Tanks.
Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Control of Refinery 1977.......................... Sections V and VIII.
Wastewater Separators, and Vacuum Producing
Process Unit Turnarounds. Systems, Wastewater
Separators, and
Process Unit
Turnarounds.
Solvent Metal Cleaning............ Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Sections V and X.
Organic Emissions
from Solvent Metal
Cleaning.
Stage I Vapor Control Systems-- Design Criteria for 1975.......................... Sections V and VI.
Gasoline Service Stations. Stage I Vapor
Control Systems--
Gasoline Service
Stations.
Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Sections V and VI.
Fixed Roof Tanks. Organic Emissions
from Storage of
Petroleum Liquids in
Fixed-Roof Tanks.
Surface Coating of Cans........... Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Sections V and IX.
Organic Emissions
from Existing
Stationary Sources--
Volume II: Surface
Coating of Cans,
Coils, Paper,
Fabrics,
Automobiles, and
Light-Duty Trucks.
Surface Coating of Coils.......... Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Sections V and IX.
Organic Emissions
from Existing
Stationary Sources--
Volume II: Surface
Coating of Cans,
Coils, Paper,
Fabrics,
Automobiles, and
Light-Duty Trucks.
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Section V and IX.
Organic Emissions
from Solvent Metal
Cleaning.
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Control of Volatile 1978.......................... Sections V and IX.
Metal Parts and Products. Organic Emissions
from Existing
Stationary Sources--
Volume VI: Surface
Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products.
Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Control of 1997.......................... Section V, VI and XV.
Terminals. Hydrocarbons from
Tank Truck Gasoline
Loading Terminals.
Use of Cutback Asphalt............ Control of Volatile 1977.......................... Sections V and XI.
Organic Emissions
from Use of Cutback
Asphalt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--General Rules With Proposed SIP Revisions Meeting RACT for Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 sections
Source category in DMNFR area CTG reference document Date of CTG fulfilling RACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lithographic Printing Materials and Control Techniques 2006 Sections V and XIII.
Letterpress Printing Materials. Guidelines for Offset
Lithographic Printing
and Letterpress Printing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Division also reviewed four ACT VOC source categories to
determine if additional VOC reductions could be achieved (see section
6.2.4 of the OAP):
1. Organic Waste Process Vents (EPA 1990, ACT);
2. Bakery Ovens (EPA 1992, ACT);
3. Industrial Wastewater Alternative Control Technology (EPA 1994,
ACT); and
4. Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Batch
Processes (EPA 1994, ACT).
These four categories were evaluated because they are not addressed
by a CTG, federal consumer product rule, or directly by a New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) or National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutant (NESHAP) and are not included in a State source-specific
RACT provision. Colorado found in its analysis that there are more
recent NSPS and NESHAPs that cover the source categories, and that the
State has incorporated by reference in Reg. No. 6 and implements.
Additionally, Reg. No. 7 establishes work practices and disposal
practices similar to the ACTs. Accordingly, Colorado did not identify
any additional requirements to include in their RACT analysis through
their review of the ACTs.
We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements
for the above source categories (Tables 5 and 6 in Reg. No. 7) and
compared them against the EPA's CTG and ACT documents, available
technical information, and guidelines. The emission limitations and
control requirements in Reg. No. 7 for the above source categories are
consistent with our guidance.
Based on available information, we find that the corresponding
sections in Reg. No. 7 provide for the lowest emission limitation
through application of control techniques that are reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. For more
information, see the EPA TSD prepared in conjunction with this action.
Therefore, we propose to find that the control requirements for the
source categories identified in Tables 5 and 6 are RACT for all
affected sources in the DMNFR area under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
I. Negative Declarations
States are not required to adopt RACT limits for source categories
for which no sources exist in a nonattainment area, and can submit a
negative declaration to that effect. Colorado has reviewed its
[[Page 14816]]
emissions inventory and determined that there are no subject sources
for source categories listed in Table 7 in the DMNFR area. We are also
unaware of any such facilities operating in the DMNFR nonattainment
area, and thus we propose to approve the negative declarations made for
the source categories in Table 7 for the DMNFR area under the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
Table 7--Negative Declarations for CTG VOC Source Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category negative declarations for DMNFR area
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (2008).
Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling.
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (2008).
Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (2006).
Flexible Packaging Printing Materials (2006).
Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin
Manufacturing Equipment.
Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and Flexography.
Large Appliance Coatings (2007).
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene
Resins.
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires.
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (2008).
Oil and Natural Gas Industry (2016).
Plastic Parts Coatings (2008).
SOCMI Air Oxidation Processes.
SOCMI Distillation and Reactor Processes.
Shipbuilding/repair.
Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire.
Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks.
Surface Coating of Fabrics.
Surface Coating of Large Appliances.
Surface Coating of Paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis
1. Background
With the attainment demonstration, Colorado submitted a
demonstration that the DMNFR area has adopted all RACM necessary to
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, as required by
CAA section 172(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), and 40 CFR 51.912(d). The
EPA interprets the CAA RACM provision to require a demonstration that:
(1) The state has adopted all reasonable measures (including RACT) to
meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as
possible; and (2) no additional measures that are reasonably available
will advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area.
States should consider all available measures, including those being
implemented in other areas, but must adopt measures for an area only if
those measures are economically and technologically feasible and will
advance the attainment date or are necessary for RFP.
The EPA provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of
section 172(c)(1) in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I
of the CAA of 1990.\37\ The EPA explained that states should consider
all potentially available measures to determine whether they are
reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they
will advance the attainment date. Id. Potentially available measures
that would not advance the attainment date for an area are not
considered RACM; likewise, states can reject potential RACM if adopting
them would cause substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts.
Id. Local conditions, such as economics or implementation concerns, may
also be considered. To allow the EPA to determine whether the RACM
requirement has been satisfied, states should provide in the SIP
submittals a discussion of whether measures ``within the arena of
potentially reasonable measures'' are in fact reasonably available.\38\
If the measures are reasonably available, they must be adopted as RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992).
\38\ ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for
Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA (Nov. 30, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Evaluation
To demonstrate that the area meets the RACM requirement, Colorado
identified potentially available control measures with input from
stakeholders and analyzed whether the measure would be considered a
RACM measure. In 2011, the RAQC issued a Report to the Governor that
identified and evaluated potential control strategies. Later in 2011,
the RAQC and CDPHE evaluated control measures for all source categories
that could be implemented over the next five years and included them in
a report to the RAQC Board in November 2011. Since 2011, Colorado has
adopted oil and gas regulations, implemented Clean Air--Clean Jobs Act
\39\ controls through the Regional Haze SIP, and continued alternative
fuels, transportation, and land use programs. In May 2015, the RAQC
reconvened discussions with the CDPHE and other partners to review
control strategies for the 2008 ozone SIP as well as future SIPs. Three
subcommittees made up of RAQC Board members were assembled. Areas of
analysis included stationary/areas sources, mobile sources/fuels, and
transpiration/land use/pricing/outreach. Subcommittee meetings were
open to the public, and stakeholders provided input on the topics
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 40-3.2-201 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado determined that all control measures necessary to
demonstrate attainment are currently being implemented. Table 43 of
Colorado's OAP lists control measures included in Colorado's SIP as
they relate to the State's 2017 emissions inventory, photochemical
modeling in the attainment demonstration, and weight of evidence
analysis. As discussed in Chapter 7.3.2 of the OAP, the AQCC adopted
modifications to Reg. No. 11 to incorporate the portions of Larimer and
Weld Counties that are within the DMNFR nonattainment area into
Colorado's I/M program. This change was submitted as a SIP revision and
is being acted on in this action (see section J of this notice).
Additionally, Chapter 7.3.5.1. describes SIP-strengthening revisions
made to Colorado's oil and gas control program in Reg. No. 7 (see
section N of this notice). These revisions include adoption of two
``state-only'' provisions into the Ozone SIP, pertaining to (1) auto-
igniter requirements for combustion devices; and (2) audio, visual, and
olfactory inspection of storage tanks and associated equipment.
As part of the RACM analysis, CDPHE examined emission reduction
measures (see Table 44 of the OAP) being implemented in the DMNFR area
that are not included in the SIP modeling and emissions inventory
because they are voluntary or difficult to quantify. Non-federally-
enforceable emission reduction measures were evaluated for stationary
and mobile sources, lawn and garden, outreach and education, and the
transportation system. Additionally, Colorado evaluated CAA 108(f), 42
U.S.C. 7408(f) transportation measures (see Table 48 of the OAP) to
determine whether sources have applied RACM.
Emission measures that were evaluated but determined not to be RACM
are discussed in Chapter 7.5 of the OAP. Colorado used the following
criteria to determine whether measures were considered RACM:
Necessary to demonstrate attainment;
Technologically or economically feasible;
Implemented successfully in other Moderate areas;
[[Page 14817]]
Could be implemented by January 1, 2017; and
Could qualify as SIP measures by being quantifiable,
enforceable, permanent, and surplus.
Emission reduction measures evaluated for RACM were broken into
area sources, on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources, fuels,
transportation, alternative transportation, and land use categories.
Tables 50 and 51 of the OAP summarizes the measures evaluated and
Colorado's RACM determination for each measure. Colorado also reviewed
the EPA's Menu of Control Measures for NAAQS Implementation \40\ and
voluntary and mandatory control measures in other ozone nonattainment
areas. Table 53 of the OAP lists control measures identified, and
indicates which measures were included in the State's RACM review.
Although Colorado's analysis demonstrated that none of the additional
measures identified met the criteria for RACM, the State plans to
continue evaluating strategies in various areas including fuels, on-
and off-road vehicles, and land use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The Menu of Control Measures gives state, local and tribal
air agencies information on existing emissions reduction measures,
as well as relevant information concerning the efficiency and cost
effectiveness of the measures. Available at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/menu-control-measures-naaqs-implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its analysis, Colorado evaluated all source categories that
could contribute meaningful emission reductions, and identified and
evaluated an extensive list of potential control measures. To determine
reasonableness and availability, the State considered the time needed
to develop and adopt regulations, and the time it would take to see the
benefit from these measures. The EPA has reviewed the RACM analysis and
finds that there are no additional RACM that would advance the Moderate
area attainment date of 2018 for the DMNFR nonattainment area.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve Colorado's Moderate area RACM
SIP for the DMNFR Moderate nonattainment area.
J. Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M) Program
1. Background
As a Moderate ozone nonattainment area, Colorado is required to
implement an I/M program. Colorado's Reg. No. 11 is entitled ``Motor
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program'' and addresses the implementation
of the State's I/M program. Under Reg. No. 11 and state law (5 CCR
1001-13), all eligible automobiles registered in the Automobile
Inspection and Readjustment (AIR) program area (the current nine-county
AIR program area is depicted in Chapter 8, Figure 27, page 8-3 of the
OAP) are subject to periodic emissions inspection. Currently there is
an exemption from emissions inspection requirements for the first seven
model years. Thereafter, an On-Board-Diagnostics (OBD) vehicle computer
inspection is conducted during the first two inspection cycles
(vehicles 8 through 11 model years old). Vehicles older than 11 model
years are given a dynamometer-based IM240 test for 1982 and newer
light-duty gasoline vehicles \41\ and a two-speed idle test (TSI) \42\
for 1981 and older light-duty gasoline vehicles. To improve motorist
convenience and reduce program implementation costs, the State also
administers a remote sensing-based ``Clean Screen'' program component
of the I/M program. Remote sensing is a method for measuring vehicle
emissions, while simultaneously photographing the license plate, when a
vehicle passes through infrared or ultraviolet beams of light. Owners
of vehicles meeting the Clean Screen criteria are notified by the
respective County Clerk that their vehicle has passed the motor vehicle
inspection process and are exempt from their next regularly scheduled
IM240 test.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete description of
EPA's IM240 test. The IM240 test is essentially an enhanced motor
vehicle emissions test to measure mass tailpipe emissions while the
vehicle follows a computer generated driving cycle trace for 240
seconds and while the vehicle is on a dynamometer.
\42\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete description of
EPA's two-speed idle test. The two-speed idle test essentially
measures the mass tailpipe emissions of a stationary vehicle; one
reading is at a normal idle of approximately 700 to 800 engine
revolutions per minute (RPM) and one reading at 2,500 RPM.
\43\ The Clean Screen program component of Reg. No. 11 was
originally approved for implementation in the Denver area with the
EPA's approval of the original Denver carbon monoxide (CO)
redesignation to attainment and the related maintenance plan. See 66
FR 64751 (Dec. 14, 2001). The Clean Screen criteria approved in 2001
required two valid passing remote sensing readings, on different
days or from different sensors and within a twelve-month period.
Colorado revised Reg. No. 11 to expand the definition and
requirements for a ``clean-screened vehicle'' to also include
vehicles identified as low-emitting vehicles in the state-determined
Low Emitting Index (LEI) that have one passing remote sensing
reading, before the vehicle's registration renewal date. These
improvements and other associated revisions to the Clean Screen
program were approved by the EPA on October 21, 2016. 81 FR 72720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Evaluation
The AIR program and Reg. No. 11 were expanded into portions of
Larimer and Weld counties in the Colorado 2009 Legislative session,
with the passage of Senate Bill 09-003. The startup date of the I/M
program in these two counties was November 1, 2010. The purpose of this
expansion of the AIR program and Reg. No. 11 into portions of Larimer
and Weld counties was to further reduce vehicle emissions of
NOX and VOC ozone precursors in the 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The DMNFR was then only classified as a Marginal
ozone nonattainment area, and an I/M program was not required in
Larimer and Weld counties. Therefore, the State decided to make this
portion of the I/M program, for these two counties, a ``State-only''
provision, and not to submit it as a SIP revision.
With the reclassification of the DMNFR nonattainment area to
Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and in light of the
associated CAA requirements, the State chose to submit the I/M program
in Larimer and Weld counties into the federal SIP. Adding these
requirements into the federal SIP required several minor revisions,
which were adopted by the Colorado AQCC on November 17, 2016, and
submitted to the EPA on May 31, 2017. These revisions involved changes
to ``PART A: General Provisions, Area of Applicability, Schedules for
Obtaining Certification of Emissions Control, Definitions, Exemptions,
and Clean Screening/Remote Sensing.'' Specifically, definition number
43 was modified to remove the notation that the ``North Front Range
Area'' was a State-only program and not included in the SIP. In
addition, Part A, section V, ``Expansion of The Enhanced Emissions
Program to the North Front Range Area,'' was modified to remove the
notation that the I/M program was only a State-only program for
portions of Larimer and Weld counties and not part of the SIP. By
making these changes to Part A of Reg. No. 11, and submitting them for
approval by the EPA into the federal SIP, the State made the I/M
program in portions of Larimer and Weld counties federally enforceable.
Incorporating the formerly State-only portions of the I/M program into
the SIP permitted Colorado to include the motor vehicle emissions
reductions received from operation of the AIR program in these areas of
Larimer and Weld counties in the DMNFR attainment demonstration.
Based on our review and as discussed above, we propose approval of
the submitted Reg. No. 11 SIP revisions.
[[Page 14818]]
K. Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
1. Background
As a Moderate ozone nonattainment area, Colorado is required to
implement a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program. Applicable
NNSR requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are described in CAA
section 182, 42 U.S.C. 7511a, and further defined in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart I (Review of New Sources and Modifications). Under these
requirements, new major sources and major modifications at existing
sources must achieve the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and
obtain emission offsets in an amount based on the specific ozone
nonattainment classification. The emission offset ratio required for
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas is 1.15 to 1. CAA section 182(b)(5),
42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(5).
2. Evaluation
The Colorado SIP includes Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V.A.
(Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, Requirements Applicable to Nonattainment
Areas). This provision requires new major sources and major
modifications at existing sources in the DMNFR area to comply with LAER
and obtain emission offsets at the Moderate classification ratio of
1.15 to 1. The EPA approved these provisions on January 25, 2016 (81 FR
3963). In addition, in their OAP, Colorado recertified that the State's
NNSR program is fully up to date with all requirements of the Marginal
designation, including offset ratios of at least 1.1 to 1. Therefore,
since the provisions in the Colorado SIP satisfy the CAA NNSR
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal and
Moderate, we propose approval of this portion of the OAP.
L. Contingency Measures Plan
1. Background
Nonattainment plan provisions must provide for the implementation
of contingency measures. CAA section 172(c)(9), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(9).
These are specific measures to provide additional emission reductions
if a nonattainment area fails to make RFP, or to attain the NAAQS, by
the applicable date. Contingency measures must take effect without
further action by the state or the EPA. While the CAA does not specify
the type of measures or quantity of emissions reductions required, the
EPA has interpreted the CAA for purposes of the Ozone NAAQS to mean
that contingency measures should provide additional emissions
reductions of 3% of the adjusted base year inventory for the
nonattainment area (or the state may implement contingency measures
that achieve a lesser percentage that will make up the identified
shortfall in RFP or attainment). Contingency measures may include
federal measures and local measures already scheduled for
implementation, as long as their emission reductions are in excess of
those needed for attainment or to meet RFP in the nonattainment plan.
The EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude a state from implementing
such measures before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP or
failure to attain. For more information on contingency measures, see
the General Preamble (57 FR at 13510) and the 2008 Ozone Implementation
Rule (80 FR 12264, 12285).
2. Evaluation
To meet the contingency measures requirement, the State identified
specific measures that provide emissions reductions in excess of those
needed for RFP and for attainment as contingency measures. See Chapter
10, Tables 54 and 55 of the OAP. The submitted contingency measures
consist of NOX reductions from two EGUs addressed in the
Colorado Clean Air--Clean Jobs Act and previously adopted as part of
the Colorado Regional Haze SIP. These two projects are: (1) The
retirement of Valmont Unit 5, a 184 megawatt coal fired steam turbine
located in Boulder County, and (2) switching the 352 MW coal fired
steam turbine of Cherokee Unit 4 located in Adams County from coal to
natural gas. The sources completed these projects by the end of 2017
and they will result in an additional 11 tons per day of NOX
reductions, equating to 3.4% of the 2011 base year NOX
emissions inventory. Per EPA guidance for purposes of the Ozone NAAQS,
contingency measures should achieve reductions of 3% of the baseline
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. The State's contingency
measures therefore are consistent with Agency guidance, because they in
fact result in more than 3% reductions over the relevant baseline. The
purpose of the contingency measures is to provide for further emission
reductions to make up the shortfall needed for RFP or for attainment,
during the period in which the State and the EPA determine whether the
nonattainment plan for the area needs further revision to achieve the
NAAQS expeditiously.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See General Preamble, section III.A.3.c (57 FR 13498 at
13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appropriateness of relying on already-implemented reductions to
meet the contingency measures requirement has been addressed in two
federal circuit court decisions. See Louisiana Environmental Action
Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v.
United States EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L.
Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58 (Jan. 8, 2018). The EPA believes that
the language of section 172(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to this
issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret the
statutory language to allow approval of already implemented measures as
contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters such as
providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not relied
upon to make RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for the
NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9), states could rely on control
measures that were already implemented (so called ``early triggered''
contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the Act's contingency
measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in Bahr leaves a split
among the federal circuit courts, with the Fifth Circuit upholding the
Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to allow early triggered
contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit rejecting that
interpretation. The Tenth Circuit, in which Colorado is located, has
not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or any other circuit
court other than the Fifth and Ninth.
Because there is a split in the federal circuits on this issue, the
EPA expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may
elect to rely on the EPA's longstanding interpretation of section
172(c)(9) allowing early triggered measures to be approved as
contingency measures, in appropriate circumstances. The EPA's recently
revised Regional Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions
authorize the Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9)
in Circuits other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that
early triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other
relevant CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such
measure, and intends to consult with states considering such measures
early in the nonattainment plan development process.
[[Page 14819]]
As shown in Table 55 of Colorado's OAP, the NOX
reductions projected through 2018 are sufficient to meet the
requirements for contingency measures, consistent with the EPA's
interpretation of the CAA to allow approval of already implemented
control measures as contingency measures in states outside the Ninth
Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval of the contingency measure
submitted by the state in the OAP.
M. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB)/Transportation Conformity
1. Background
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA,
42 U.S.C. 7506. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B),
42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B)). The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to SIPs, and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they conform. The conformity rule requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the MVEB
in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan. 40 CFR
93.101, 93.118, and 93.124. The MVEBs are defined as the portion
allocated to mobile source emissions out of the total allowable
emissions of a pollutant defined in the SIP for a certain date for the
purpose of demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or for
meeting reasonable further progress milestones.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 40 CFR 93.101; see 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124 for criteria
and other requirements related to MVEBs. Further discussion of MVEBs
is in the preamble to the transportation conformity rule. 58 FR
62188, 62193-62196 (Nov. 24, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Evaluation
Colorado derived the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs from its
2017 DMNFR attainment demonstration, and defined the MVEBs in Chapter
11, section 11.4 of the OAP.
Table 8--2017 NOX and VOC MVEBs for DMNFR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 NOX emissions
Area of applicability (tons per day) 2017 VOC emissions
(tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Subarea................ 12 8
Southern Subarea................ 61 47
---------------------------------------
Total Nonattainment Area.... 73 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These MVEBs are consistent with, and clearly related to, the
emissions inventory and the control measures in the SIP; are consistent
(when considered together with all other emissions sources) with
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017; and satisfy the
minimum criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Therefore, we propose approval
of the MVEBs as reflected in Table 8. This proposed approval applies to
the Northern Subarea and Southern Subarea MVEBs as well as the Total
Nonattainment Area MVEBs. The transportation conformity subareas are
defined in Chapter 11, section 11.3 of the OAP and are listed below.
The Northern Subarea is the area denoted by the ozone
nonattainment area north of the Boulder County northern boundary and
extended through southern Weld County to the Morgan County line. This
area includes the North Front Range MPO's (NFRMPO) regional planning
area as well as part of the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning
Region (TPR) in Larimer and Weld counties.
The Southern Subarea is the area denoted by the ozone
nonattainment area south of the Boulder County northern boundary and
extended through southern Weld County to the Morgan County line. This
area includes the nonattainment portion of the Denver Regional Council
of Governments (DRCOG) regional planning area and the southern Weld
County portion of the Upper Front Range TPR.
Both subareas are further described in the OAP in Figure
29, ``8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Subareas.''
In addition to proposing approval of the MVEBs, we also propose to
approve the process described in Chapter 11, section 11.6 in the OAP
for the use of the Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs or the subarea MVEBs
for the respective MPOs to determine transportation conformity for
their respective RTP. As described in section 11.6 of Colorado's OAP,
the OAP identifies subarea MVEBs for DRCOG and the NFRMPO. These SIP-
identified subarea MVEBs allow either MPO to make independent
conformity determinations for the applicable subarea MVEBs whose
frequency and timing needs for conformity determinations differ. As
noted in section 11.6, DRCOG and the NFRMPO may switch from using the
Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs to using the subarea MVEBs for
determining conformity. To switch to use of the subarea MVEBs (or to
subsequently switch back to use of the Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs)
DRCOG and the NFRMPO must use the process described in the DMNFR OAP in
section 11.6 (see pages 11-5 and 11-6). This process of demonstrating
transportation conformity to the total or subarea area MVEBs, as
described in section 11.6 of the OAP, was previously approved by the
EPA for the Denver Ozone Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR
47443, Aug. 5, 2011). Now, as to the 2008 8-hour standard, the EPA
finds that this process remains consistent with the CAA and with
applicable EPA regulations, and therefore proposes to approve it.
N. SIP Control Measures
1. Background
This section describes revisions to Colorado Reg. No. 7 submitted
as a part of the SIP, including emission control requirements for oil
and gas operations, graphic arts and printing processes, stationary and
portable engines, and other combustion equipment. The revisions also
establish RACT requirements for emission points at major sources of VOC
and NOX in the DMNFR area.
[[Page 14820]]
Reg. No. 7 contains various requirements intended to reduce
emissions of ozone precursors. These are in the form of specific
emission limits applicable to various industries and general RACT
requirements.\46\ The EPA approved the repeal and re-promulgation of
Reg. No. 7 in 1981 (46 FR 16687, March 13, 1981) and has approved
various revisions to parts of Reg. No. 7 over the years. In 2008, the
EPA approved revisions to the control requirements for condensate
storage tanks in Section XII (73 FR 8194, Feb. 13, 2008). The EPA later
approved revisions to Reg. No. 7, Sections I through XI and Section
XIII through XVI (76 FR 47443, Aug. 5, 2011). Most recently, the EPA
approved Reg. No. 7 revisions to control emissions from rich burn
reciprocating internal combustion engines in Section XVII.E.3.a (77 FR
76871, Dec. 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ On October 20, 2016, the EPA issued final CTGs for existing
sources in the oil and natural gas industry (see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf). In accordance with the timing set forth in the CTG,
Colorado has two years from this date (October 20, 2018) to submit
SIP revisions to EPA to update RACT for this source category (see
Memo: Implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology
Requirements for Sources Covered by the 2016 Control Techniques
Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, available within
the docket for this action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado submitted proposed revisions to Reg. No. 7 on May 5, 2013,
and submitted revised Reg. No. 7 revisions with the OAP on May 31,
2017. The 2017 revisions address EPA concerns about the May 5, 2013
submittal regarding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in Sections XII.H.5 and XII.H.6 and other concerns in
Sections XII.C.1.c, XII.C.1.d, XII.C.2.a.(ii)(B), XII.E.3, and XII.H.4.
The May 31, 2017 submittal also includes changes to Reg. No. 7
regarding RACT requirements for lithographic and letterpress printing,
industrial cleaning solvents, and major sources of VOCs or
NOX. Colorado made substantive revisions to certain limited
parts of Reg. No. 7, particularly Sections X, XII, XIII, XVI and new
Section XIX., and also made non-substantive revisions to numerous parts
of the regulation. For ease of review, Colorado submitted the full text
of Reg. No. 7 as a SIP revision (with the exception of provisions
designated ``State Only''). The EPA is only seeking comment on
Colorado's proposed substantive changes to the SIP-approved version of
Reg. No. 7, which are described below. We are not seeking comment on
incorporation into the SIP of the revised portions of the regulation
that were previously approved into the SIP and have not been
substantively modified by the State as part of this submission.
As noted above, Colorado designated various parts of Reg. No. 7
``State Only'' and in Section I.A.1.c indicated that sections
designated State Only are not federally enforceable. The EPA concludes
that provisions designated State Only have not been submitted for EPA
approval, but for informational purposes. Hence, the EPA is not
proposing to act on the portions of Reg. No. 7 designated State Only
and this proposed rule does not discuss them further except as relevant
to discussion of the portions of the regulation that Colorado intended
to be federally enforceable.
2. Evaluation
a. Analysis of Reg. No. 7 Changes in May 5, 2013 Submittal
The EPA proposes to approve the changes made to Section XII.D
(currently SIP-approved Section XII.A.2) with Colorado's May 5, 2013
submission.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ All other sections of Reg. No. 7 addressed in the May 5,
2013 submission have been superseded by the State's May 31, 2017
submission. The EPA is not acting on the superseded earlier
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Section XII.D
Section XII.D contains an introductory statement regarding the
control requirements for atmospheric condensate storage tanks. The
changes to current SIP-approved Section XII.A.2 are minor and do not
change the substance of the corresponding EPA-approved provisions.
a. Section XII.D.2.a
Section XII.D.2.a contains the system-wide control requirements for
condensate storage tanks. Owners and operators of storage tanks that
emit greater than two tons per year of actual uncontrolled VOCs are
subject to the requirements in Section XII.D.2.a. The current SIP
provides for a weekly 75% system-wide VOC reduction during the summer
ozone season beginning May 1, 2007, and 78% beginning May 1, 2012. The
revised section significantly increases the summer ozone season weekly
VOC reduction requirements from the current EPA-approved requirements,
to 85% beginning in 2010 (revised Section XII.D.2.a.(ix)) and 90%
beginning May 1, 2011, and each year thereafter (revised Section
XII.D.2.a.(x)). The revised Section XII.D.2.a provides more stringent
emission reductions than the current SIP and therefore serves to
strengthen the SIP.
b. Analysis by Section of Reg. No. 7 Changes in May 31, 2017 Submittal
(i) Sections I, II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX
The changes in these sections are clerical \48\ in nature and do
not affect the substance of the requirements. Therefore, we propose to
approve the changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ When we describe changes as clerical in this proposed
action, we are referring to changes like section renumbering,
alphabetizing of definitions, minor grammatical and editorial
revisions, and changes in capitalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Section X
Section X. regulates VOC emissions from the use of cleaning
solvents. We will be acting on Section X revisions in a future action.
(iii) Section XII
Section XII contains emission control requirements for VOCs from
oil and gas operations. The State originally reorganized Section XII
and included additional control requirements for condensate tanks in
their June 18, 2009 SIP submittal. The EPA disapproved revisions to
Reg. No. 7, Section XII in our August 5, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR 47443)
because of deficiencies in Colorado's proposed revisions (see 75 FR
42355, July 21, 2010). The State once again submitted proposed
revisions to Section XII with their May 31, 2017 submissions. Table 9
outlines the reorganization/renumbering in Colorado's proposed
revisions to Section XII:
Table 9--Reorganization/Renumbering in Colorado's Proposed Revisions to
Section XII
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding EPA-
Proposed section XII numbering approved section Subject
XII numbering
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII.A......................... XII.A............ Applicability.
XII.A.1....................... XII.A............ Applicability.
XII.A.1.a through d.(ii)...... XII.A.1.a through Applicability.
c.
XII.A.2....................... XII.D.4.......... Exception to
applicability of oil
refineries.
[[Page 14821]]
XII.A.3....................... None............. Applicability for
natural gas-
processing plants
and certain natural
gas compressor
stations. Subject to
Section XII.G. and
XII.I.
XII.A.4....................... None............. Applicability for
certain glycol
natural gas
dehydrators, natural
gas compressor
stations, drip
stations, or gas
processing plants.
Only subject to
XII.B and XII.H.
XII.A.5....................... XII.A.8.......... Exception to
applicability based
on uncontrolled
actual VOC emissions
threshold of 30 tons
per year.
XII.B......................... None............. Definitions specific
to section XII.
XII.B.1, 2, 3, 9, and 14...... XII.D.5, 8, 6, 1, Definitions of
and 9.. various terms.
XII.B.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, None............. Definitions of
and 12. various terms.
XII.C......................... XII.D............ General provisions to
section XII.
XII.C.1....................... None............. General requirements
for air pollution
control equipment,
leaks.
XII.C.1.a..................... XII.D.2.a........ General requirements
for operation/
maintenance of
control equipment.
XII.C.1.b..................... XII.D.2.b........ General requirement
to minimize leakage
of VOCs.
XII.C.1.c..................... XII.A.7 and Air pollution
XII.A.4.h. control--equipment
control efficiency.
Failure to operate
and maintain control
equipment at
indicated locations
is a violation.
XII.C.1.d..................... XII.D.2.c........ Requirements for
combustion devices.
XII.C.1.e..................... None............. State-only
requirements related
to combustion
devices.
XII.C.1.e.(iii)............... None............. Auto-igniter
requirements for
combustion devices.
XII.C.2 and XII.C.2.a......... XII.D.3.......... Emission factors for
emission estimates.
XII.D......................... XII.A.2.......... Emission control
requirements for
condensate tanks.
XII.D.2.a.(i) through (x)..... XII.A.2.a through System-wide control
h. requirements for
condensate storage
tanks.
XII.D.2.b..................... XII.A.9.......... Alternative emission
control equipment.
XII.E......................... XII.A.3.......... Monitoring.
XII.E.1....................... None............. Requirements for
control equipment
other than a
combustion device.
XII.E.2, XII.E.2.a and b...... XII.A.3.a and b.. Checks for combustion
devices.
XII.E.3....................... XII.A.4.j........ Documentation of
inspections.
XII.E.3.a.-e.................. XII.A.3.c.-f..... Requirements for the
weekly check.
XII.F......................... XII.A.4 and Recordkeeping and
XII.A.5. reporting
requirements.
XII.F.1 and 2................. XII.A.10 and 11.. Marking of AIRS
numbers on tanks.
XII.F.3....................... XII.A.4.......... Introductory language
for recordkeeping.
XII.F.3.a(i).................. XII.A.4.a........ List of tanks and
production volumes.
XII.F.3.a(ii) and (iii)....... XII.A.4.b and c.. Listing of emission
factors and location
and control
efficiencies.
XII.F.3.a(iv)................. XII.A.4.d.i...... List weekly and
monthly production
values. Describes
how to determine the
averages.
XII.F.3.a(v)-(vii)............ XII.A.4.d.ii-iv.. List weekly and
monthly uncontrolled
actual and
controlled actual
emissions by tank
and system-wide.
List percent
reductions weekly
and monthly.
XII.F.3.a(viii)............... XII.A.4.e........ Note any downtime and
account for it.
XII.F.3.a(ix)-(x)............. XII.A.4.f-g...... Maintaining and
mailing of
spreadsheet.
XII.F.3.b-d................... XII.A.4.h-j...... Failure to have
control equipment as
indicated on spread
sheet is violation.
Retain spread sheets
for five years.
Maintain records of
inspections.
XII.F.4....................... XII.A.5.......... Reporting for system-
wide requirements.
XII.F.4.a..................... XII.A.5.a........ List tanks and
production volumes.
XII.F.4.b-c................... XII.A.5.b-c...... List emission factor
and location and
control efficiency.
XII.F.4.d..................... XII.A.5.d........ What different
reports must show
based on time of
year. Emissions from
individual tanks
must be included.
XII.F.4.e..................... XII.A.5.e........ What different
reports must show
based on time of
year. Emissions
system-wide.
XII.F.4.f..................... XII.A.5.f........ What different
reports must show
based on time of
year. Percent
reduction system-
wide.
XII.F.4.g..................... XII.A.5.g........ Note shutdown of
control equipment
and account for same
in totals.
XII.F.4.h..................... XII.A.5.h........ State whether
required reductions
were achieved.
XII.F.4.i..................... XII.A.5.i........ Include any
information
requested by the
Division.
XII.F.4.j..................... XII.A.5.j........ Retention period.
XII.F.4.k..................... XII.A.5.k........ Additional reporting,
monthly reporting of
problems and
corrective actions.
XII.F.4.l..................... XII.A.5.l........ Before ozone season,
identify tanks being
controlled to meet
system-wide control
requirements.
XII.F.5....................... XII.A.6.......... Exemption from record-
keeping and
reporting
requirements for
natural gas
compressor stations
and drip stations
authorized to
operate pursuant to
a construction or
operating permit.
XII.G......................... XII.B............ Requirements for gas
processing plants.
Introductory
statement.
XII.G.1....................... XII.B.1.......... Part 60 leak
detection applies.
XII.G.2....................... XII.B.2.......... Applicability of
control equipment.
XII.G.3....................... XII.B.3.......... Compliance date for
existing plants.
XII.G.4....................... XII.B.4.......... Compliance date for
new plants.
[[Page 14822]]
XII.H.1....................... XII.C............ Requirements that
apply to vents from
gas-condensate-
glycol separators or
tanks on glycol
natural gas
dehydrators at an
oil and gas
exploration and
production
operation, natural
gas compressor
station, drip
station or gas-
processing plant.
XII.H.3....................... XII.C............ Control requirements
application.
XII.H.3.b..................... XII.C............ Control requirements
application.
XII.H.4....................... None............. Method for
calculating
emissions from
vents.
XII.H.5....................... None............. Monitoring and
recordkeeping
requirements for
glycol natural gas
dehydrators.
XII.H.6....................... None............. Reporting
requirements for
glycol natural gas
dehydrators.
XII.I......................... ................. Natural gas
compressor and drip
station section XII
requirements
exemptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section XII revises requirements for system-wide reductions in
condensate storage tank VOC emissions. The current EPA-approved Section
XII requires that uncontrolled actual condensate tank VOC emissions in
the DMNFR area be reduced on a weekly basis during the summer ozone
season by 75% system-wide beginning May 1, 2007, and 78% beginning May
1, 2012. Revised Section XII (Section XII.D.2) requires an 81% system-
wide reduction in uncontrolled actual weekly condensate tank VOC
emissions during the summer ozone season beginning May 1, 2009, an 85%
reduction beginning May 1, 2010, and a 90% reduction beginning May 1,
2011. Section XII proposed revisions also include combustion device
auto-igniter requirements, a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program
applicable to natural gas processing plants, and emission reductions
from glycol natural gas dehydrators requirements. Below, we describe in
detail Colorado's proposed revisions to Section XII and the basis for
our proposed approval of such revisions.
a. Section XII.A
Section XII.A defines the applicability of Section XII requirements
and is consistent with the current EPA-approved applicability
provisions in Section XII.
b. Section XII.B
Section XII.B contains definitions specific to Section XII. The
substance of the definitions in Sections XII.B.1, 2, 3, 9, 12, and 14
is unchanged from the definitions contained in SIP approved Sections
XII.D.1 and XII.D.5 through 9. The other definitions in revised Section
XII.B define the following terms that are used in Section XII: Auto-
igniter, calendar week, condensate storage tank, downtime, existing,
modified or modification, and new. The definitions are clear,
straightforward, and accurate.
The definition of existing is only pertinent to State-only
provisions and thus has no meaning for our SIP action.
c. Section XII.C.1
Section XII.C.1 contains general requirements for air pollution
control equipment and prevention of leakage. Section XII.C.1.e includes
a provision requiring all combustion devices installed on or after
January 1, 2017, used to control emissions of VOCs to be equipped with
an operational auto-igniter. This new provision strengthens Colorado's
SIP. The remaining Section XII.C.1 revisions do not change the
substance of the corresponding EPA-approved provisions.
d. Section XII.C.2
Section XII.C.2 describes the emission factors to be used for
estimating emissions and emissions reductions from condensate storage
tanks under Section XII. In the current EPA-approved SIP (Sections
XII.D.3.b and 3.b.i), the emission factors to be used are specified for
condensate storage tanks at natural gas compressor stations, natural
gas drip stations, and gas-condensate-glycol separators. In revised
Sections XII.C.2.a.(ii) and a.(ii)(A), Colorado deleted the reference
to gas-condensate-glycol separators. Revised Section XII.H still
requires a 90 percent reduction in emissions at certain gas-condensate-
glycol separators. Emission calculation and monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements established in XII.H.4, 5, and 6 provide for
enforcement and compliance of emission reduction requirements in
XII.H.1.
At the EPA's request, Colorado deleted the EPA approval requirement
in XII.C.2.a.(ii)(B). The EPA is not involved in formal approval of
site-specific emission factors and the EPA was concerned with previous
SIP-approved language in XII.D.b.3.ii, which allowed for default SIP
approval if the EPA did not object within 30 days to a test method
approved by the Division to determine an emission factor.
e. Section XII.D
Section XII.D contains an introductory statement regarding the
control requirements for atmospheric condensate storage tanks. The
changes to current SIP-approved Section XII.A.2 are minor and do not
change the substance of the corresponding EPA-approved provisions.
f. Section XII.D.2.a
Section XII.D.2.a. contains the system-wide control requirements
for condensate storage tanks and adds an introductory statement
clarifying requirements for installing air pollution control equipment
on condensate storage tanks to achieve reductions outlined in Sections
XII.D.2.a.(i) through (x). The current SIP provides for a weekly 75%
system-wide VOC reduction during the summer ozone season beginning May
1, 2007, and 78% beginning May 1, 2012. The revised section
significantly increases the summer ozone season weekly VOC reduction
requirements from the current EPA-approved requirements, to 85%
beginning in 2010 (revised Section XII.D.2.a.(ix)) and 90% beginning
May 1, 2011, and each year thereafter (revised Section XII.D.2.a.(x)).
The revised Section XII.D.2.a. provides more stringent emission
reductions than the current SIP and therefore strengthens the SIP.
g. Section XII.D.2.b
Section XII.D.2.b is a renumbered version of current EPA-approved
Section XII.A.9. This section contains a process for approval of
alternative emissions control equipment and pollution prevention
devices and processes. Among other things, the section specifies
requirements for public participation and EPA approval. Colorado did
not change the substance
[[Page 14823]]
of this provision, but simply renumbered it from Section XII.A.9 to
XII.D.2.b.
h. Section XII.E
Section XII.E contains the monitoring requirements that are
currently specified in EPA-approved Sections XII.A.3 and XII.A.4.j.
Colorado retained the basic requirement for weekly inspections or
monitoring. Colorado improved certain provisions. For example, under
revised Section XII.E, an owner or operator must ensure not only that
the control equipment is operating, but that it is operating properly.
Revised Section XII.E.1 adds a requirement that owners or operators of
control equipment other than a combustion device follow manufacturer's
recommended maintenance and inspect the equipment to ensure proper
maintenance and operation. Revised Section XII.E.3 (current XII.A.4.j)
adds a requirement that the owner or operator document any corrective
actions taken and the name of the individual performing the corrective
actions resulting from a weekly inspection. Revised Sections XII.E.3.a
through d. add the requirement that the owner or operator not only
perform certain checks, but that the owner or operator document those
checks. Revised Section XII.E.3.e adds a new requirement for owners or
operators to conduct and document audio, visual, and olfactory
inspections during liquids unloading events for tanks with uncontrolled
actual emissions of VOCs equal to or greater than six tons per year.
These provisions strengthen the SIP.
i. Section XII.F
Section XII.F contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that are currently in EPA-approved Sections XII.A.4 and XII.A.5. The
recordkeeping requirements specify information that must be listed on a
spreadsheet that owners/operators must maintain. Many of the provisions
are identical to those in the current EPA approved SIP.
In Sections XII.F.1 through 4, Colorado made a few substantive
changes to the existing provisions. In revised Section XII.F.3,
Colorado added a sentence requiring the owner or operator to track VOC
reductions on a calendar weekly and calendar monthly basis to
demonstrate compliance with system-wide VOC reduction requirements.
Colorado also specified that owners/operators would need to use the
Division-approved spreadsheet to track VOC emissions and reductions.
These changes are reasonable and consistent with CAA requirements.
j. Section XII.F.3
In revised Section XII.F.3.a(i), which requires the spreadsheet to
list the condensate storage tanks subject to Section XII and the
production volumes for each tank, Colorado specified that the
spreadsheet must list monthly production volumes. Revised Section
XII.F.3.a(iv) also requires the owner/operator to list the production
volume for each tank as a weekly and monthly average based on the most
recent measurement available and specifies the method for pro-rating
that measurement over the weekly or monthly period.
Revised Section XII.F.3.c requires owners/operators to retain a
copy of each weekly and monthly spreadsheet for five years instead of
the three years required by current EPA-approved Section XII.A.4.i.
Revised Section XII.F.3.d requires owners/operators to maintain records
of inspections required by Sections XII.C. and XII.E. for five years.
k. Section XII.F.4
In revised Section XII.F.4, Colorado made minor changes to current
EPA-approved reporting requirements. Revised Section XII.F.4.a requires
the semiannual reports to list all condensate storage tanks subject to
or used to comply with the system-wide reduction requirements, not just
the tanks that are subject to such requirements. This reflects the
change to the regulation that allows owners/operators to control tanks
with emissions below the Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) filing
levels to meet the percent reduction requirement in Section XII.D.2. In
revised Sections XII.F.4.d through f. Colorado clarified that the April
30 reports must include the monthly emissions information and the
November 30 reports must include the weekly emissions information. In
revised Section XII.F.4.g, Colorado deleted the requirement in current
EPA-approved Section XII.A.5.g that the owner/operator note in the
report list ``the date the source believes the shutdown [of control
equipment] occurred, including the basis for such belief.'' This
deletion is reasonable because the owner/operator is not likely to be
able to make an accurate estimate of the date the shutdown occurred,
and, thus, the information is not likely to be meaningful in an
enforcement context.
In revised Section XII.F.4.h, Colorado clarified monthly versus
weekly reporting requirements. In revised Section XII.F.4.j, Colorado
increased the retention period for reports from 3 years to 5 years.
These changes are consistent with CAA requirements.
l. Section XII.F.5
Section XII.F.5 contains an exemption from Section XII's record-
keeping and reporting requirements for owners/operators of natural gas
compressor stations (NGCSs) or natural gas drip stations (NGDSs)
authorized to operate pursuant to a construction permit or Title V
operating permit if certain conditions are met. In our August 5, 2011
(76 FR 47443) proposed rulemaking, we expressed our concern with
Colorado's removal of one of the conditions for this exemption
contained in current EPA-approved Section XII.A.6. Colorado's current
submission reinstates this exemption. Colorado therefore did not change
the substance of this provision, but simply renumbered it from Section
XII.A.6 to section XII.F.5, made minor typographical corrections, and
updated section references.
m. Section XII.G
Section XII.G specifies the control requirements applicable to gas
processing plants and corresponds to current EPA-approved Section
XII.B. The EPA-approved Section XII.B requires gas processing plants to
meet the requirements in Section XII.B specifically applicable to such
plants as well as the requirements in current EPA-approved Section
XII.C, pertaining to certain still vents and vents from gas condensate-
glycol separators, and Section XVI, pertaining to emissions from
stationary and portable engines. Revised Section XII.G requires gas
processing plants to additionally comply with the requirements of
revised Section XII.B, the definitions section, revised Sections
XII.C.1.a and XII.C.1.b, which specify maintenance and design
requirements for control equipment and the obligation to minimize
leakage of VOCs to the atmosphere, and revised Section XII.H, which
specifies control requirements for still vents and vents flash
separators or flash tanks on glycol natural gas dehydrators located at
oil and gas exploration and production operations, natural gas
compressor stations, drip stations, or gas-processing plants. It
appears that this change would strengthen the requirements applicable
to gas-processing plants.
n. Section XII.G.1
Section XII.G.1 specifies that NSPS leak detection and repair
requirements apply regardless of the date of construction of the
facility, and adds a reference to LDAR requirements in NSPS OOOO and
OOOOa. Colorado made no substantive changes to this provision.
[[Page 14824]]
o. Section XII.G.2
Section XII.G.2 is a renumbered and revised version of current EPA-
approved Section XII.B.2. This provision specifies the applicability
threshold for installation of control equipment at gas processing
plants and the efficiency requirement for the control equipment. The
EPA approved current Section XII.B.2 on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48652).
In current EPA-approved Section XII.B.2, the requirement to install
control equipment is triggered if condensate storage tank throughput
exceeds ``APEN de minimis levels,'' as set in the State's Reg. No. 3,
Part A, Section II.D. That regulation in turn specified that in
attainment areas, the APEN requirement applied to sources with
uncontrolled emissions of any criteria pollutant of less than two tons
per year. For nonattainment areas, this de minimis threshold dropped to
one ton per year. When the State submitted and the EPA approved section
XII.B.2, the 8-hour ozone control area was still in attainment,\49\ and
therefore the APEN de minimis level referenced in Section XII.B.2 was
two tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment designation for
the DMNFR became effective November 20, 2007 (72 FR 53952 and 53953,
September 21, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, along with renumbering section XII.B.2 to XII.G.2,
Colorado revised the threshold in this provision to accurately reflect
the original two-ton-per-year level.\50\ The two-ton threshold in
revised Section XII.G.2, therefore, would capture the same tanks as
were being captured at the time Section XII.B.2 was approved into the
State's SIP, and would also provide clarity as to the SIP requirements
by removing a cross-reference that is arguably ambiguous. We propose to
find that the revised section XII.G.2 is approvable because it
clarifies the applicability threshold for determining which condensate
storage tanks are subject to control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Colorado submitted this to the EPA as a SIP revision on
July 18, 2009, but we disapproved the proposed revisions to section
XII, including XII.G.2, with our August 11, 2011 rulemaking (76 FR
47443). In our proposal, as to XII.G.2. we stated that our proposed
disapproval rested in part on uncertainty about the effect of the
change from ``APEN de minimis levels'' to ``greater than or equal to
two tons per year,'' and in part on a revised control efficiency
requirement that introduced a twelve-month averaging period. (75 FR
42346, 42358, July 21, 2010). Colorado has since removed the twelve-
month averaging period, and as described in this notice we have
concluded that the effect of the change to a specific two-ton-per-
year threshold has the effect of clarifying the SIP, not weakening
it. Accordingly, we are proposing to find that this provision is
approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
p. Section XII.G.3
Section XII.G.3 specifies the compliance date for existing natural
gas processing plants. Colorado did not change the substance of this
provision.
q. Section XII.G.4
Revised Section XII.G.4, which specifies the compliance date for
new gas processing plants, adds a reference to Section XII.G. Colorado
did not change the substance of this provision.
r. Section XII.H.1
Section XII.H.1. specifies control requirements in current EPA-
approved Section XII.C. for still vents and vents from gas-condensate-
glycol separators on glycol natural gas dehydrators at oil and gas
exploration and production operations, natural gas compressor stations,
drip stations, or gas-processing plants. Colorado did not change the
substance of this provision.
s. Section XII.H.3
XII.H.3 specifies that control requirements in Sections XII.H.1 and
2 apply where uncontrolled emissions of VOCs from glycol gas
dehydrators are equal to or greater than one ton per year and the sum
of actual uncontrolled emissions of VOCs from any single or grouping of
glycol natural gas dehydrators at a single source is greater than 15
tons per year. Revised Section XII.H clarifies current EPA-approved
Section XII.C's applicability threshold for control requirements.
t. Section XII.H.4
Section XII.H.4 adds a requirement for calculating emissions from
still vents and vents from flash separators or flash tanks on glycol
natural gas dehydrators to ensure the 90 percent VOC emission reduction
requirements in XII.H.1 are achieved. This provision strengthens the
SIP.
u. Section XII.H.5
Section XII.H.5. adds monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for
enforcement and compliance of emission reduction requirements in
XII.H.1. XII.H.5.a requires owners and operators of natural gas
dehydrators to check on a weekly basis that condensers and air
pollution equipment control equipment are operating properly, and to
document dates of inspections, problems observed, and descriptions and
dates of corrective actions taken. XII.H.5.b requires owners and
operators to check and document on a weekly basis that pilot lights on
combustion devices are lit, that valves for piping gas to pilot lights
are open, and to check for smoke. XII.H.5.c requires owners and
operators to document any maintenance of the condenser or air pollution
control equipment consistent with manufacturer specifications or good
engineering practices, and XII.H.5.d requires owners or operators to
retain records for a period of 5 years. Although there are requirements
to check for and document any problems observed while inspecting
condenser or air pollution control equipment, the State does not
require any corrective action be taken to fix the problem. The EPA
recommends the State add requirements for corrective action to be
taken. However, even as is, the provision strengthens the SIP, and
therefore the absence of a corrective action requirement within it does
not form a basis for disapproval.
v. Section XII.H.6
The reporting requirements included in section XII.H.6 support
additional enforcement and compliance efforts in connection with the
emission reduction requirements in XII.H.1. Under XII.H.6.a, owners or
operators submit to the Division on a semiannual basis a list of glycol
natural gas dehydrators subject to section XII.H, a list of condensers
or air pollution control equipment used to control emissions of VOCs,
and dates of inspections when condensers or air pollution control
equipment was found not to be operating properly. This provision
strengthens the SIP.
w. Section XII.I
Section XII.I is entirely new. It adds an exemption from the
otherwise applicable requirements of Section XII for an owner or
operator of any natural gas compressor station or natural gas drip
station, but only if the owner or operator applies control equipment
designed to achieve a VOC control efficiency of at least 95% to each
condensate storage tank or tank battery with uncontrolled VOC emissions
greater than or equal to two tons per year and meets certain other
requirements. This is more stringent than the system-wide requirement
because it requires 95% control at each tank or tank battery over the
threshold rather than a maximum of 90% control system-wide.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements in XII.I.4 provide for
enforcement and compliance of emission reduction requirements in XII.I.
This provision strengthens the SIP.
Based on our analysis of Section XII changes, we find that
revisions are clerical in nature, do not change the substance of
currently approved SIP provisions, or are SIP strengthening provisions.
The State has not yet submitted a RACT analysis for this
[[Page 14825]]
source category. Colorado has until October 27, 2018, to submit SIP
revisions to address requirements of the EPA's oil and gas CTG
published in 2016 (see footnote 37 of this notice). We therefore we
propose approving the changes in Section XII.
(iv) Section XIII
Section XIII regulates VOC emissions from graphic arts and printing
processes.
a. Sections XIII.A
Changes to Section XIII.A are clerical in nature and do not affect
the substance of the requirements.
b. Section XIII.B
Section XIII.B addresses VOC emissions from the use of fountain
solutions, cleaning materials, and inks at lithographic and letterpress
printing operations. XIII.B.1 includes general provisions of the rule
including definitions, applicability, and work practice requirements,
and VOC content limits for inks. Section XIII.B.2 outlines requirements
for cleaning materials used at offset lithographic printing and
letterpress printing operations and exempted materials and operations.
Section XIII.B.3 contains requirements for the use of fountain
solutions at offset lithographic printing operations, sheet-fed
printing operations, and for non-heatset web printing. Section XIII.B.4
sets forth control requirements for heatset web offset lithographic and
heatset web letterpress printing operations. Requirements include
reducing VOC emissions from heatset dryers thorough an emission control
system with a control efficiency of 90% or greater and 95% or greater
for control devices installed on or after January 1, 2017. Section
XIII.B.4.d outlines exemptions from control requirements in Section
XIII.B.4. Finally, XIII.B.5 \51\ contains monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for compliance with VOC emission reduction
requirements in XIII.B.4. We find that the provisions are consistent
with CAA requirements and CTGs, and that they strengthen the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Section XIII.B.5. contains a numbering error. The State has
committed to correcting the errors in Section XIII.B.5.a. in a
subsequent SIP revision which are currently numbered
``XIII.E.5.a.,'' ``XIII.E.5.b.,'' and ``XIII.E.5.c.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we propose to approve the changes in Section XIII.
(v) Section XVI
Section XVI specifies emission control requirements for stationary
and portable engines and other combustion equipment.
a. Section XVI.A.-XVI.C
Revisions in Sections XVI.A through XVI.C make grammatical changes
and update references to section numbers. Colorado did not change the
substance of this provision.
b. Section XVI.D
Section XVI.D. adds a combustion adjustment requirement for
individual pieces of combustion equipment at major sources of
NOX in Section XVI.D. The requirements in Section XVI.D
apply to some equipment that is not subject to work practices under the
NESHAPs that have uncontrolled actual NOX emissions equal to
or greater than 5 tpy. Sections XVI.D.2.a-d include inspection and
adjustment requirements for boilers, process heaters, duct burners,
stationary combustion turbines, and stationary internal combustion
engines. Section XVI.D.2.e requires owners and operators to operate and
maintain equipment subject to Section XVI.D consistent with
manufacturer's specifications or good engineering and maintenance
practices. Section XVI.D.2.f outlines combustion adjustment frequency
requirements and Section XVI.D.3 includes recordkeeping requirements
for owners and operators when implementing combustion process
adjustments. Section XVI.D.4 sets forth alternative options to the
requirements in Sections XVI.D.2.a-e and XVI.D.3.a including conducting
combustion process adjustments according to manufacturer's recommended
procedures and schedules, or conducting tune-ups or adjustments
according to schedules and procedures of applicable NSPS or NESHAPs. We
find that the provisions in Section XVI.D are consistent with Clean Air
Act requirements and CTGs, and that they strengthen the SIP.
For the reasons previously explained, we propose to approve the
changes in Section XVI.
(vi) Section XIX
Section XIX establishes RACT requirements for emission points at
major sources of VOC and NOX in the DMNFR area. We will be
acting on Colorado's RACT demonstration for major sources and revisions
to Section XIX in a future rulemaking.
V. Proposed Action
We propose to approve the SIP submittal from the State of Colorado
for the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area submitted on May 31, 2017.
Specifically, we propose to approve the following:
Attainment demonstration with weight of evidence analysis
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
Base and future year emissions inventories;
RFP Demonstration;
Demonstration of RACT for VOC CTG sources (except for the
following CTG source categories as to which we are not taking any
action at this time: Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007; Miscellaneous
Metal Products Coatings, 2008; Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations,
1996; Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 2006; Aerospace, 1997; and Oil and
Natural Gas Industry, 2016.);
Demonstration of RACM implementation;
Motor vehicle I/M program revisions in Colorado's Reg. No.
11;
NNSR program;
Contingency measures plan;
MVEBs; and
Revisions to Colorado's Reg. No. 7 (except for revisions
to Reg. No. 7, Section X pertaining to VOC controls of industrial
cleaning solvents and Reg. No. 7, Section XIX revisions pertaining to
RACT requirements for major sources as to which we are not taking any
action).
We also propose to approve SIP revisions to Reg. No. 7 submitted by
the State on May 13, 2013, except for provisions that have been
superseded by later submissions, as to which we are not taking any
action. We propose these actions in accordance with section 110 and
part D of the CAA.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Colorado Regulation Number 11 pertaining to regulation of the
State's motor vehicle emissions inspection program and Colorado
Regulation Number 7 pertaining to regulation of sources of VOC and
NOX emissions discussed in section IV., J. Motor Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M) Program and N. SIP Control
Measures of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).
[[Page 14826]]
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this final 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);
is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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: March 29, 2018
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-06847 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P