Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 34083-34090 [2019-15110]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
II. Proposal Two
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Background. In Docket No. RM2018–
8, the Commission approved the Postal
Service’s methodology to distribute
dispatch format revenue it receives from
inbound LC/AO mail based whether the
mailpiece was a letter, flat, or small
packet/bulky letter.2 However, the
Commission noted that it was possible
to refine the Postal Service’s
methodology to distribute inbound LC/
AO revenue and that ‘‘distributing
dispatch format revenue to item formats
based on the revenue per piece and
revenue per pound for those mail flows
where terminal dues are calculated on a
per-item and per-kilogram basis [is]
worthy of further evaluation.’’ Order No.
4827 at 18. Although the Postal Service
incorporated such a revenue
distribution methodology in its Fiscal
Year (FY) 2018 Annual Compliance
Report (ACR), the Postal Service asserts
that there was ‘‘no prior opportunity
. . . to seek Commission review of the
new procedure incorporated into the
ACR.’’ Petition, Proposal Two at 2. In
the FY 2018 Annual Compliance
Determination, the Commission
accepted the Postal Service’s revenue
distribution for inbound LC/AO mail for
purposes of the compliance review, but
directed the Postal Service to ‘‘file a
petition for the initiation of a
proceeding to consider this proposed
change in analytical principles[.]’’ 3
Proposal. The Postal Service’s
proposal seeks to revise the revenue
distribution methodology for inbound
LC/AO mailpieces. Currently, the Postal
Service distributes inbound LC/AO
revenue based on weight proportions by
shape in the dispatch data. Petition,
Proposal Two at 3. Proposal Two would
distribute dispatch format revenue to
item formats based upon the revenue
per piece and the revenue per pound for
those items where remuneration is
based on a per-item and per-kilogram
basis. Id. at 2–3.
Rationale and impact. The Postal
Service states that Proposal Two will
apply more detailed piece and weight
2 See generally Docket No. RM2018–8, Order On
Analytical Principles Used in Periodic Reporting
(Proposal Five), September 21, 2018 (Order No.
4827). ‘‘LC/AO’’ is an abbreviation for ‘‘lettres et
cartes’’ and ‘‘autres objets,’’ and is French for
‘‘letters and cards’’ and ‘‘other objects.’’ LC/AO
refers to international letters, cards, flats, bulky
letters, and small packets, whether under the
Universal Postal Union (UPU) terminal dues system
or bilateral or multilateral agreements. Inbound LC/
AO contrasts with Inbound Letter Post, which refers
to the Postal Service product consisting of letters,
cards, flats, bulky letters, and small packets
received under the terminal dues system. See Mail
Classification Schedule (MCS), section 1130.
3 Docket No. ACR2018, Annual Compliance
Determination Report, April 12, 2019, at 81.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
data to distribute inbound LC/AO
revenue. Id. at 3. The Postal Service
notes that Proposal Two requests review
of the methodology it used to distribute
inbound LC/AO revenue in its FY 2018
ACR, which was described in its
response to Chairman’s Information
Request No. 1. Id. at 2–3.
The impact of Proposal Two is that
revenue for inbound small packets and
bulky letters decreases as revenue for
inbound letters and flats increases. Id. at
3. The Postal Service states that this
result is expected as the previous
revenue distribution method, based
solely on weight, would allocate more
revenue towards the heavier weighted
small packets and bulky letters. Id.
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2019–7 for consideration of
matters raised by the Petition. More
information on the Petition may be
accessed via the Commission’s website
at https://www.prc.gov. Interested
persons may submit comments on the
Petition and Proposal Two no later than
August 12, 2019. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
505, Katalin K. Clendenin is designated
as an officer of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public in this
proceeding.
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2019–7 for consideration of the
matters raised by the Petition of the
United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
Proposed Changes in Analytical
Principles (Proposal Two), filed July 9,
2019.
2. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
August 12, 2019.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission appoints Katalin K.
Clendenin to serve as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019–15128 Filed 7–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34083
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0177; FRL–9996–60–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Colorado;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
Colorado’s regional haze progress
report, submitted as a revision to its
State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE). Colorado’s
SIP revision addresses requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA’s
rules that require states to submit
periodic reports describing progress
toward Reasonable Progress Goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and
a determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing plan addressing regional
haze. Colorado’s progress report
explains that Colorado has implemented
the measures in the regional haze plan
due to be in place by the date of the
progress report and that visibility in
mandatory federal Class I areas affected
by emissions from Colorado sources is
improving. The EPA is proposing
approval of Colorado’s determination
that the State’s regional haze plan is
adequate to meet RPGs for the first
implementation period, which extended
through 2018 and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 16, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2019–0177, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
34084
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. The EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Gregory, Air and Radiation Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD–QP, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6175, or by
email at gregory.kate@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Background
States are required to submit progress
reports that evaluate progress towards
the RPGs for each mandatory federal
Class I area 1 (Class I area) within the
state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions
from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g).
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g)
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze plan. The first progress report must
take the form of a SIP revision and is
due 5 years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. Colorado submitted
the initial regional haze SIP on May 25,
2011 and EPA approved the SIP on
December 31, 2012.2
Twelve Class I areas are located in
Colorado: Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park, Eagles Nest
Wilderness Area, Flat Tops Wilderness
Area, Great Sand Dunes National Park,
La Garita Wilderness Area, Maroon
Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area, Mesa
Verde National Park, Mount Zirkle
Wilderness Area, Rawah Wilderness
Area, Rocky Mountain National Park,
Weminuche Wilderness Area and West
Elk Wilderness Area.3 Monitoring and
data representing visibility conditions
in Colorado’s twelve Class I areas is
based on the six Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) monitoring sites located
across the state.4
On May 2, 2016, Colorado submitted
a progress report, which detailed the
progress made in the first planning
period toward implementation of the
Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in
the 2012 regional haze SIP, the visibility
improvement measured at Class I areas
affected by emissions from Colorado
sources, and a determination of the
adequacy of the State’s existing regional
haze plan. The State provided a public
hearing for comment on the Progress
Report on November 19, 2015 and
provided Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) an opportunity to comment on
the progress report.5 The EPA is
proposing to approve Colorado’s May 2,
2016 SIP submittal.
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Colorado’s
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Colorado’s progress report and the
EPA’s analysis of the report, as well as
an evaluation of the determination of
adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h)
and the requirement for state and
Federal Land Manager coordination in
40 CFR 51.308(i).
1. Status of Implementation of Control
Measures
In its Progress Report, Colorado
summarizes the emissions reduction
measures that were relied upon by
Colorado in the regional haze plan for
ensuring reasonable progress at the
Class I areas within the state. The State’s
regional haze SIP established RPGs for
2018 and established a LTS.6 7 In its
Progress Report, the State describes
Federal air pollution control programs,
including; engine and auto pollution
standards and NO2, SO2 and Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).8 Additionally, Colorado
describes State Regulation 9 as its
smoke management program.9 Colorado
also reviewed the status of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements for the BART-eligible and
Reasonable Progress (RP) sources in the
state. The units subject to BART and RP
are listed below in Table 1: Sources
Subject to BART and Reasonable
Progress in Colorado.
TABLE 1—SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART AND REASONABLE PROGRESS IN COLORADO 10
BART and Reasonable
Progress (RP) source
category
BART and Reasonable Progress (RP) eligible sources
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Clark Units 1 & 2 .....................................................................................................................
Cherokee Units 1, 2, & 3 .........................................................................................................
Cherokee Unit 4 .......................................................................................................................
Arapahoe Units 3 & 4 ..............................................................................................................
Valmont Unit 5 .........................................................................................................................
Pawnee Unit 1 .........................................................................................................................
Comanche Units 1 & 2 ............................................................................................................
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). isted at 40 CFR part 81, Subpart D.
2 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012), codified at 40
CFR 52.320(c)(108)(i)(C) and 40 CFR 52.320(c)(124).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
Progress Report, p.4.
Progress Report, p.6.
5 Colorado Progress Report, p.38, ‘‘Public
Comments NPS,’’ ‘‘Public Comments USFS,’’
Colorado’s responses to those comments, and
‘Hearing Notice’ available in docket.
6 77 FR 18090 (March 26, 2012). Table 43—
Colorado’s URP and RP Goal for 2018.
PO 00000
3 Colorado
4 Colorado
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EGU
EGU
EGU
EGU
EGU
EGU
EGU
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
7 77
BART or Reasonable
Progress (RP) source
RP
RP
BART
RP
BART
BART
BART
FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
Progress Report, p. 17.
9 Colorado Progress Report, p. 19. As explained in
the Report, Colorado’s smoke management program
for open burning and prescribed fire activities are
state-only provisions.
8 Colorado
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
34085
TABLE 1—SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART AND REASONABLE PROGRESS IN COLORADO 10—Continued
BART and Reasonable Progress (RP) eligible sources
BART and Reasonable
Progress (RP) source
category
Hayden Units 1 & 2 .................................................................................................................
Cameo Units 1 & 2 ..................................................................................................................
Craig Units 1 & 2 .....................................................................................................................
Craig Unit 3 ..............................................................................................................................
Nucla Unit 4 .............................................................................................................................
Rawhide Unit 101 ....................................................................................................................
Martin Drake Units 5, 6 & 7 .....................................................................................................
Nixon Unit 1 .............................................................................................................................
Holcim Cement Plant ...............................................................................................................
Cemex Lyons Kiln and Dyer Cement Plant ............................................................................
CENC Boiler 3 .........................................................................................................................
CENC Boilers 4 & 5 .................................................................................................................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
Portland Cement Plant ..
Portland Cement Plant ..
EGU ..............................
EGU ..............................
In its Progress Report, Colorado
provides the status of these BART and
Reasonable Progress sources in the
State. Table 2: Current Status of
Colorado Sources Subject to BART and
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
10 77
FR 76871, 76883 (December 31, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
Reasonable Progress, shows emissions
reductions from control types,
including; selective catalytic reduction
(SCR), low NOX burners (LNB), ultralow NOX burners plus overfire air,
selective non-catalytic reduction
(SCNR), lime spray dryers, dry sorbent
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BART or Reasonable
Progress (RP) source
BART
RP
BART
RP
RP
RP
BART
RP
RP
BART
RP
BART
injection and wet lime scrubbers.11 As
can be seen in Table 2, implementation
of emission controls has resulted in
NOX, SO2 and PM reductions during the
time period listed (2006–2018).
11 Colorado
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Progress Report, p.16.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
861
1,556
2,895
1,866
4,274
1,771
1,148
2,314
4,538
1,506
2,349
3,750
3,473
1,140
5,190
5,372
5,693
1,675
1,866
768
1,413
2,081
2,357
3,186
1,747
180
599
691
66,528
Total Emissions Reductions (tons/year) ..................
2006–2008
Baseline
statewide
NOX
emissions
(tons/year)
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17,833
861
1,556
2,895
0
0
1,771
1,148
0
3,135
0
0
3,120
0
1,140
0
0
0
0
448
0
509
749
0
0
0
¥66
214
354
2015
Statewide
NOX
reductions
(tons/year)
Nitrous Oxides
(NOX)
34,952
861
1,556
2,895
1,866
2,211
1,771
1,148
2,314
3,135
0
0
3,120
3,032
1,140
0
3,975
854
0
448
215
509
749
707
1,099
846
¥66
214
354
2018
Statewide
NOX
reductions
(tons/year)
54,828
1,457
2,221
1,888
743
2,135
925
1,765
758
13,472
1,539
1,244
1,172
1,469
2,618
970
982
1,792
1,335
913
1,269
2,785
4,429
4,121
287
95
257
780
1,406
2006–2008
Baseline
statewide
SO2
emissions
22,040
1,457
2,221
1,888
0
0
925
1,765
0
11,066
0
0
61
39
2,618
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
Statewide
SO2
reductions
(tons/year)
Sulfur Dioxides
(SO2)
35,777
1,457
2,221
1,888
743
2,127
925
1,765
758
11,066
0
0
61
39
2,618
0
0
0
0
0
762
2,368
3,764
3,215
0
0
0
0
0
2018
Statewide
SO2
reductions
(tons/year)
1,908
72
37
35
65
78
109
20
42
108
84
63
96
119
225
100
87
70
55
117
27
58
55
87
58
10
2
11
18
640
72
37
35
65
77
109
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
Statewide
PM
reductions
(tons/year)
Particulate Matter
(PM)
2006–2008
Baseline
statewide
PM
emissions
(tons/year)
TABLE 2—CURRENT STATUS OF COLORADO SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART AND REASONABLE PROGRESS 12
Clark Units 1 & 2 .............................................................
Cherokee Unit 1 ..............................................................
Cherokee Unit 2 ..............................................................
Cherokee Unit 3 ..............................................................
Cherokee Unit 4 ..............................................................
Arapahoe Unit 3 ..............................................................
Arapahoe Unit 4 ..............................................................
Valmont Unit 5 .................................................................
Pawnee Unit 1 .................................................................
Comanche Unit 1 .............................................................
Comanche Unit 2 .............................................................
Hayden Unit 1 ..................................................................
Hayden Unit 2 ..................................................................
Cameo Units 1 & 2 ..........................................................
Craig Unit 1 .....................................................................
Craig Unit 2 .....................................................................
Craig Unit 3 .....................................................................
Nucla Unit 4 .....................................................................
Rawhide Unit 101 ............................................................
Drake Unit 5 ....................................................................
Drake Unit 6 ....................................................................
Drake Unit 7 ....................................................................
Nixon Unit 1 .....................................................................
Holcim Unit 1 ...................................................................
Cemex Cement ................................................................
CENC Boiler 3 .................................................................
CENC Boiler 4 .................................................................
CENC Boiler 5 .................................................................
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
682
72
37
35
65
77
109
20
42
0
0
0
0
0
225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2018
Statewide
PM
reductions
(tons/year)
34086
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA also approved provisions in
Colorado’s regional haze SIP covering
certain existing internal combustion
engines (RICE) reasonable progress
sources. These provisions control ozone
via ozone precursors (volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and NOX) from
certain existing RICE,13 and therefore,
the State’s Report includes information
about emission reductions from these
types of sources. 14
EPA proposes to find that Colorado
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the implementation status of
control measures because the State’s
Progress Report provides documentation
of the implementation of measures
within Colorado, including the BARTeligible sources and RP sources in the
State.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions
In its Progress Report, Colorado
presents information on emissions
reductions achieved across the State
from the pollution control strategies
discussed above. The Progress Report
includes statewide SO2, NOX, VOCs and
PM (fine and coarse) emissions data
from Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) emissions inventories.15 16 The
Progress Report includes emissions
inventories the 2002 WRAP (Plan02d)
and the 2008 WRAP (WestJump2008c)
as baseline data and the 2011 WRAP
(WAQDW 2011v1) as updated data from
the baseline.17 The emissions data
shows that there were decreases in
emissions of SO2 and NOX over the time
period (i.e., 2002 and 2011).
12 Colorado
Progress Report, p.16.
FR 76871, 76883 (December 31, 2012).
14 Colorado Progress Report, p.19.
15 Colorado Progress Report, Tables 4a to 4h, pp.
22 to 29. Colorado, as other states, relies on the
WRAP emissions inventories for examination of
visibility changes. CO used WRAP regional
summary reports for the period 2011–2013 to
compare to baseline emissions data (2000–2004).
The WRAP’s inventories were developed using
EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and other
sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx).
The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by
state, local, and tribal air agencies (including
Colorado) for sources in their jurisdiction and
supplemented by data developed by the EPA.
16 The State included emissions data on VOCs,
Ammonia and Elemental Carbon.
17 Colorado Progress Report, pp. 22, 23, 26, 27.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
13 77
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
In its Progress Report, Colorado
provides information that shows
emissions from NOX and SO2 have
decreased over the time period listed
(2002–2011).18 The State cites regional
haze and mobile source controls for
being effective at reducing NOX and
SO2.19 The State provides data that
shows both coarse and fine particulate
matter increasing over the time period
listed (2002–2011).20 In its Progress
Report, Colorado explains that both
‘coarse and fine particulate matter are
dominated by fugitive and windblown
dust’ and presents data to show that
fugitive and wind-blown dust are source
categories that most impact coarse and
fine PM.21 The State explains the origins
of the increase in fugitive road dust seen
in Figures 5b and 5c are unclear.22
Additionally, the State presents data to
show that VOC emissions decreased in
the time period 2002–2008 and
increased in the time period 2008–
2011.23
The EPA proposes to find that
Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State
identifies emissions reductions for SO2
and NOX. Additionally, Colorado
presents sufficient emission inventory
information and discussion regarding
emissions trends for coarse and fine PM
during the 2002–2011 time period.
3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
In its Progress Report, Colorado
provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within
its borders. The Progress Report
addressed current visibility conditions
and the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, expressed in terms
of 5-year rolling averages of these
annual values, with values for the most
impaired (20% worst days), least
impaired and/or clearest days (20% best
days). The period for calculating current
visibility conditions is the most recent
PO 00000
18 Colorado
Progress Report, pp. 22 & 23.
34087
5-year period preceding the required
date of the progress report for which
data were available as of a date 6
months preceding the required date of
the progress report.
Colorado’s Progress Report provides
figures with visibility monitoring data
for the twelve Class I areas within the
State. Colorado reported current
visibility conditions for the 2009–2013
5-year time period and used the 2000–
2004 baseline period for its examination
of visibility conditions and changes in
the State.24 In its Progress Report,
Colorado presents visibility data, in
deciviews, and representative IMPROVE
monitors for Class I areas without an
IMPROVE monitor, as there are not
IMPROVE monitors in each of
Colorado’s twelve Class I areas. Table 3:
Colorado’s Class I areas and IMPROVE
Sites, below, shows the IMPROVE
monitors used for each Class I area.25
TABLE 3—COLORADO’S CLASS I
AREAS AND IMPROVE SITES
Class I area
Great Sand Dunes National
Park.
Mesa Verde National Park ...
Mount Zirkle Wilderness
Area.
Rawah Wilderness Area ......
Rocky Mountain National
Park.
Weminuche Wilderness Area
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.
La Garita Wilderness Area ...
Eagle’s Nest Wilderness
Area.
Flat Tops Wilderness Area ..
Maroon Bells-Snowmass
Wilderness Area.
West Elk Wilderness Area ...
IMPROVE
site
GRSA1
MEVE1
MOZI1
MOZI1
ROMO1
WEMI1
WEMI1
WEMI1
WHRI1
WHRI1
WHRI1
WHRI1
Table 4: Visibility Progress in
Colorado’s Class I Areas, below, shows
the difference between the current
visibility conditions (represented by
2009–2013 data), baseline visibility
conditions (represented by 2000–2004
data) and the 2018 RPGs.
19 Ibid.
20 Colorado
Progress Report, pp. 26 & 27.
Progress Report, p. 26.
22 Colorado Progress Report, pp. 26 & 31.
23 Colorado Progress Report, p. 23.
21 Colorado
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
25 Colorado Progress Report, p.6.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
34088
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—VISIBILITY PROGRESS IN COLORADO’S CLASS I AREAS 26
Colorado’s class I area
IMPROVE site
Current
period
deciviews
2009–2013
(dv)
Baseline
period
deciviews
2000–2004
(dv)
Difference in
deciviews
(dv)
Currentbaseline
CO
2018 RPG
20% Worst Days 27 [20% Most Anthropogenically Impaired Days]
Great Sand Dunes National Park .................................
Mesa Verde National Park ............................................
Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area .......................................
Rawah Wilderness Area ................................................
Rocky Mountain National Park ......................................
Weminuche Wilderness Area ........................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park ..............
La Garita Wilderness Area ............................................
Eagle’s Nest Wilderness Area ......................................
Flat Tops Wilderness Area ............................................
Maroon Bells—Snowmass Wilderness Area ................
West Elk Wilderness Area ............................................
GRSA1 .................
MEVE1 .................
MOZI1 ..................
MOZI1 ..................
ROMO1 ................
WEMI1 .................
WEMI1 .................
WEMI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
11.56
11.24
9.12
9.12
11.84
9.88
9.88
9.88
8.48
8.48
8.48
8.48
12.80
13.00
10.50
10.50
13.80
10.30
10.30
10.30
9.60
9.60
9.60
9.60
¥1.24
¥1.76
¥1.38
¥1.38
¥1.96
¥0.42
¥0.42
¥0.42
¥1.12
¥1.12
¥1.12
¥1.12
12.20
12.50
9.91
9.91
12.83
9.83
9.83
9.83
8.98
8.98
8.98
8.98
3.80
3.00
0.46
0.46
1.58
2.06
2.06
2.06
29 ¥0.10
¥0.10
¥0.10
¥0.10
4.50
4.32
1.60
1.60
2.28
3.10
3.10
3.10
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
¥0.70
¥1.32
¥1.55
¥1.55
¥0.70
¥1.04
¥1.04
¥1.04
¥0.83
¥0.83
¥0.83
¥0.83
4.16
4.10
1.29
1.29
2.06
2.93
2.93
2.93
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
20% Best Days 28
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Great Sand Dunes National Park .................................
Mesa Verde National Park ............................................
Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area .......................................
Rawah Wilderness Area ................................................
Rocky Mountain National Park ......................................
Weminuche Wilderness Area ........................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park ..............
La Garita Wilderness Area ............................................
Eagle’s Nest Wilderness Area ......................................
Flat Tops Wilderness Area ............................................
Maroon Bells—Snowmass Wilderness Area ................
West Elk Wilderness Area ............................................
As shown in Table 4, all IMPROVE
monitoring sites within the State show
improvement in visibility conditions on
the 20% best days and are meeting the
2018 20% best days RPGs.30
Additionally, five of the six IMPROVE
monitors show visibility better than the
2018 20% worst days RPGs.31 The
IMPROVE site that does not show
visibility data meeting the 2018 20%
worst days RPGs, Weminuche (WEMI1),
that represents three class one areas in
the state, shows progress from the
baseline period provided (2002–2004),
however, for the years 2009 through
2013, visibility falls short of the 2018
RPG by only 0.05 dv.32
Additionally, in its Progress Report,
Colorado describes visibility in the state
being significantly impacted by
anthropogenic emissions from within
the state and regional ‘blowing dust,
wildfires, and transport of pollutants
into Colorado from international
emissions and other western states,
much of which is not controllable by
state measures.’ 33
26 Colorado
27 Colorado
Progress Report, p. 8.
Progress Report, p. 6.
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
The EPA proposes to find that
Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State
provided baseline visibility conditions
(2002–2004), more current conditions
based on the most recently available
visibility monitoring data available at
the time of Progress Report development
(2011–2015), the difference between
these current sets of visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the change in visibility
impairment from 2000–2015 at the Class
I areas.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Colorado
presents data from the statewide
emissions inventory for 2008 (WestJump
2008c) and 2011 (WAQDW 2011v1) and
compares this data to the baseline
emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).
The pollutants inventoried include SO2,
NOX, VOCs and PM (fine and coarse).
The emissions inventories include the
29 While counterintuitive, deciview values are
sometimes negative and represent pristine visibility
conditions.
30 Colorado Progress Report, p. 8.
28 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
GRSA1 .................
MEVE1 .................
MOZI1 ..................
MOZI1 ..................
ROMO1 ................
WEMI1 .................
WEMI1 .................
WEMI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
WHRI1 .................
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
following type of source or activity
classifications: Point; area; on-road
mobile; off-road mobile; point and
WRAP area (including oil and gas);
fugitive and road dust; anthropogenic
fire; natural fire; biogenic and windblown dust from both anthropogenic
and natural sources. Table 5 presents
the 2002 baseline, and the 2008 and
2011 more current data. As can be seen
in Table 5, statewide emissions of both
SO2 and NOX are lower than the
projected 2018 emissions, while
statewide emissions for both coarse and
fine PM have increased in the time
period shown. As is discussed above in
section 2, Colorado explains that both
coarse and fine PM are dominated by
fugitive and windblown dust and
presents data to show that fugitive and
wind-blown dust are source categories
that most impact coarse and fine PM
and that the origins are unclear to the
State.34 VOCs decreased between the
years 2002 and 2008 and increased
between the years 2008 and 2011.
31 Ibid.
32 Colorado
Progress Report, p.10.
Progress Report, p.10.
34 Colorado Progress Report, p. 26.
33 Colorado
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
34089
TABLE 5—EMISSIONS PROGRESS IN COLORADO 35
SO2
(tons/year)
2002 Total Emissions (Plan02d) ..........................................
2008 Total Emissions (WestJump 2008c) ...........................
2011 Total Emissions (WAQDW 2011v1) ...........................
Change 2002–2008 (%) .......................................................
Change 2008–2011 (%) .......................................................
The EPA is proposing to find that
Colorado adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most
recent updated emission inventory data
available at the time of Progress Report
development with the baseline
emissions inventory used in the
modeling for the regional haze plan.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
In its Progress Report, Colorado
provided an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the State
that have occurred. The State cites
wildfire as a major factor in visibility
changes in the State.36 In its Progress
Report, Colorado explains that the state
is downwind of wildfire prone areas
and is also adjacent to states that have
wildfire impacting visibility in
Colorado.37 Colorado has a prescribed
fire burn program (Regulation 9) that
tracks emissions from coarse and fine
PM resulting from these burns.38 In its
Progress Report, the State provides
discussion on data from the National
Interagency Fire Center, which tracks
wild land and prescribed burns. This
data shows that while the acres burned
for prescribed fires remain relatively
constant, there is significant variability
in wild land fire acres burned from year
to year.39 As the data show, natural
variability in fires continues to pose
challenges for the State in evaluating the
35 Colorado Progress Report, Tables 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e
& 4f, pp. 22 to 27.
36 Colorado Progress Report, p. 34.
37 Ibid.
38 Colorado’s Progress Report indicates that it
‘‘maintains an EPA-approved prescribed burn
program (Regulation 9)’’. Colorado Progress Report,
p. 34. As this statement conflicts with other
statements in the Report, EPA sought clarification
from the State and learned that that statement was
inadvertently includes in the report. Email from
Curtis Taipale, State Implementation Plan—
Technical Development Unit Supervisor Planning
and Policy Program, Colorado Department of Health
& the Environment, to Kate Gregory, ‘‘Request for
Regional Haze Contact.’’ June 18, 2019.
39 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
NOX
(tons/year)
114,636
68,118
54,021
¥40%
¥52%
404,465
329,727
273,905
¥18%
¥32%
impacts of anthropogenic emissions on
Regional Haze.40
The EPA proposes to find that
Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions. The EPA proposes to agree
with Colorado’s conclusion that wild
fire (both inside and outside Colorado)
and regional dust storms will likely
impede future progress towards
Regional Progress Goals.
6. Assessment of Current
Implementation Plan Elements and
Strategies
In its Progress Report, Colorado
acknowledges the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g) to assess whether the
current implementation plan elements
and strategies are sufficient to enable
the State, or other states with Class I
areas affected by emissions from the
State, to meet all established reasonable
progress goals. In its Progress Report,
Colorado explains the State had
previous emissions modeling that
showed impacts to visibility in a Class
I Area in New Mexico, (WPHE1
IMPROVE monitor).41 Colorado
explains it exceeded the emission
reduction goals in the 2011 RH SIP and
that it can be reasonably expected that
effects on the monitor where past
modeling showed Colorado had this
small impact are declining as a result of
the RH controls in Colorado.42 43
40 Colorado Progress Report, p. 34, and Figure 9
(p. 35) and Tables 4a–4h (pp. 22–29).
41 Colorado Progress Report, p. 2.
42 Colorado Progress Report, p. 2. Additionally, in
approving Colorado’s RH SIP, EPA determined that
Colorado satisfied the RHR’s requirements for
consultation and included controls in the SIP
sufficient to address the relevant requirements of
the RHR related to impacts on Class I areas in other
states. 77 FR 18052, 18094 (March 26, 2012). 77 FR
76871 (December 31, 2012).
43 We provide the following to clarify statements
made on page 37 of the State’s Report. The State
references its March 2010 Interstate Transport SIP
submittal, where the State elected to satisfy one of
the Interstate Transport requirements by providing
information to show that it does not interfere with
other State’s measures to protect visibility through
their RH SIP. 76 FR 8326, 8328 (February 14, 2011)
(EPA proposed approval of Interstate Transport of
Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM Coarse
(tons/year)
222,546
258,365
354,084
1%
37%
PM Fine
(tons/year)
34,681
43,613
57,571
25%
32%
VOCs
(tons/year)
1,181,756
612,318
735,121
¥48%
20%
As seen in Table 4, visibility
conditions have improved in the State at
all IMPROVE monitoring sites and the
State is meeting its RPGs in all Class I
areas on the 20% best days.
Additionally, five of the six IMPROVE
sites meet the 2018 RPGs established for
the state.44
The IMPROVE monitoring site with
visibility not meeting the 2018 RPG,
Weminuche (WEMI1), does show
improvement despite significant
wildfire events in the state during this
planning period.45 Looking in more
detail at the data from this and other
monitors, the State observed the
following: Clear reductions in organic,
sulfate, and nitrate fractions; slight
increases in coarse mass and soil
fractions; and the least amount of
variability.46 Colorado describes
regional dust events, wildfire and
interstate pollution as impacting this
site, all of which are not reasonably
controllable by statewide emission
control measures.47 Nevertheless,
Colorado explains it will continue to
monitor these concerns and evaluate
possible additional controls on
anthropogenic emissions impacting this
site.48 Therefore, Colorado believes that
at this time this site is most impacted by
natural variability in regional windblown dust and does not specifically
recommend further analysis at this
time.49
The EPA proposes to find that
Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and agrees with the State’s
determination that its regional haze plan
is sufficient to meet the RPGs for its
Class I areas.
(EPA final action). In that action, EPA
supplemented the State’s Interstate Transport
analysis and focused on the most impacted Class I
area (Canyonlands)—rather than the IMPROVE
monitor for the Wheeler Peak and Pecos
Wildernesses mentioned in Colorado’s Progress
Report—and found that Colorado does not interfere
with another States’ measures to protect visibility
in their RH SIP. 76 FR 8329.
44 Colorado Progress Report, p. 36.
45 Ibid.
46 Colorado Progress Report, p. 36.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Colorado Progress Report, p. 36.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
34090
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2019 / Proposed Rules
III. Proposed Action
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
For progress reports for the first
implementation period, the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a review
of the State’s visibility monitoring
strategy and any modifications to the
strategy as necessary. In its Progress
Report, Colorado summarizes the
existing monitoring network in the State
to monitor visibility at the twelve Class
I areas within the State, which consists
of Colorado relying on the national
IMPROVE network to meet monitoring
and data collection goals. There are
currently six IMPROVE sites, which the
State explains, continue to provide
adequate and complete data records.50
In the Progress Report, the State finds
that the current monitoring network is
sufficient at this time to monitor
progress towards RPGs.51 The IMPROVE
monitoring network is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze,
both nationwide and in Colorado.
The EPA proposes to find that
Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding a monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its
visibility monitoring strategy and
determined that no further
modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the
Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to determine the
adequacy of their existing
implementation plan to meet existing
goals. Colorado’s Progress Report
includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions
or emissions reductions in Colorado
beyond those already in place and those
to be implemented by 2018 according to
Colorado’s SIP.52 53
The EPA proposes to conclude that
Colorado has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility
trends in the majority of Class I areas in
the State indicate that the relevant RPGs
will be met via emission reductions
already in place and therefore the SIP
does not require substantiative revisions
at this time to meet those RPGs.
50 Colorado
Progress Report, p. 6.
Progress Report, p. 37.
52 Colorado Progress Report, p. 38.
53 Additionally, Colorado’s Report explains that
the State ‘‘actively participates in maintenance of
commitments associated with RH plan
requirements’’ and continues ‘‘to work
collaboratively with the scientific research
community to refine our understanding of air
quality issues in Colorado.’’ Colorado Progress
Report, p. 38.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
51 Colorado
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 Jul 16, 2019
Jkt 247001
The EPA is proposing to approve
Colorado’s May 2, 2016, Regional Haze
Progress Report as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed 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: July 11, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019–15110 Filed 7–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0340; FRL–9996–64–
Region 8]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes; Montana;
Redesignation Request and
Associated Maintenance Plan for East
Helena SO2 Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On October 26, 2018, the
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) submitted a request to
the EPA for redesignation of the East
Helena, Montana 1971 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area
(NAA) to attainment, and to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision for a maintenance plan of the
East Helena area. After review and
analysis of Montana’s submittal, the
EPA is proposing to redesignate the East
Helena, Montana SO2 nonattainment
area to attainment for the 1971 primary
24-hour and annual, and secondary 3hour SO2 NAAQS, and to approve
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34083-34090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15110]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0177; FRL-9996-60-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
Colorado's regional haze progress report, submitted as a revision to
its State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Colorado's SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules
that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress
toward Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing plan
addressing regional haze. Colorado's progress report explains that
Colorado has implemented the measures in the regional haze plan due to
be in place by the date of the progress report and that visibility in
mandatory federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Colorado
sources is improving. The EPA is proposing approval of Colorado's
determination that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet
RPGs for the first implementation period, which extended through 2018
and requires no substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 16, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0177, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
[[Page 34084]]
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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Background
States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory federal Class I area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report must take the form of a
SIP revision and is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional
haze SIP. Colorado submitted the initial regional haze SIP on May 25,
2011 and EPA approved the SIP on December 31, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
isted at 40 CFR part 81, Subpart D.
\2\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012), codified at 40 CFR
52.320(c)(108)(i)(C) and 40 CFR 52.320(c)(124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve Class I areas are located in Colorado: Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park, Eagles Nest Wilderness Area, Flat Tops
Wilderness Area, Great Sand Dunes National Park, La Garita Wilderness
Area, Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area, Mesa Verde National Park,
Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area, Rawah Wilderness Area, Rocky Mountain
National Park, Weminuche Wilderness Area and West Elk Wilderness
Area.\3\ Monitoring and data representing visibility conditions in
Colorado's twelve Class I areas is based on the six Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring sites
located across the state.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Colorado Progress Report, p.4.
\4\ Colorado Progress Report, p.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2016, Colorado submitted a progress report, which
detailed the progress made in the first planning period toward
implementation of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2012
regional haze SIP, the visibility improvement measured at Class I areas
affected by emissions from Colorado sources, and a determination of the
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan. The State provided
a public hearing for comment on the Progress Report on November 19,
2015 and provided Federal Land Managers (FLMs) an opportunity to
comment on the progress report.\5\ The EPA is proposing to approve
Colorado's May 2, 2016 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Colorado Progress Report, p.38, ``Public Comments NPS,''
``Public Comments USFS,'' Colorado's responses to those comments,
and `Hearing Notice' available in docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. EPA's Evaluation of Colorado's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Colorado's progress report
and the EPA's analysis of the report, as well as an evaluation of the
determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).
1. Status of Implementation of Control Measures
In its Progress Report, Colorado summarizes the emissions reduction
measures that were relied upon by Colorado in the regional haze plan
for ensuring reasonable progress at the Class I areas within the state.
The State's regional haze SIP established RPGs for 2018 and established
a LTS.6 7 In its Progress Report, the State describes
Federal air pollution control programs, including; engine and auto
pollution standards and NO2, SO2 and Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).\8\ Additionally,
Colorado describes State Regulation 9 as its smoke management
program.\9\ Colorado also reviewed the status of Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for the BART-eligible and
Reasonable Progress (RP) sources in the state. The units subject to
BART and RP are listed below in Table 1: Sources Subject to BART and
Reasonable Progress in Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 77 FR 18090 (March 26, 2012). Table 43--Colorado's URP and
RP Goal for 2018.
\7\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
\8\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 17.
\9\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 19. As explained in the Report,
Colorado's smoke management program for open burning and prescribed
fire activities are state-only provisions.
Table 1--Sources Subject to BART and Reasonable Progress in Colorado \10\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART and Reasonable
BART and Reasonable Progress (RP) Progress (RP) source BART or Reasonable Progress (RP) source
eligible sources category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Units 1 & 2....................... EGU........................ RP
Cherokee Units 1, 2, & 3................ EGU........................ RP
Cherokee Unit 4......................... EGU........................ BART
Arapahoe Units 3 & 4.................... EGU........................ RP
Valmont Unit 5.......................... EGU........................ BART
Pawnee Unit 1........................... EGU........................ BART
Comanche Units 1 & 2.................... EGU........................ BART
[[Page 34085]]
Hayden Units 1 & 2...................... EGU........................ BART
Cameo Units 1 & 2....................... EGU........................ RP
Craig Units 1 & 2....................... EGU........................ BART
Craig Unit 3............................ EGU........................ RP
Nucla Unit 4............................ EGU........................ RP
Rawhide Unit 101........................ EGU........................ RP
Martin Drake Units 5, 6 & 7............. EGU........................ BART
Nixon Unit 1............................ EGU........................ RP
Holcim Cement Plant..................... Portland Cement Plant...... RP
Cemex Lyons Kiln and Dyer Cement Plant.. Portland Cement Plant...... BART
CENC Boiler 3........................... EGU........................ RP
CENC Boilers 4 & 5...................... EGU........................ BART
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Colorado provides the status of these BART
and Reasonable Progress sources in the State. Table 2: Current Status
of Colorado Sources Subject to BART and Reasonable Progress, shows
emissions reductions from control types, including; selective catalytic
reduction (SCR), low NOX burners (LNB), ultra-low
NOX burners plus overfire air, selective non-catalytic
reduction (SCNR), lime spray dryers, dry sorbent injection and wet lime
scrubbers.\11\ As can be seen in Table 2, implementation of emission
controls has resulted in NOX, SO2 and PM
reductions during the time period listed (2006-2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 77 FR 76871, 76883 (December 31, 2012).
\11\ Colorado Progress Report, p.16.
[[Page 34086]]
Table 2--Current Status of Colorado Sources Subject to BART and Reasonable Progress \12\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrous Oxides (NOX) Sulfur Dioxides (SO2) Particulate Matter (PM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-2008 2006-2008
Baseline 2015 2018 2006-2008 2015 2018 Baseline 2015 2018
statewide Statewide Statewide Baseline Statewide Statewide statewide Statewide Statewide
NOX NOX NOX statewide SO2 SO2 PM PM PM
emissions reductions reductions SO2 reductions reductions emissions reductions reductions
(tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) emissions (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Units 1 & 2.................. 861 861 861 1,457 1,457 1,457 72 72 72
Cherokee Unit 1.................... 1,556 1,556 1,556 2,221 2,221 2,221 37 37 37
Cherokee Unit 2.................... 2,895 2,895 2,895 1,888 1,888 1,888 35 35 35
Cherokee Unit 3.................... 1,866 0 1,866 743 0 743 65 65 65
Cherokee Unit 4.................... 4,274 0 2,211 2,135 0 2,127 78 77 77
Arapahoe Unit 3.................... 1,771 1,771 1,771 925 925 925 109 109 109
Arapahoe Unit 4.................... 1,148 1,148 1,148 1,765 1,765 1,765 20 20 20
Valmont Unit 5..................... 2,314 0 2,314 758 0 758 42 0 42
Pawnee Unit 1...................... 4,538 3,135 3,135 13,472 11,066 11,066 108 0 0
Comanche Unit 1.................... 1,506 0 0 1,539 0 0 84 0 0
Comanche Unit 2.................... 2,349 0 0 1,244 0 0 63 0 0
Hayden Unit 1...................... 3,750 3,120 3,120 1,172 61 61 96 0 0
Hayden Unit 2...................... 3,473 0 3,032 1,469 39 39 119 0 0
Cameo Units 1 & 2.................. 1,140 1,140 1,140 2,618 2,618 2,618 225 225 225
Craig Unit 1....................... 5,190 0 0 970 0 0 100 0 0
Craig Unit 2....................... 5,372 0 3,975 982 0 0 87 0 0
Craig Unit 3....................... 5,693 0 854 1,792 0 0 70 0 0
Nucla Unit 4....................... 1,675 0 0 1,335 0 0 55 0 0
Rawhide Unit 101................... 1,866 448 448 913 0 0 117 0 0
Drake Unit 5....................... 768 0 215 1,269 0 762 27 0 0
Drake Unit 6....................... 1,413 509 509 2,785 0 2,368 58 0 0
Drake Unit 7....................... 2,081 749 749 4,429 0 3,764 55 0 0
Nixon Unit 1....................... 2,357 0 707 4,121 0 3,215 87 0 0
Holcim Unit 1...................... 3,186 0 1,099 287 0 0 58 0 0
Cemex Cement....................... 1,747 0 846 95 0 0 10 0 0
CENC Boiler 3...................... 180 -66 -66 257 0 0 2 0 0
CENC Boiler 4...................... 599 214 214 780 0 0 11 0 0
CENC Boiler 5...................... 691 354 354 1,406 0 0 18 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions Reductions 66,528 17,833 34,952 54,828 22,040 35,777 1,908 640 682
(tons/year)...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34087]]
EPA also approved provisions in Colorado's regional haze SIP
covering certain existing internal combustion engines (RICE) reasonable
progress sources. These provisions control ozone via ozone precursors
(volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX) from certain
existing RICE,\13\ and therefore, the State's Report includes
information about emission reductions from these types of sources. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Colorado Progress Report, p.16.
\13\ 77 FR 76871, 76883 (December 31, 2012).
\14\ Colorado Progress Report, p.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Progress
Report provides documentation of the implementation of measures within
Colorado, including the BART-eligible sources and RP sources in the
State.
2. Summary of Emissions Reductions
In its Progress Report, Colorado presents information on emissions
reductions achieved across the State from the pollution control
strategies discussed above. The Progress Report includes statewide
SO2, NOX, VOCs and PM (fine and coarse) emissions
data from Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) emissions
inventories.15 16 The Progress Report includes emissions
inventories the 2002 WRAP (Plan02d) and the 2008 WRAP (WestJump2008c)
as baseline data and the 2011 WRAP (WAQDW 2011v1) as updated data from
the baseline.\17\ The emissions data shows that there were decreases in
emissions of SO2 and NOX over the time period
(i.e., 2002 and 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Colorado Progress Report, Tables 4a to 4h, pp. 22 to 29.
Colorado, as other states, relies on the WRAP emissions inventories
for examination of visibility changes. CO used WRAP regional summary
reports for the period 2011-2013 to compare to baseline emissions
data (2000-2004). The WRAP's inventories were developed using EPA's
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and other sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx). The NEI is based primarily upon
data provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies (including
Colorado) for sources in their jurisdiction and supplemented by data
developed by the EPA.
\16\ The State included emissions data on VOCs, Ammonia and
Elemental Carbon.
\17\ Colorado Progress Report, pp. 22, 23, 26, 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, Colorado provides information that shows
emissions from NOX and SO2 have decreased over
the time period listed (2002-2011).\18\ The State cites regional haze
and mobile source controls for being effective at reducing
NOX and SO2.\19\ The State provides data that
shows both coarse and fine particulate matter increasing over the time
period listed (2002-2011).\20\ In its Progress Report, Colorado
explains that both `coarse and fine particulate matter are dominated by
fugitive and windblown dust' and presents data to show that fugitive
and wind-blown dust are source categories that most impact coarse and
fine PM.\21\ The State explains the origins of the increase in fugitive
road dust seen in Figures 5b and 5c are unclear.\22\ Additionally, the
State presents data to show that VOC emissions decreased in the time
period 2002-2008 and increased in the time period 2008-2011.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Colorado Progress Report, pp. 22 & 23.
\19\ Ibid.
\20\ Colorado Progress Report, pp. 26 & 27.
\21\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 26.
\22\ Colorado Progress Report, pp. 26 & 31.
\23\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State identifies emissions reductions
for SO2 and NOX. Additionally, Colorado presents
sufficient emission inventory information and discussion regarding
emissions trends for coarse and fine PM during the 2002-2011 time
period.
3. Visibility Conditions and Changes
In its Progress Report, Colorado provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. The Progress
Report addressed current visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, expressed in terms of 5-year rolling averages of these
annual values, with values for the most impaired (20% worst days),
least impaired and/or clearest days (20% best days). The period for
calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent 5-year
period preceding the required date of the progress report for which
data were available as of a date 6 months preceding the required date
of the progress report.
Colorado's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for the twelve Class I areas within the State. Colorado
reported current visibility conditions for the 2009-2013 5-year time
period and used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its examination of
visibility conditions and changes in the State.\24\ In its Progress
Report, Colorado presents visibility data, in deciviews, and
representative IMPROVE monitors for Class I areas without an IMPROVE
monitor, as there are not IMPROVE monitors in each of Colorado's twelve
Class I areas. Table 3: Colorado's Class I areas and IMPROVE Sites,
below, shows the IMPROVE monitors used for each Class I area.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
\25\ Colorado Progress Report, p.6.
Table 3--Colorado's Class I Areas and IMPROVE Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area IMPROVE site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Sand Dunes National Park.......... GRSA1
Mesa Verde National Park................ MEVE1
Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area............ MOZI1
Rawah Wilderness Area................... MOZI1
Rocky Mountain National Park............ ROMO1
Weminuche Wilderness Area............... WEMI1
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National WEMI1
Park.
La Garita Wilderness Area............... WEMI1
Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area............ WHRI1
Flat Tops Wilderness Area............... WHRI1
Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area... WHRI1
West Elk Wilderness Area................ WHRI1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4: Visibility Progress in Colorado's Class I Areas, below,
shows the difference between the current visibility conditions
(represented by 2009-2013 data), baseline visibility conditions
(represented by 2000-2004 data) and the 2018 RPGs.
[[Page 34088]]
Table 4--Visibility Progress in Colorado's Class I Areas \26\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Difference in
Current period period deciviews (dv)
Colorado's class I area IMPROVE site deciviews 2009- deciviews 2000- Current- CO 2018 RPG
2013 (dv) 2004 (dv) baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days 27 [20% Most Anthropogenically Impaired Days]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Sand Dunes National Park GRSA1........... 11.56 12.80 -1.24 12.20
Mesa Verde National Park...... MEVE1........... 11.24 13.00 -1.76 12.50
Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area.. MOZI1........... 9.12 10.50 -1.38 9.91
Rawah Wilderness Area......... MOZI1........... 9.12 10.50 -1.38 9.91
Rocky Mountain National Park.. ROMO1........... 11.84 13.80 -1.96 12.83
Weminuche Wilderness Area..... WEMI1........... 9.88 10.30 -0.42 9.83
Black Canyon of the Gunnison WEMI1........... 9.88 10.30 -0.42 9.83
National Park.
La Garita Wilderness Area..... WEMI1........... 9.88 10.30 -0.42 9.83
Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area.. WHRI1........... 8.48 9.60 -1.12 8.98
Flat Tops Wilderness Area..... WHRI1........... 8.48 9.60 -1.12 8.98
Maroon Bells--Snowmass WHRI1........... 8.48 9.60 -1.12 8.98
Wilderness Area.
West Elk Wilderness Area...... WHRI1........... 8.48 9.60 -1.12 8.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Sand Dunes National Park GRSA1........... 3.80 4.50 -0.70 4.16
Mesa Verde National Park...... MEVE1........... 3.00 4.32 -1.32 4.10
Mount Zirkle Wilderness Area.. MOZI1........... 0.46 1.60 -1.55 1.29
Rawah Wilderness Area......... MOZI1........... 0.46 1.60 -1.55 1.29
Rocky Mountain National Park.. ROMO1........... 1.58 2.28 -0.70 2.06
Weminuche Wilderness Area..... WEMI1........... 2.06 3.10 -1.04 2.93
Black Canyon of the Gunnison WEMI1........... 2.06 3.10 -1.04 2.93
National Park.
La Garita Wilderness Area..... WEMI1........... 2.06 3.10 -1.04 2.93
Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area.. WHRI1........... \29\ -0.10 0.73 -0.83 0.53
Flat Tops Wilderness Area..... WHRI1........... -0.10 0.73 -0.83 0.53
Maroon Bells--Snowmass WHRI1........... -0.10 0.73 -0.83 0.53
Wilderness Area.
West Elk Wilderness Area...... WHRI1........... -0.10 0.73 -0.83 0.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 4, all IMPROVE monitoring sites within the State
show improvement in visibility conditions on the 20% best days and are
meeting the 2018 20% best days RPGs.\30\ Additionally, five of the six
IMPROVE monitors show visibility better than the 2018 20% worst days
RPGs.\31\ The IMPROVE site that does not show visibility data meeting
the 2018 20% worst days RPGs, Weminuche (WEMI1), that represents three
class one areas in the state, shows progress from the baseline period
provided (2002-2004), however, for the years 2009 through 2013,
visibility falls short of the 2018 RPG by only 0.05 dv.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 8.
\27\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 6.
\28\ Ibid.
\29\ While counterintuitive, deciview values are sometimes
negative and represent pristine visibility conditions.
\30\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 8.
\31\ Ibid.
\32\ Colorado Progress Report, p.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in its Progress Report, Colorado describes visibility
in the state being significantly impacted by anthropogenic emissions
from within the state and regional `blowing dust, wildfires, and
transport of pollutants into Colorado from international emissions and
other western states, much of which is not controllable by state
measures.' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Colorado Progress Report, p.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State provided baseline visibility
conditions (2002-2004), more current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development (2011-2015), the difference between these
current sets of visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions, and the change in visibility impairment from 2000-2015 at
the Class I areas.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, Colorado presents data from the statewide
emissions inventory for 2008 (WestJump 2008c) and 2011 (WAQDW 2011v1)
and compares this data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002
(Plan02d). The pollutants inventoried include SO2,
NOX, VOCs and PM (fine and coarse). The emissions
inventories include the following type of source or activity
classifications: Point; area; on-road mobile; off-road mobile; point
and WRAP area (including oil and gas); fugitive and road dust;
anthropogenic fire; natural fire; biogenic and wind-blown dust from
both anthropogenic and natural sources. Table 5 presents the 2002
baseline, and the 2008 and 2011 more current data. As can be seen in
Table 5, statewide emissions of both SO2 and NOX
are lower than the projected 2018 emissions, while statewide emissions
for both coarse and fine PM have increased in the time period shown. As
is discussed above in section 2, Colorado explains that both coarse and
fine PM are dominated by fugitive and windblown dust and presents data
to show that fugitive and wind-blown dust are source categories that
most impact coarse and fine PM and that the origins are unclear to the
State.\34\ VOCs decreased between the years 2002 and 2008 and increased
between the years 2008 and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 26.
[[Page 34089]]
Table 5--Emissions Progress in Colorado \35\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 (tons/ NOX (tons/ PM Coarse PM Fine (tons/ VOCs (tons/
year) year) (tons/year) year) year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Total Emissions (Plan02d).. 114,636 404,465 222,546 34,681 1,181,756
2008 Total Emissions (WestJump 68,118 329,727 258,365 43,613 612,318
2008c).........................
2011 Total Emissions (WAQDW 54,021 273,905 354,084 57,571 735,121
2011v1)........................
Change 2002-2008 (%)............ -40% -18% 1% 25% -48%
Change 2008-2011 (%)............ -52% -32% 37% 32% 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that Colorado adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most recent updated emission inventory
data available at the time of Progress Report development with the
baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Colorado Progress Report, Tables 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e & 4f, pp.
22 to 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
In its Progress Report, Colorado provided an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State that have occurred. The State cites wildfire as a major factor in
visibility changes in the State.\36\ In its Progress Report, Colorado
explains that the state is downwind of wildfire prone areas and is also
adjacent to states that have wildfire impacting visibility in
Colorado.\37\ Colorado has a prescribed fire burn program (Regulation
9) that tracks emissions from coarse and fine PM resulting from these
burns.\38\ In its Progress Report, the State provides discussion on
data from the National Interagency Fire Center, which tracks wild land
and prescribed burns. This data shows that while the acres burned for
prescribed fires remain relatively constant, there is significant
variability in wild land fire acres burned from year to year.\39\ As
the data show, natural variability in fires continues to pose
challenges for the State in evaluating the impacts of anthropogenic
emissions on Regional Haze.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 34.
\37\ Ibid.
\38\ Colorado's Progress Report indicates that it ``maintains an
EPA-approved prescribed burn program (Regulation 9)''. Colorado
Progress Report, p. 34. As this statement conflicts with other
statements in the Report, EPA sought clarification from the State
and learned that that statement was inadvertently includes in the
report. Email from Curtis Taipale, State Implementation Plan--
Technical Development Unit Supervisor Planning and Policy Program,
Colorado Department of Health & the Environment, to Kate Gregory,
``Request for Regional Haze Contact.'' June 18, 2019.
\39\ Ibid.
\40\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 34, and Figure 9 (p. 35) and
Tables 4a-4h (pp. 22-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions. The EPA proposes to
agree with Colorado's conclusion that wild fire (both inside and
outside Colorado) and regional dust storms will likely impede future
progress towards Regional Progress Goals.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
In its Progress Report, Colorado acknowledges the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g) to assess whether the current implementation plan
elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other
states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet
all established reasonable progress goals. In its Progress Report,
Colorado explains the State had previous emissions modeling that showed
impacts to visibility in a Class I Area in New Mexico, (WPHE1 IMPROVE
monitor).\41\ Colorado explains it exceeded the emission reduction
goals in the 2011 RH SIP and that it can be reasonably expected that
effects on the monitor where past modeling showed Colorado had this
small impact are declining as a result of the RH controls in
Colorado.42 43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 2.
\42\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 2. Additionally, in approving
Colorado's RH SIP, EPA determined that Colorado satisfied the RHR's
requirements for consultation and included controls in the SIP
sufficient to address the relevant requirements of the RHR related
to impacts on Class I areas in other states. 77 FR 18052, 18094
(March 26, 2012). 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012).
\43\ We provide the following to clarify statements made on page
37 of the State's Report. The State references its March 2010
Interstate Transport SIP submittal, where the State elected to
satisfy one of the Interstate Transport requirements by providing
information to show that it does not interfere with other State's
measures to protect visibility through their RH SIP. 76 FR 8326,
8328 (February 14, 2011) (EPA proposed approval of Interstate
Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS); 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011) (EPA final
action). In that action, EPA supplemented the State's Interstate
Transport analysis and focused on the most impacted Class I area
(Canyonlands)--rather than the IMPROVE monitor for the Wheeler Peak
and Pecos Wildernesses mentioned in Colorado's Progress Report--and
found that Colorado does not interfere with another States' measures
to protect visibility in their RH SIP. 76 FR 8329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in Table 4, visibility conditions have improved in the
State at all IMPROVE monitoring sites and the State is meeting its RPGs
in all Class I areas on the 20% best days. Additionally, five of the
six IMPROVE sites meet the 2018 RPGs established for the state.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IMPROVE monitoring site with visibility not meeting the 2018
RPG, Weminuche (WEMI1), does show improvement despite significant
wildfire events in the state during this planning period.\45\ Looking
in more detail at the data from this and other monitors, the State
observed the following: Clear reductions in organic, sulfate, and
nitrate fractions; slight increases in coarse mass and soil fractions;
and the least amount of variability.\46\ Colorado describes regional
dust events, wildfire and interstate pollution as impacting this site,
all of which are not reasonably controllable by statewide emission
control measures.\47\ Nevertheless, Colorado explains it will continue
to monitor these concerns and evaluate possible additional controls on
anthropogenic emissions impacting this site.\48\ Therefore, Colorado
believes that at this time this site is most impacted by natural
variability in regional wind-blown dust and does not specifically
recommend further analysis at this time.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Ibid.
\46\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 36.
\47\ Ibid.
\48\ Ibid.
\49\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and agrees with the State's
determination that its regional haze plan is sufficient to meet the
RPGs for its Class I areas.
[[Page 34090]]
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
For progress reports for the first implementation period, the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary. In its Progress Report, Colorado summarizes the existing
monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility at the twelve
Class I areas within the State, which consists of Colorado relying on
the national IMPROVE network to meet monitoring and data collection
goals. There are currently six IMPROVE sites, which the State explains,
continue to provide adequate and complete data records.\50\ In the
Progress Report, the State finds that the current monitoring network is
sufficient at this time to monitor progress towards RPGs.\51\ The
IMPROVE monitoring network is the primary monitoring network for
regional haze, both nationwide and in Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 6.
\51\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Colorado has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding a monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to determine
the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet existing
goals. Colorado's Progress Report includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions or emissions reductions in
Colorado beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by
2018 according to Colorado's SIP.52 53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Colorado Progress Report, p. 38.
\53\ Additionally, Colorado's Report explains that the State
``actively participates in maintenance of commitments associated
with RH plan requirements'' and continues ``to work collaboratively
with the scientific research community to refine our understanding
of air quality issues in Colorado.'' Colorado Progress Report, p.
38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that Colorado has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends in the majority of Class
I areas in the State indicate that the relevant RPGs will be met via
emission reductions already in place and therefore the SIP does not
require substantiative revisions at this time to meet those RPGs.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's May 2, 2016, Regional
Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed 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: July 11, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-15110 Filed 7-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
