80_FR_27212 80 FR 27121 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.

80 FR 27121 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 91 (May 12, 2015)

Page Range27121-27127
FR Document2015-11338

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a May 11, 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Colorado that is intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the requirement that Colorado's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. EPA is proposing to determine that Colorado's existing SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in any other state, or interfere with another state's measures to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality or to protect visibility. EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of Colorado's submission that addresses the CAA requirement that SIPs contain adequate provisions related to interstate and international pollution abatement.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27121-27127]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11338]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0346; FRL-9927-55-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of 
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour 
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 
a May 11, 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the 
State of Colorado that is intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets 
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or 
CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the 
requirement that Colorado's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting 
air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in 
other states. EPA is proposing to determine that Colorado's existing 
SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in 
Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any 
other state, or interfere with another state's measures to prevent 
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality or to protect 
visibility. EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of Colorado's 
submission that addresses the CAA requirement that SIPs contain 
adequate provisions related to interstate and international pollution 
abatement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0346, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted 
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal 
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0346. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I, General 
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you

[[Page 27122]]

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: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule.
    (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule or ``Transport Rule.''
    (iv) The initials CDPHE mean or refer to the Colorado Department 
of Public Health and Environment.
    (v) The words State and Colorado mean the State of Colorado, 
unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards.
    (viii) The initials NNSR mean or refer to nonattainment New 
Source Review.
    (ix) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to fine 
particulate matter.
    (x) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration.
    (xi) The initials RAVI mean or refer to Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment.
    (xii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (xiii) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support 
Document.
    (xiv) The initials WRAP mean or refer to Western Regional Air 
Partnership.
    (xv) The initials [mu]g/m\3\ mean or refer to micrograms per 
cubic meter.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
    A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS
    C. EPA Guidance
III. Colorado's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation
    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
    D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures to Prevent 
Significant Deterioration
    E. Evaluation of Interference With Measures to Protect 
Visibility
    F. Evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 
information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 
the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In 
addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the 
1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (October 17, 
2006, 71 FR 61144).
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA, 
within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may 
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or 
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these 
specific submittals as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are 
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or 
revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, these 
infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009. CAA section 
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan 
submission'' must meet.
    The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
(also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit 
a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air 
quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies 
four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants 
transported across state lines. The two elements under 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the 
state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any 
such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere 
with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The 
two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures 
required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any 
other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. In 
this action, EPA is addressing all four elements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP shall contain 
adequate provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of 
sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international 
pollution abatement). EPA

[[Page 27123]]

is also addressing this requirement with regard to Colorado's SIP in 
this action.

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    EPA has previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\1\ Most recently, EPA 
published the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or 
``Transport Rule'') to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the 
eastern portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the 
earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially 
remanded.\2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued 
a decision vacating CSAPR, see EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 
E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering EPA to continue 
implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. 
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the DC Circuit's ruling and upheld 
EPA's approach in CSAPR. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. 
Ct. 1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, EPA filed 
a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the DC Circuit to toll 
CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years. On October 23, 2014 the DC 
Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay on CSAPR. EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), 
Order at 3. CSAPR began implementation on January 1, 2015 pursuant to 
the DC Circuit's directive lifting the stay. The State of Colorado was 
not covered by CSAPR, and EPA made no determinations in the rule 
regarding whether emissions from sources in Colorado significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and 
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 
(August 8, 2011).
    \2\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that 
provides recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 
PM2.5 standards (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\3\ With respect to element 
1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit emissions that will 
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other 
state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised 
states to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions 
an adequate technical analysis to support their conclusions regarding 
interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions 
in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially 
impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the 
state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest 
areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality 
modeling.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance 
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \4\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 
stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would 
address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and 
that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements 
related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that 
states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to element 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to 
prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
by any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must 
address this independent and distinct requirement of the statute and 
provide technical information appropriate to support the State's 
conclusions, and suggested consideration of the same technical 
information that would be appropriate for element 1 of this CAA 
requirement.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to 
evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA explained in the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As such, we find that the CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Colorado may be 
evaluated using a ``weight of evidence'' approach that takes into 
account available relevant information, including the factors 
recommended in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. 
These submissions can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling 
technical analyses are available, but EPA does not believe that 
modeling is necessarily required if other available information is 
sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of interstate transport 
in a given situation.
    With respect to the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
which address elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA most recently 
issued an infrastructure guidance memo on September 13, 2013 that 
included guidance on these two elements.\5\ For the purposes of this 
action, this memo will hereon be referred to as the ``2013 I-SIP 
Guidance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' 
dated September 13, 2013, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Colorado's Submittal

    On May 11, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
Environment (CDPHE) submitted an interstate transport SIP which 
concluded that Colorado meets all of the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ In this 
submission, Colorado provided a thorough technical analysis for 
elements 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which concluded that 
the State did not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
in other states. The State based this conclusion on consideration of 
factors including distance, monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in Colorado and downwind states, and modeling 
conducted by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Colorado's SIP, dated May 11, 2012, is included in the 
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the element 3 (PSD) requirement of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State referenced its existing PSD and 
nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs. To meet the 
element 4 (visibility) requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State 
referenced and discussed its Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) program, Regional Haze SIP, and some emission 
reduction programs currently in the Colorado SIP that reduce visibility 
impairing pollutants.
    The State's May 11, 2012 interstate transport submission and June 
4, 2010 infrastructure SIP certification for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS both overlooked the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires that each SIP shall contain adequate 
provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of sections 
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution 
abatement). The State submitted a clarification letter on March 12, 
2015, which explained that

[[Page 27124]]

the State had inadvertently left discussion of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of 
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 infrastructure certification.\7\ The 
State noted that in its four subsequent infrastructure submittals (for 
the 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 
NAAQS), it had included the necessary demonstration that Colorado's SIP 
meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State requested that 
the same demonstration used in all subsequent infrastructure submittals 
be applied to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 certification submitted 
June 4, 2010.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Colorado's certification letter is available in the docket 
for this action.
    \8\ Colorado's 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 
NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure certifications 
are available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement 
is satisfied, EPA first determines whether a state's emissions 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
in other states. If a state is determined not to have such contribution 
or interference, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any 
changes to that state's SIP.
    Consistent with the first step of EPA's approach in the 1998 
NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA 
evaluated impacts of emissions from Colorado with respect to specific 
monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance 
problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' To evaluate these 
impacts, and in the absence of relevant modeling of Colorado emissions, 
EPA examined factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance such as monitoring 
data, topography, and meteorology. EPA notes that no single piece of 
information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total 
weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate 
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with 
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another 
state.
    Our proposed approval takes into account the information provided 
in Colorado's 2012 Interstate Transport SIP. In addition, we are 
supplementing the evaluation of the State's submittal with a review of 
the monitors in other states that are appropriate ``nonattainment 
receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors,'' consistent with EPA's 
approach in the CSAPR, and additional relevant technical information to 
determine whether sources in Colorado contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a detailed evaluation 
and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be 
accessed online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-
0346. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis.

A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping 3-
year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013) to determine 
which areas are expected to be violating the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty 
maintaining attainment of the standard. If a monitoring site measured a 
violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most 
recent 3-year period (2011-2013), then that monitor location was 
evaluated for purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment 
(element 1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the other hand, a 
monitoring site shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS during the most recent 3-year period (2011-2013) but a violation 
in at least one of the previous two 3-year periods (2010-2012 or 2009-
2011), then that monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the 
interfere with maintenance (element 2) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    This approach is similar to that used in the modeling done during 
the development of CSAPR, but differs in that it relies on monitoring 
data (rather than modeling) for the western states not included in the 
CSAPR modeling domain.\9\ By this method, EPA has identified those 
areas with monitors to be considered ``nonattainment receptors'' or 
``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from 
sources in another state could significantly contribute to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that particular 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted, the State of Colorado was not included in the 
CSAPR modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious 
transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically 
distinct. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes 
that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the western United 
States are relatively local in nature with only limited impacts from 
interstate transport. In CSAPR, EPA did not calculate the portion of 
any downwind state's predicted PM2.5 concentrations that 
would result from emissions from individual western states, such as 
Colorado. Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 
submissions for states outside the geographic area analyzed to develop 
CSAPR may be evaluated using a ``weight of the evidence'' approach that 
takes into account available relevant information, such as that 
recommended by EPA in the Guidance. Such information may include, but 
is not limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to the 
NAAQS in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the 
distance from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that 
are appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be 
probative to consider as to whether sources in the state may contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions 
can rely on modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are 
available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily 
required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the 
presence or degree of interstate transport in a given situation.

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    EPA reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential for 
Colorado emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the 
Western U.S.\10\ EPA first identified as ``nonattainment receptors'' 
all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded 
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m3) during the years 2011-
2013.\11\ See Section III of our

[[Page 27125]]

TSD for more a more detailed description of EPA's methodology for 
selection of nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport 
from Colorado to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
located in the eastern, midwestern and southern states covered by 
CSAPR and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given the 
significant distance from Colorado to the nearest such receptor (in 
East St. Louis, IL) and the relatively insignificant amount of 
emissions from Colorado that could potentially be transported such a 
distance when compared to downwind states whose contribution was 
modeled for CSAPR, emissions from Colorado sources do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this 
location. These same factors also support a finding that emissions 
from Colorado sources neither contribute significantly to 
nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS at any location further east. See TSD at 
Section I.B.3.
    \11\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the Western United 
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded 
CAIR and thus could be considered in this analysis. In contrast, 
recent air quality data in the eastern, midwestern and southern 
states are significantly impacted by reductions associated with CAIR 
and because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, EPA could not 
consider reductions associated with the CAIR in the base case 
transport analysis for those states. See 76 FR at 48223-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because geographic distance is a relevant factor in the assessment 
of potential pollution transport, EPA first reviewed information 
related to potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from 
Colorado to the nonattainment receptors in Utah, the only state 
bordering Colorado which contains such receptors. As detailed in our 
TSD, the following factors support a finding that emissions from 
Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) Technical information, such 
as data from monitors in the vicinity of these nonattainment receptors, 
related to the nature of local emissions; (2) topographical 
considerations such as intervening mountain ranges which tend to create 
physical impediments for pollution transport; and (3) meteorological 
considerations such as prevailing winds. While none of these factors by 
itself would necessarily show non-contribution, when taken together in 
a weight-of-evidence assessment they are sufficient for EPA to 
determine that emissions from Colorado do not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment at the Utah receptors.
    EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to 
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western states of Idaho, 
Montana, California and Oregon. The following factors support a finding 
that emissions from Colorado do not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any of 
these states: (1) The significant distance from Colorado to the 
nonattainment receptors in these states; (2) technical information, 
such as data from nearby monitors, related to the nature of local 
emissions; and (3) the presence of intervening mountain ranges, which 
tend to impede pollution transport.
    Based on our evaluation, we propose to conclude that emissions of 
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources in 
the State of Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that 
the existing SIP for the State of Colorado is adequate to satisfy the 
``significant contribution'' requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standards, and that the State of Colorado therefore does not need to 
adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the 
``significant contribution to nonattainment'' requirement of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    We also reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential 
for Colorado emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring sites in the 
Western U.S. EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors'' all 
monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded 
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2009-2011 and/or 
2010-2012 periods but below this standard during the 2011-2013 period. 
See section III of our TSD for more information regarding EPA's 
methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the 
maintenance receptors in the western states are located in California, 
Utah and Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the potential for transport 
of Colorado emissions to the maintenance receptors located in these 
states. As detailed in our TSD, the following factors support a finding 
that emissions from Colorado do not interfere with maintenance of the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those states: (1) Technical 
information, such as data from monitors near maintenance receptors, 
related to the nature of local emissions, and (2) the significant 
distance between Colorado and these maintenance receptors.
    Based on this evaluation, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions 
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources 
in the State of Colorado do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that the 
existing SIP for the State of Colorado is adequate to satisfy the 
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of Colorado therefore does not 
need to adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the 
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant 
Deterioration

    With regard to the PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure 
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the 
state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting 
program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and 
that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation 
rule(s).\12\ On September 23, 2013, EPA approved CAA section 110(a)(2) 
elements (C) and (J) for Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD requirements for all 
regulated pollutants (78 FR 58186). As discussed in detail in the 
proposed rulemaking for that final action, the concurrent approval of 
PSD-related revisions which incorporated the requirements of the 2008 
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and certain requirements of 
the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule to the Colorado SIP action 
ensured that Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program meets current 
structural requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 2013 I-SIP Guidance.
    \13\ The proposed rulemaking was published May 23, 2013 (78 FR 
30830). As described in that proposed rulemaking, EPA did not 
approve certain portions of the State's incorporation of the 2010 
PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were 
ultimately removed from EPA's PSD regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, in-state sources not subject 
to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation 
under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS 
related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to 
interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another 
state. One way a state may satisfy element 3 with respect to these 
sources is by citing an air agency's EPA-approved nonattainment NSR 
provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated 
nonattainment areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR 
program which ensures regulation of major sources and major 
modifications in nonattainment areas.\14\ As Colorado's SIP meets 
structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, and 
contains a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, EPA is proposing 
to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable 
requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was 
most recently approved by EPA in a final rulemaking dated February 
13, 2014 (79 FR 8632).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must 
address the potential for

[[Page 27126]]

interference with visibility protection caused by the pollutant 
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. 
PM2.5 is among the pollutants which could interfere with 
visibility protection.\15\ An approved regional haze SIP that fully 
meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures 
that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required 
to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the 
absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a 
demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for 
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(i)(b).
    \16\ See 2013 I-SIP Guidance. EPA also approved the visibility 
requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in a final rulemaking published 
April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22036) by a demonstration provided by the 
State that did not rely on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA 
approved Colorado's regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 
76871). In early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks 
Conservation Association (NPCA) filed separate petitions for 
reconsideration of certain aspects of EPA's approval of the Colorado's 
regional haze SIP.\17\ After these petitions were filed, a settlement 
agreement was entered into concerning the Craig Generating Station by 
the petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission 
Association, Inc., and filed with the court on July 10, 2014.\18\ In 
accordance with the settlement agreement, EPA requested and the court 
granted a voluntary remand to EPA of the portions of EPA's December 
2012 regional haze SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 1. Because 
of this remand, and because the additional controls at the Craig 
facility will be implemented through a revision to the Colorado 
regional haze SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA cannot rely on 
this approval as automatically satisfying element 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25, 
2013, and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013.
    \18\ This settlement agreement is included in the docket for 
this action; see also Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 
(Aug. 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does, however, consider aspects of our approval of Colorado's 
regional haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. 
Specifically, EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) 
requirements to include in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary 
to: (1) Obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the 
reasonable progress goals for any other state's Class I area to which 
Colorado causes or contributes to visibility impairment; and (2) ensure 
it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through a regional planning 
process. Colorado participated in a regional planning process with 
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In the regional planning 
process, Colorado analyzed the WRAP modeling and determined that 
emissions from the State do not significantly impact other states' 
class I areas.\19\ Colorado accepted and incorporated the WRAP-
developed visibility modeling into its regional haze SIP, and the SIP 
included the controls assumed in the modeling. For these reasons, EPA 
determined that Colorado had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule 
requirements for consultation and had included controls in the SIP 
sufficient to address the relevant requirements related to impacts on 
Class I areas in other states. Therefore, we are proposing to approve 
the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of element 4 of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional haze 
SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Evaluation of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements

    As stated above, Colorado's May 11, 2012 interstate transport 
submission and June 4, 2010 infrastructure SIP certification for the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS both overlooked the requirements of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State submitted a clarification 
letter on March 12, 2015, which explained that the State had 
inadvertently left discussion of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 infrastructure certification, and referenced the 
four subsequent infrastructure submittals (for the 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS) that included a 
demonstration that Colorado's SIP meets the requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State requested that the same demonstration used 
in all subsequent infrastructure submittals be applied to the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 certification submitted June 4, 2010.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP contain 
adequate provisions ensuring compliance with applicable requirements of 
CAA sections 126 and 115. Section 126(a) requires notification to 
affected, nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. 
Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the 
Administrator regarding sources violating the ``interstate transport'' 
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 pertains to 
international transport of air pollution.
    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD 
program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the 
emissions of sources subject to PSD.\20\ This suffices to meet the 
notice requirement of section 126(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 
115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those 
sections. In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of 
element 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve all four interstate transport elements 
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Colorado's May 11, 2012 submission. 
This proposed approval is based on EPA's finding that emissions from 
Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any 
other state and that the existing Colorado SIP is, therefore, adequate 
to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of 
Colorado's submission, based on our finding that the State's existing 
SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of this element for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
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

[[Page 27127]]

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
Organic Compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 29, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-11338 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                            27121

                                                    ACE IA E5        Hampton, IA [Amended]                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                              Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–
                                                    Hampton Municipal Airport, IA                            AGENCY                                                AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
                                                      (Lat. 42°43′25″ N., long. 93°13′35″ W.)                                                                      Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
                                                      That airspace extending upward from 700
                                                                                                             40 CFR Part 52                                        are only accepted Monday through
                                                    feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile                 [EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0346; FRL–9927–55–                  Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
                                                    radius of Hampton Municipal Airport.                     Region 8]                                             federal holidays. Special arrangements
                                                                                                                                                                   should be made for deliveries of boxed
                                                    *      *     *        *      *                                                                                 information.
                                                                                                             Approval and Promulgation of State
                                                    ACE IA E5        Harlan, IA [Amended]                    Implementation Plans; State of                           Instructions: Direct your comments to
                                                                                                             Colorado; Interstate Transport of                     Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–
                                                    Harlan Municipal Airport, IA
                                                                                                             Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5                  0346. EPA’s policy is that all comments
                                                      (Lat. 41°35′04″ N., long. 95°20′23″ W.)
                                                                                                             NAAQS                                                 received will be included in the public
                                                      That airspace extending upward from 700                                                                      docket without change and may be
                                                    feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile                 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                     made available online at
                                                    radius of Harlan Municipal Airport.                      Agency (EPA).                                         www.regulations.gov, including any
                                                    *      *     *        *      *                           ACTION: Proposed rule.                                personal information provided, unless
                                                                                                                                                                   the comment includes information
                                                    ACE IA E5        Iowa Falls, IA [Amended]                SUMMARY:    Environmental Protection                  claimed to be Confidential Business
                                                    Iowa Falls Municipal Airport, IA                         Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a                Information (CBI) or other information
                                                      (Lat. 42°28′17″ N., long. 93°16′15″ W.)                May 11, 2012 State Implementation Plan                whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
                                                      That airspace extending upward from 700                (SIP) submission from the State of                    Do not submit information that you
                                                    feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile                 Colorado that is intended to                          consider to be CBI or otherwise
                                                    radius of Iowa Falls Municipal Airport.                  demonstrate that its SIP meets certain                protected through www.regulations.gov
                                                                                                             interstate transport requirements of the              or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
                                                    *      *     *        *      *                           Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006               site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
                                                    ACE IA E5        Knoxville, IA [Amended]                 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National              which means EPA will not know your
                                                    Knoxville Municipal Airport, IA                          Ambient Air Quality Standards                         identity or contact information unless
                                                      (Lat. 41°17′57″ N., long. 93°06′50″ W.)                (NAAQS). This submission addresses                    you provide it in the body of your
                                                                                                             the requirement that Colorado’s SIP                   comment. If you send an email
                                                      That airspace extending upward from 700
                                                                                                             contain adequate provisions prohibiting               comment directly to EPA, without going
                                                    feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile
                                                                                                             air emissions that will have certain                  through www.regulations.gov, your
                                                    radius of Knoxville Municipal Airport.
                                                                                                             adverse air quality effects in other                  email address will be automatically
                                                    *      *     *        *      *                           states. EPA is proposing to determine                 captured and included as part of the
                                                    ACE IA E5        Oelwein, IA [Amended]                   that Colorado’s existing SIP contains                 comment that is placed in the public
                                                                                                             adequate provisions to ensure that air                docket and made available on the
                                                    Oelwein Municipal Airport, IA
                                                                                                             emissions in Colorado do not                          Internet. If you submit an electronic
                                                      (Lat. 42°40′51″ N., long. 91°58′28″ W.)
                                                                                                             significantly contribute to                           comment, EPA recommends that you
                                                      That airspace extending upward from 700                nonattainment or interfere with
                                                    feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile
                                                                                                                                                                   include your name and other contact
                                                                                                             maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5                 information in the body of your
                                                    radius of Oelwein Municipal Airport.                     NAAQS in any other state, or interfere                comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
                                                    *      *     *        *      *                           with another state’s measures to prevent              you submit. If EPA cannot read your
                                                    ACE IA E5        Red Oak, IA [Amended]                   significant deterioration (PSD) of air                comment due to technical difficulties
                                                                                                             quality or to protect visibility. EPA is              and cannot contact you for clarification,
                                                    Red Oak Municipal Airport, IA                            also proposing to approve the portion of              EPA may not be able to consider your
                                                      (Lat. 41°00′39″ N., long. 95°15′32″ W.)                Colorado’s submission that addresses                  comment. Electronic files should avoid
                                                       That airspace extending upward from 700               the CAA requirement that SIPs contain                 the use of special characters, any form
                                                    feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile                 adequate provisions related to interstate             of encryption, and be free of any defects
                                                    radius of Red Oak Municipal Airport; and                 and international pollution abatement.                or viruses. For additional instructions
                                                    within 2 miles each side of the 354° bearing             DATES: Comments must be received on                   on submitting comments, go to Section
                                                    from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile             or before June 11, 2015.                              I, General Information of the
                                                    radius to 11 miles north of the airport.                                                                       SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
                                                                                                             ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
                                                      Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 24,                 identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–                  this document.
                                                    2015.                                                    OAR–2012–0346, by one of the                             Docket: All documents in the docket
                                                    Robert W. Beck,                                          following methods:                                    are listed in the www.regulations.gov
                                                    Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO                      • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow               index. Although listed in the index,
                                                    Central Service Center.                                  the on-line instructions for submitting               some information is not publicly
                                                                                                             comments.                                             available, e.g., CBI or other information
                                                    [FR Doc. 2015–11226 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                                • Email: clark.adam@epa.gov.                       whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
                                                    BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
                                                                                                                • Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert                Certain other material, such as
                                                                                                             the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER              copyrighted material, will be publicly
                                                                                                                                                                   available only in hard copy. Publicly-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                             INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
                                                                                                             comments).                                            available docket materials are available
                                                                                                                • Mail: Director, Air Program,                     either electronically in
                                                                                                             Environmental Protection Agency                       www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
                                                                                                             (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,                     the Air Program, Environmental
                                                                                                             1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado                 Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
                                                                                                             80202–1129.                                           Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
                                                                                                                • Hand Delivery: Director, Air                     Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA
                                                                                                             Program, Environmental Protection                     requests that if at all possible, you


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014    17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM   12MYP1


                                                    27122                    Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                    contact the individual listed in the FOR                  D. Evaluation of Interference With                  II. Background
                                                    FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to                       Measures to Prevent Significant
                                                                                                                 Deterioration                                    A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate
                                                    view the hard copy of the docket. You
                                                                                                              E. Evaluation of Interference With                  Transport
                                                    may view the hard copy of the docket
                                                    Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to                          Measures to Protect Visibility                      On September 21, 2006, EPA
                                                    4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.                    F. Evaluation of CAA section                        promulgated a final rule revising the
                                                                                                                 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements                    1997 24-hour primary and secondary
                                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                                                                            V. Proposed Action                                    NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms
                                                    Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.                           VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
                                                    Environmental Protection Agency,                                                                              per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3
                                                    Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595                          I. General Information                                (October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144).
                                                    Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202–                                                                                 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
                                                    1129, (303) 312–7104, clark.adam@                       What should I consider as I prepare my                each state to submit to EPA, within
                                                    epa.gov.                                                comments for EPA?                                     three years (or such shorter period as
                                                                                                                                                                  the Administrator may prescribe) after
                                                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                                 1. Submitting Confidential Business                the promulgation of a primary or
                                                                                                            Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to               secondary NAAQS or any revision
                                                    Definitions                                             EPA through www.regulations.gov or                    thereof, a SIP that provides for the
                                                      For the purpose of this document, we                  email. Clearly mark the part or all of the            ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
                                                    are giving meaning to certain words or                  information that you claim to be CBI.                 enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. EPA
                                                    initials as follows:                                    For CBI information in a disk or CD                   refers to these specific submittals as
                                                       (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean
                                                                                                            ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the                    ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are
                                                    or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the               outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI                  intended to address basic structural SIP
                                                    context indicates otherwise.                            and then identify electronically within               requirements for new or revised
                                                       (ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the          the disk or CD ROM the specific                       NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
                                                    Clean Air Interstate Rule.                              information that is claimed as CBI. In                NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were
                                                       (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to            addition to one complete version of the               due on September 21, 2009. CAA
                                                    the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or                   comment that includes information
                                                    ‘‘Transport Rule.’’
                                                                                                                                                                  section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
                                                                                                            claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment                 specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan
                                                       (iv) The initials CDPHE mean or refer to
                                                    the Colorado Department of Public Health                that does not contain the information                 submission’’ must meet.
                                                    and Environment.                                        claimed as CBI must be submitted for                     The interstate transport provisions in
                                                       (v) The words State and Colorado mean the            inclusion in the public docket.                       CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called
                                                    State of Colorado, unless the context                   Information so marked will not be                     ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require
                                                    indicates otherwise.                                    disclosed except in accordance with                   each state to submit a SIP that prohibits
                                                       (vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or            procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.                emissions that will have certain adverse
                                                    refer to the United States Environmental
                                                                                                               2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.               air quality effects in other states. CAA
                                                    Protection Agency.
                                                       (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to            When submitting comments, remember                    section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four
                                                    the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.             to:                                                   distinct elements related to the impacts
                                                       (viii) The initials NNSR mean or refer to                                                                  of air pollutants transported across state
                                                                                                               • Identify the rulemaking by docket                lines. The two elements under
                                                    nonattainment New Source Review.
                                                       (ix) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to fine        number and other identifying                          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain
                                                    particulate matter.                                     information (subject heading, Federal                 adequate provisions to prohibit any
                                                       (x) The initials PSD mean or refer to                Register date and page number).                       source or other type of emissions
                                                    Prevention of Significant Deterioration.                   • Follow directions—The agency may                 activity within the state from emitting
                                                       (xi) The initials RAVI mean or refer to              ask you to respond to specific questions              air pollutants that will (element 1)
                                                    Reasonably Attributable Visibility
                                                    Impairment.                                             or organize comments by referencing a                 contribute significantly to
                                                       (xii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State        Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part                nonattainment in any other state with
                                                    Implementation Plan.                                    or section number.                                    respect to any such national primary or
                                                       (xiii) The initials TSD mean or refer to                • Explain why you agree or disagree;               secondary NAAQS, and (element 2)
                                                    Technical Support Document.                             suggest alternatives and substitute                   interfere with maintenance by any other
                                                       (xiv) The initials WRAP mean or refer to                                                                   state with respect to the same NAAQS.
                                                    Western Regional Air Partnership.
                                                                                                            language for your requested changes.
                                                                                                                                                                  The two elements under
                                                       (xv) The initials mg/m3 mean or refer to                • Describe any assumptions and                     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain
                                                    micrograms per cubic meter.                             provide any technical information and/                adequate provisions to prohibit
                                                    Table of Contents                                       or data that you used.                                emissions that will interfere with
                                                                                                               • If you estimate potential costs or               measures required to be included in the
                                                    I. General Information
                                                    II. Background                                          burdens, explain how you arrived at                   applicable implementation plan for any
                                                       A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate                   your estimate in sufficient detail to                 other state under part C (element 3) to
                                                          Transport                                         allow for it to be reproduced.                        prevent significant deterioration of air
                                                       B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport                • Provide specific examples to                     quality or (element 4) to protect
                                                          for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS                                                                                visibility. In this action, EPA is
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                            illustrate your concerns, and suggest
                                                       C. EPA Guidance                                                                                            addressing all four elements of CAA
                                                    III. Colorado’s Submittal                               alternatives.
                                                                                                                                                                  section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
                                                    IV. EPA’s Evaluation                                       • Explain your views as clearly as                    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires
                                                       A. Identification of Nonattainment and               possible, avoiding the use of profanity
                                                          Maintenance Receptors
                                                                                                                                                                  that each SIP shall contain adequate
                                                                                                            or personal threats.                                  provisions insuring compliance with
                                                       B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to
                                                          Nonattainment                                        • Make sure to submit your                         applicable requirements of sections 126
                                                       C. Evaluation of Interference With                   comments by the comment period                        and 115 (relating to interstate and
                                                          Maintenance                                       deadline identified.                                  international pollution abatement). EPA


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM   12MYP1


                                                                             Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                      27123

                                                    is also addressing this requirement with                ‘‘Guidance’’).3 With respect to element 1               other available information is sufficient
                                                    regard to Colorado’s SIP in this action.                of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to                       to evaluate the presence or degree of
                                                                                                            prohibit emissions that will contribute                 interstate transport in a given situation.
                                                    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport                                                                          With respect to the requirements in
                                                                                                            significantly to nonattainment of the
                                                    for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS                                                                                        section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) which address
                                                                                                            NAAQS in any other state, the 2006
                                                       EPA has previously addressed the                     PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance                     elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA
                                                    requirements of CAA section                             advised states to include in their section              most recently issued an infrastructure
                                                    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory                   110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an                   guidance memo on September 13, 2013
                                                    actions.1 Most recently, EPA published                  adequate technical analysis to support                  that included guidance on these two
                                                    the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule                their conclusions regarding interstate                  elements.5 For the purposes of this
                                                    (CSAPR or ‘‘Transport Rule’’) to address                pollution transport, e.g., information                  action, this memo will hereon be
                                                    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the                   concerning emissions in the state,                      referred to as the ‘‘2013 I–SIP
                                                    eastern portion of the United States with               meteorological conditions in the state                  Guidance.’’
                                                    respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the                    and in potentially impacted states,                     III. Colorado’s Submittal
                                                    1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997                          monitored ambient pollutant
                                                    8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011,                     concentrations in the state and in                         On May 11, 2012, the Colorado
                                                    76 FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the                        potentially impacted states, distances to               Department of Public Health and
                                                    earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)                the nearest areas not attaining the                     Environment (CDPHE) submitted an
                                                    which was judicially remanded.2 See                     NAAQS in other states, and air quality                  interstate transport SIP which
                                                    North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896                     modeling.4                                              concluded that Colorado meets all of the
                                                    (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012,                      With respect to element 2 of CAA                     requirements of CAA section
                                                    the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC                    section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit                     110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour
                                                    Circuit issued a decision vacating                      emissions that would interfere with                     PM2.5 NAAQS.6 In this submission,
                                                    CSAPR, see EME Homer City                               maintenance of the NAAQS by any                         Colorado provided a thorough technical
                                                    Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7                  other state, the Guidance stated that SIP               analysis for elements 1 and 2 of CAA
                                                    (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering EPA to                   submissions must address this                           section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which concluded
                                                    continue implementing CAIR in the                       independent and distinct requirement of                 that the State did not contribute
                                                    interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the                the statute and provide technical                       significantly to nonattainment or
                                                    U.S. Supreme Court reversed and                         information appropriate to support the                  interfere with maintenance of the 2006
                                                    remanded the DC Circuit’s ruling and                    State’s conclusions, and suggested                      24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
                                                    upheld EPA’s approach in CSAPR. EPA                     consideration of the same technical                     The State based this conclusion on
                                                    v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134                 information that would be appropriate                   consideration of factors including
                                                    S. Ct. 1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S.                for element 1 of this CAA requirement.                  distance, monitored attainment of the
                                                    Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a                        In this action, EPA is proposing to use              2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Colorado
                                                    motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and                    the conceptual approach to evaluating                   and downwind states, and modeling
                                                    asked the DC Circuit to toll CSAPR’s                    interstate pollution transport under                    conducted by EPA.
                                                    compliance deadlines by three years. On                 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA                    To meet the element 3 (PSD)
                                                    October 23, 2014 the DC Circuit granted                 explained in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS                       requirement of CAA section
                                                    EPA’s motion and lifted the stay on                     Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As                   110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State referenced its
                                                    CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation,                       such, we find that the CAA section                      existing PSD and nonattainment New
                                                                                                            110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from                  Source Review (NNSR) permitting
                                                    L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct.
                                                                                                            Colorado may be evaluated using a                       programs. To meet the element 4
                                                    23, 2014), Order at 3. CSAPR began
                                                                                                            ‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach that                    (visibility) requirement of
                                                    implementation on January 1, 2015
                                                                                                            takes into account available relevant                   110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State referenced and
                                                    pursuant to the DC Circuit’s directive
                                                                                                            information, including the factors                      discussed its Reasonably Attributable
                                                    lifting the stay. The State of Colorado
                                                                                                            recommended in the 2006 PM2.5                           Visibility Impairment (RAVI) program,
                                                    was not covered by CSAPR, and EPA
                                                                                                            NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. These                    Regional Haze SIP, and some emission
                                                    made no determinations in the rule
                                                                                                            submissions can rely on modeling when                   reduction programs currently in the
                                                    regarding whether emissions from
                                                                                                            acceptable modeling technical analyses                  Colorado SIP that reduce visibility
                                                    sources in Colorado significantly
                                                                                                            are available, but EPA does not believe                 impairing pollutants.
                                                    contribute to nonattainment or interfere                                                                           The State’s May 11, 2012 interstate
                                                    with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour                    that modeling is necessarily required if
                                                                                                                                                                    transport submission and June 4, 2010
                                                    PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.                              3 See Memorandum from William T. Harnett             infrastructure SIP certification for the
                                                    C. EPA Guidance                                         entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required            2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS both
                                                                                                            Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-       overlooked the requirements of CAA
                                                      On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a                   Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
                                                    guidance memorandum that provides                       Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009,        section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires
                                                    recommendations to states for making                    available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/            that each SIP shall contain adequate
                                                    submissions to meet the requirements of
                                                                                                            memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_                    provisions insuring compliance with
                                                                                                            110a12.pdf.                                             applicable requirements of sections 126
                                                    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006                   4 The 2006 PM
                                                                                                                              2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
                                                    PM2.5 standards (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS                     stated that EPA was working on a new rule to
                                                                                                                                                                    and 115 (relating to interstate and
                                                                                                                                                                    international pollution abatement). The
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    Infrastructure Guidance’’ or                            replace CAIR that would address issues raised by
                                                                                                            the court in the North Carolina case and that would     State submitted a clarification letter on
                                                                                                            provide guidance to states in addressing the            March 12, 2015, which explained that
                                                       1 See NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
                                                                X                                           requirements related to interstate transport in CAA
                                                    1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR          section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
                                                    25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-      NAAQS. It also noted that states could not rely on        5 See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State

                                                    State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8,        the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)            Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
                                                    2011).                                                  submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS            Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ dated September
                                                       2 CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour         because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS.       13, 2013, in the docket for this action.
                                                    PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.           See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at           6 Colorado’s SIP, dated May 11, 2012, is included

                                                    It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.        3.                                                      in the docket for this action.



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM    12MYP1


                                                    27124                      Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                    the State had inadvertently left                          interfere with maintenance of the 2006               individual western states, such as
                                                    discussion of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of the                 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.                 Colorado. Accordingly, EPA believes
                                                    2006 24-hour PM2.5 infrastructure                           Our Technical Support Document                     that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
                                                    certification.7 The State noted that in its               (TSD) contains a detailed evaluation                 submissions for states outside the
                                                    four subsequent infrastructure                            and is available in the public docket for            geographic area analyzed to develop
                                                    submittals (for the 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone,                  this rulemaking, which may be accessed               CSAPR may be evaluated using a
                                                    2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS), it had                      online at www.regulations.gov, docket                ‘‘weight of the evidence’’ approach that
                                                    included the necessary demonstration                      number EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0346.                        takes into account available relevant
                                                    that Colorado’s SIP meets the                             Below, we provide a summary of our                   information, such as that recommended
                                                    requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The                     analysis.                                            by EPA in the Guidance. Such
                                                    State requested that the same                             A. Identification of Nonattainment and               information may include, but is not
                                                    demonstration used in all subsequent                      Maintenance Receptors                                limited to, the amount of emissions in
                                                    infrastructure submittals be applied to                                                                        the state relevant to the NAAQS in
                                                    the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 certification                         EPA evaluated data from existing                  question, the meteorological conditions
                                                    submitted June 4, 2010.8                                  monitors over three overlapping 3-year               in the area, the distance from the state
                                                                                                              periods (i.e., 2009–2011, 2010–2012,                 to the nearest monitors in other states
                                                    IV. EPA’s Evaluation                                      and 2011–2013) to determine which                    that are appropriate receptors, or such
                                                       To determine whether the CAA                           areas are expected to be violating the               other information as may be probative to
                                                    section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is                 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and which                   consider as to whether sources in the
                                                    satisfied, EPA first determines whether                   areas might have difficulty maintaining              state may contribute significantly to
                                                    a state’s emissions contribute                            attainment of the standard. If a                     nonattainment or interfere with
                                                    significantly to nonattainment or                         monitoring site measured a violation of              maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
                                                    interfere with maintenance in other                       the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during                  NAAQS in other states. These
                                                    states. If a state is determined not to                   the most recent 3-year period (2011–                 submissions can rely on modeling when
                                                    have such contribution or interference,                   2013), then that monitor location was                acceptable modeling technical analyses
                                                    then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not                  evaluated for purposes of the significant            are available, but EPA does not believe
                                                    require any changes to that state’s SIP.                  contribution to nonattainment (element               that modeling is necessarily required if
                                                       Consistent with the first step of EPA’s                1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the            other available information is sufficient
                                                    approach in the 1998 NOX SIP call, the                    other hand, a monitoring site shows                  to evaluate the presence or degree of
                                                    2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA                        attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5                 interstate transport in a given situation.
                                                    evaluated impacts of emissions from                       NAAQS during the most recent 3-year
                                                                                                              period (2011–2013) but a violation in at             B. Evaluation of Significant
                                                    Colorado with respect to specific                                                                              Contribution to Nonattainment
                                                    monitors identified as having                             least one of the previous two 3-year
                                                    nonattainment and/or maintenance                          periods (2010–2012 or 2009–2011), then                 EPA reviewed technical information
                                                    problems, which we refer to as                            that monitor location was evaluated for              to evaluate the potential for Colorado
                                                    ‘‘receptors.’’ To evaluate these impacts,                 purposes of the interfere with                       emissions to contribute significantly to
                                                    and in the absence of relevant modeling                   maintenance (element 2) of section                   nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5
                                                    of Colorado emissions, EPA examined                       110(a)(2)(D)(i).                                     NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in
                                                    factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance                       This approach is similar to that used             the Western U.S.10 EPA first identified
                                                    such as monitoring data, topography,                      in the modeling done during the                      as ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ all
                                                    and meteorology. EPA notes that no                        development of CSAPR, but differs in                 monitoring sites in the western states
                                                    single piece of information is by itself                  that it relies on monitoring data (rather            that had recorded PM2.5 design values
                                                    dispositive of the issue. Instead, the                    than modeling) for the western states                above the level of the 2006 24-hour
                                                    total weight of all the evidence taken                    not included in the CSAPR modeling                   PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the
                                                    together is used to evaluate significant                  domain.9 By this method, EPA has                     years 2011–2013.11 See Section III of our
                                                    contributions to nonattainment or                         identified those areas with monitors to
                                                    interference with maintenance of the                      be considered ‘‘nonattainment                           10 EPA also considered potential PM
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.5 transport

                                                                                                              receptors’’ or ‘‘maintenance receptors’’             from Colorado to the nearest nonattainment and
                                                    2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another                                                                            maintenance receptors located in the eastern,
                                                    state.                                                    for evaluating whether the emissions                 midwestern and southern states covered by CSAPR
                                                       Our proposed approval takes into                       from sources in another state could                  and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given
                                                    account the information provided in                       significantly contribute to                          the significant distance from Colorado to the nearest
                                                                                                              nonattainment in, or interfere with                  such receptor (in East St. Louis, IL) and the
                                                    Colorado’s 2012 Interstate Transport                                                                           relatively insignificant amount of emissions from
                                                    SIP. In addition, we are supplementing                    maintenance in, that particular area.                Colorado that could potentially be transported such
                                                                                                                 EPA continues to believe that the                 a distance when compared to downwind states
                                                    the evaluation of the State’s submittal
                                                                                                              more widespread and serious transport                whose contribution was modeled for CSAPR,
                                                    with a review of the monitors in other                                                                         emissions from Colorado sources do not
                                                                                                              problems in the eastern United States
                                                    states that are appropriate                                                                                    significantly contribute to nonattainment or
                                                                                                              are analytically distinct. For the 2006
                                                    ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ or                                                                                 interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
                                                                                                              24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes                    PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors
                                                    ‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ consistent
                                                    with EPA’s approach in the CSAPR, and                     that nonattainment and maintenance                   also support a finding that emissions from Colorado
                                                                                                              problems in the western United States                sources neither contribute significantly to
                                                    additional relevant technical                                                                                  nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    information to determine whether                          are relatively local in nature with only             the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location
                                                    sources in Colorado contribute                            limited impacts from interstate                      further east. See TSD at Section I.B.3.
                                                    significantly to nonattainment or                         transport. In CSAPR, EPA did not                        11 Because CAIR did not cover states in the

                                                                                                              calculate the portion of any downwind                Western United States, these data are not
                                                                                                              state’s predicted PM2.5 concentrations               significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR and
                                                      7 Colorado’s certification letter is available in the
                                                                                                                                                                   thus could be considered in this analysis. In
                                                    docket for this action.                                   that would result from emissions from                contrast, recent air quality data in the eastern,
                                                      8 Colorado’s 2006 PM , 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone,                                                                  midwestern and southern states are significantly
                                                                             2.5
                                                    2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure certifications         9 As noted, the State of Colorado was not          impacted by reductions associated with CAIR and
                                                    are available in the docket for this action.              included in the CSAPR modeling domain.               because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR,



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014    17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM   12MYP1


                                                                             Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                     27125

                                                    TSD for more a more detailed                            purposes of implementing the                          approved PSD permitting program in
                                                    description of EPA’s methodology for                    ‘‘significant contribution to                         the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR
                                                    selection of nonattainment receptors.                   nonattainment’’ requirement of                        pollutants and that satisfies the
                                                       Because geographic distance is a                     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that               requirements of EPA’s PSD
                                                    relevant factor in the assessment of                    NAAQS at this time.                                   implementation rule(s).12 On September
                                                    potential pollution transport, EPA first                                                                      23, 2013, EPA approved CAA section
                                                    reviewed information related to                         C. Evaluation of Interference With
                                                                                                                                                                  110(a)(2) elements (C) and (J) for
                                                    potential transport of PM2.5 pollution                  Maintenance
                                                                                                                                                                  Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the
                                                    from Colorado to the nonattainment                         We also reviewed technical                         2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with
                                                    receptors in Utah, the only state                       information to evaluate the potential for             respect to PSD requirements for all
                                                    bordering Colorado which contains such                  Colorado emissions to interfere with                  regulated pollutants (78 FR 58186). As
                                                    receptors. As detailed in our TSD, the                  maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5                 discussed in detail in the proposed
                                                    following factors support a finding that                standards at specified monitoring sites               rulemaking for that final action, the
                                                    emissions from Colorado do not                          in the Western U.S. EPA first identified              concurrent approval of PSD-related
                                                    significantly contribute to                             as ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ all                      revisions which incorporated the
                                                    nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour                       monitoring sites in the western states                requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
                                                    PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) Technical                      that had recorded PM2.5 design values                 Implementation Rule and certain
                                                    information, such as data from monitors                 above the level of the 2006 24-hour                   requirements of the 2010 PM2.5
                                                    in the vicinity of these nonattainment                  PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the                     Increment Rule to the Colorado SIP
                                                    receptors, related to the nature of local               2009–2011 and/or 2010–2012 periods                    action ensured that Colorado’s SIP-
                                                    emissions; (2) topographical                            but below this standard during the                    approved PSD program meets current
                                                    considerations such as intervening                      2011–2013 period. See section III of our              structural requirements for all regulated
                                                    mountain ranges which tend to create                    TSD for more information regarding                    NSR pollutants.13
                                                    physical impediments for pollution                      EPA’s methodology for selection of                       As stated in the 2013 I–SIP Guidance,
                                                    transport; and (3) meteorological                       maintenance receptors. All of the                     in-state sources not subject to PSD for
                                                    considerations such as prevailing                       maintenance receptors in the western                  any one or more of the pollutants
                                                    winds. While none of these factors by                   states are located in California, Utah and            subject to regulation under the CAA
                                                    itself would necessarily show non-                      Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the                  because they are in a nonattainment
                                                    contribution, when taken together in a                  potential for transport of Colorado                   area for a NAAQS related to those
                                                    weight-of-evidence assessment they are                  emissions to the maintenance receptors                particular pollutants may also have the
                                                    sufficient for EPA to determine that                    located in these states. As detailed in               potential to interfere with PSD in an
                                                    emissions from Colorado do not                          our TSD, the following factors support                attainment or unclassifiable area of
                                                    significantly contribute to                             a finding that emissions from Colorado                another state. One way a state may
                                                    nonattainment at the Utah receptors.                    do not interfere with maintenance of the              satisfy element 3 with respect to these
                                                       EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5                   2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those                     sources is by citing an air agency’s EPA-
                                                    transport to nonattainment receptors in                 states: (1) Technical information, such               approved nonattainment NSR
                                                    the more distant western states of Idaho,               as data from monitors near maintenance                provisions addressing any pollutants for
                                                    Montana, California and Oregon. The                     receptors, related to the nature of local             which the state has designated
                                                    following factors support a finding that                emissions, and (2) the significant                    nonattainment areas. Colorado has a
                                                    emissions from Colorado do not                          distance between Colorado and these                   SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
                                                    significantly contribute to                             maintenance receptors.                                program which ensures regulation of
                                                    nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour                          Based on this evaluation, EPA                      major sources and major modifications
                                                    PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these states: (1)                 proposes to conclude that emissions of                in nonattainment areas.14 As Colorado’s
                                                    The significant distance from Colorado                  direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from                SIP meets structural PSD requirements
                                                    to the nonattainment receptors in these                 sources in the State of Colorado do not               for all regulated NSR pollutants, and
                                                    states; (2) technical information, such as              interfere with maintenance of the 2006                contains a fully approved
                                                    data from nearby monitors, related to                   24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other                  nonattainment NSR program, EPA is
                                                    the nature of local emissions; and (3) the              state, that the existing SIP for the State            proposing to approve the infrastructure
                                                    presence of intervening mountain                        of Colorado is adequate to satisfy the                SIP submission as meeting the
                                                    ranges, which tend to impede pollution                  ‘‘interfere with maintenance’’                        applicable requirements of element 3 of
                                                    transport.                                              requirements of CAA section                           section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-
                                                       Based on our evaluation, we propose                  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of             hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
                                                    to conclude that emissions of direct                    Colorado therefore does not need to
                                                                                                                                                                  E. Evaluation of Interference With
                                                    PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources                 adopt additional controls for purposes
                                                                                                                                                                  Measures To Protect Visibility
                                                    in the State of Colorado do not                         of implementing the ‘‘interfere with
                                                    significantly contribute to                             maintenance’’ requirements of section                   To determine whether the CAA
                                                    nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour                       110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that               section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement
                                                                                                            NAAQS at this time.                                   for visibility protection is satisfied, the
                                                    PM2.5 standards in any other state, that
                                                                                                                                                                  SIP must address the potential for
                                                    the existing SIP for the State of Colorado              D. Evaluation of Interference With
                                                    is adequate to satisfy the ‘‘significant                Measures To Prevent Significant                         12 See  2013 I–SIP Guidance.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    contribution’’ requirements of CAA                      Deterioration                                           13 The  proposed rulemaking was published May
                                                    section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to                                                                    23, 2013 (78 FR 30830). As described in that
                                                                                                              With regard to the PSD portion of
                                                    the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and                                                                         proposed rulemaking, EPA did not approve certain
                                                                                                            section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this                     portions of the State’s incorporation of the 2010
                                                    that the State of Colorado therefore does
                                                                                                            requirement may be met by a state’s                   PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were
                                                    not need to adopt additional controls for                                                                     ultimately removed from EPA’s PSD regulations.
                                                                                                            confirmation in an infrastructure SIP                    14 See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section

                                                    EPA could not consider reductions associated with
                                                                                                            submission that new major sources and                 V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a
                                                    the CAIR in the base case transport analysis for        major modifications in the state are                  final rulemaking dated February 13, 2014 (79 FR
                                                    those states. See 76 FR at 48223–24.                    subject to a comprehensive EPA-                       8632).



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM     12MYP1


                                                    27126                     Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                    interference with visibility protection                  reasonable progress goals for any other              to the Administrator regarding sources
                                                    caused by the pollutant (including                       state’s Class I area to which Colorado               violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’
                                                    precursors) to which the new or revised                  causes or contributes to visibility                  provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
                                                    NAAQS applies. PM2.5 is among the                        impairment; and (2) ensure it has                    Section 115 pertains to international
                                                    pollutants which could interfere with                    included all measures needed to achieve              transport of air pollution.
                                                    visibility protection.15 An approved                     its apportionment of emission reduction                 As required by 40 CFR
                                                    regional haze SIP that fully meets the                   obligations agreed upon through a                    51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado’s SIP-
                                                    regional haze requirements in 40 CFR                     regional planning process. Colorado                  approved PSD program requires notice
                                                    51.308 satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)                 participated in a regional planning                  to states whose lands may be affected by
                                                    requirement for visibility protection as                 process with Western Regional Air                    the emissions of sources subject to
                                                    it ensures that emissions from the state                 Partnership (WRAP). In the regional                  PSD.20 This suffices to meet the notice
                                                    will not interfere with measures                         planning process, Colorado analyzed the              requirement of section 126(a).
                                                    required to be included in other state                   WRAP modeling and determined that                       Colorado has no pending obligations
                                                    SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence               emissions from the State do not                      under sections 126(c) or 115(b);
                                                    of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a                 significantly impact other states’ class I           therefore, its SIP currently meets the
                                                    state can still make a demonstration that                areas.19 Colorado accepted and                       requirements of those sections. In
                                                    satisfies the visibility requirement                     incorporated the WRAP-developed                      summary, the SIP meets the
                                                    section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).16                        visibility modeling into its regional haze           requirements of CAA section
                                                       Colorado submitted a regional haze                    SIP, and the SIP included the controls               110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 PM2.5
                                                    SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA                          assumed in the modeling. For these                   NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing to
                                                    approved Colorado’s regional haze SIP                    reasons, EPA determined that Colorado                approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the
                                                    on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In                   had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule                 requirements of element 4 of CAA
                                                    early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and                      requirements for consultation and had                section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24-
                                                    the National Parks Conservation                          included controls in the SIP sufficient to           hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
                                                    Association (NPCA) filed separate                        address the relevant requirements
                                                    petitions for reconsideration of certain                 related to impacts on Class I areas in               V. Proposed Action
                                                    aspects of EPA’s approval of the                         other states. Therefore, we are proposing               EPA is proposing to approve all four
                                                    Colorado’s regional haze SIP.17 After                    to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting               interstate transport elements of CAA
                                                    these petitions were filed, a settlement                 the requirements of element 4 of CAA                 Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Colorado’s
                                                    agreement was entered into concerning                    section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006             May 11, 2012 submission. This
                                                    the Craig Generating Station by the                      24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.                                 proposed approval is based on EPA’s
                                                    petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State                                                                        finding that emissions from Colorado do
                                                    Generation and Transmission                              F. Evaluation of CAA Section
                                                                                                             110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements                        not significantly contribute to
                                                    Association, Inc., and filed with the                                                                         nonattainment or interfere with
                                                    court on July 10, 2014.18 In accordance                     As stated above, Colorado’s May 11,
                                                                                                                                                                  maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
                                                    with the settlement agreement, EPA                       2012 interstate transport submission
                                                                                                                                                                  NAAQS in any other state and that the
                                                    requested and the court granted a                        and June 4, 2010 infrastructure SIP
                                                                                                                                                                  existing Colorado SIP is, therefore,
                                                    voluntary remand to EPA of the portions                  certification for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
                                                                                                                                                                  adequate to meet the requirements of
                                                    of EPA’s December 2012 regional haze                     NAAQS both overlooked the
                                                                                                                                                                  CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
                                                    SIP approval that related to Craig Unit                  requirements of CAA section
                                                                                                                                                                  2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
                                                    1. Because of this remand, and because                   110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State submitted a
                                                                                                             clarification letter on March 12, 2015,                 EPA is proposing to approve the
                                                    the additional controls at the Craig
                                                                                                             which explained that the State had                   110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of Colorado’s
                                                    facility will be implemented through a
                                                                                                             inadvertently left discussion of                     submission, based on our finding that
                                                    revision to the Colorado regional haze
                                                                                                             110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of the 2006 24-hour             the State’s existing SIP is adequate to
                                                    SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA
                                                                                                             PM2.5 infrastructure certification, and              meet the requirements of this element
                                                    cannot rely on this approval as
                                                                                                             referenced the four subsequent                       for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
                                                    automatically satisfying element 4.
                                                       EPA does, however, consider aspects                   infrastructure submittals (for the 2008              VI. Statutory and Executive Orders
                                                    of our approval of Colorado’s regional                   Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010                    Review
                                                    haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this                SO2 NAAQS) that included a
                                                                                                                                                                    Under the CAA, the Administrator is
                                                    requirement. Specifically, EPA found                     demonstration that Colorado’s SIP meets
                                                                                                                                                                  required to approve a SIP submission
                                                    that Colorado met its 40 CFR                             the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The
                                                                                                                                                                  that complies with the provisions of the
                                                    51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include                 State requested that the same
                                                                                                                                                                  Act and applicable federal regulations
                                                    in its regional haze SIP all measures                    demonstration used in all subsequent
                                                                                                                                                                  (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)).
                                                    necessary to: (1) Obtain its share of the                infrastructure submittals be applied to
                                                                                                                                                                  Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
                                                    emission reductions needed to meet the                   the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 certification
                                                                                                                                                                  EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
                                                                                                             submitted June 4, 2010.
                                                       15 Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51—              CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires             provided that they meet the criteria of
                                                    Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the             that each SIP contain adequate                       the CAA. Accordingly, this action
                                                    Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(i)(b).
                                                                                                             provisions ensuring compliance with                  merely proposes to approve state law as
                                                       16 See 2013 I–SIP Guidance. EPA also approved
                                                                                                                                                                  meeting federal requirements and does
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in a   applicable requirements of CAA
                                                                                                             sections 126 and 115. Section 126(a)                 not impose additional requirements
                                                    final rulemaking published April 20, 2011 (76 FR
                                                    22036) by a demonstration provided by the State          requires notification to affected, nearby            beyond those imposed by state law. For
                                                    that did not rely on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP.     states of major proposed new (or                     that reason, this action:
                                                       17 WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on
                                                                                                             modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and                 • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
                                                    February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on                                                             action’’ subject to review by the Office
                                                    March 1, 2013.                                           (c) pertain to petitions by affected states
                                                       18 This settlement agreement is included in the
                                                                                                                                                                  of Management and Budget under
                                                    docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement       19 See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado

                                                    Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014).                  regional haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.        20 See   Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM     12MYP1


                                                                             Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                            27127

                                                    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                 Instructions: Direct your comments to
                                                    October 4, 1993);                                       AGENCY                                                Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015–
                                                       • Does not impose an information                                                                           0297. EPA’s policy is that all comments
                                                    collection burden under the provisions                  40 CFR Part 52                                        received will be included in the public
                                                    of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44                      [EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0297; FRL–9927–54–                  docket without change and may be
                                                    U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);                                   Region 9]                                             made available online at
                                                       • Is certified as not having a                                                                             www.regulations.gov, including any
                                                    significant economic impact on a                        Partial Approval and Partial                          personal information provided, unless
                                                    substantial number of small entities                    Disapproval of Air Quality State                      the comment includes information
                                                    under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5                 Implementation Plans; Arizona;                        claimed to be Confidential Business
                                                    U.S.C. 601 et seq.);                                    Infrastructure Requirements for Lead                  Information (CBI) or other information
                                                       • Does not contain any unfunded                      and Ozone                                             the disclosure of which is restricted by
                                                    mandate or significantly or uniquely                    AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                     statute. Do not submit information
                                                    affect small governments, as described                  Agency (EPA).                                         through www.regulations.gov or email
                                                    in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                                                                           that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
                                                                                                            ACTION: Proposed rule.
                                                    of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);                                                                                      protected from disclosure. The
                                                       • Does not have federalism                           SUMMARY:    The Environmental Protection              www.regulations.gov Web site is an
                                                    implications as specified in Executive                  Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially                anonymous access system, which means
                                                    Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,                    approve and partially disapprove a State              EPA will not know your identity or
                                                    1999);                                                  Implementation Plan (SIP) revision                    contact information unless you provide
                                                                                                            submitted by the State of Arizona to                  it in the body of your comment. If you
                                                       • Is not an economically significant
                                                                                                            address the requirements of section                   send an email comment directly to EPA
                                                    regulatory action based on health or
                                                                                                            110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act                without going through
                                                    safety risks subject to Executive Order
                                                                                                            (CAA) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008                 www.regulations.gov, your email
                                                    13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
                                                                                                            ozone national ambient air quality                    address will be automatically captured
                                                       • Is not a significant regulatory action                                                                   and included as part of the comment
                                                                                                            standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of
                                                    subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR                                                                       that is placed in the public docket and
                                                                                                            the CAA requires that each State adopt
                                                    28355, May 22, 2001);                                                                                         made available on the Internet. If you
                                                                                                            and submit a SIP for the
                                                       • Is not subject to requirements of                  implementation, maintenance, and                      submit an electronic comment, EPA
                                                    Section 12(d) of the National                           enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer                   recommends that you include your
                                                    Technology Transfer and Advancement                     to such SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’           name and other contact information in
                                                    Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because                SIPs because they are intended to                     the body of your comment and with any
                                                    application of those requirements would                 address basic structural SIP                          disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
                                                    be inconsistent with the CAA; and,                      requirements for each new or revised                  cannot read your comment due to
                                                       • Does not provide EPA with the                      NAAQS including, but not limited to,                  technical difficulties and cannot contact
                                                    discretionary authority to address, as                  legal authority, regulatory structure,                you for clarification, EPA may not be
                                                    appropriate, disproportionate human                     resources, permit programs, monitoring                able to consider your comment.
                                                    health or environmental effects, using                  and modeling necessary to assure                      Electronic files should avoid the use of
                                                    practicable and legally permissible                     attainment and maintenance of the                     special characters, any form of
                                                    methods, under Executive Order 12898                    standards. We are taking comments on                  encryption, and be free of any defects or
                                                    (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).                        this proposal and plan to follow with a               viruses.
                                                       The SIP is not approved to apply on                  final action.                                            Docket: All documents in the docket
                                                    any Indian reservation land or in any                   DATES: Written comments must be                       are listed in the www.regulations.gov
                                                    other area where EPA or an Indian tribe                 received on or before June 11, 2015.                  index. Although listed in the index,
                                                    has demonstrated that a tribe has                       ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,                      some information is not publicly
                                                    jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian                  identified by Docket No. EPA–R09–                     available, e.g., CBI or other information
                                                    country, the rule does not have tribal                  OAR–2015–0297, by one of the                          whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
                                                    implications and will not impose                        following methods:                                    Certain other material, such as
                                                    substantial direct costs on tribal                         1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://              copyrighted material, will be publicly
                                                    governments or preempt tribal law as                    www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line               available only in hard copy. Publicly
                                                    specified by Executive Order 13175 (65                  instructions for submitting comments.                 available docket materials are available
                                                    FR 67249, November 9, 2000).                               2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@            either electronically in
                                                    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52                      epa.gov.                                              www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
                                                                                                               3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning                the Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S.
                                                      Environmental protection, Air                         Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental                    Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                    pollution control, Incorporation by                     Protection Agency, Region IX, 75                      Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
                                                    reference, Intergovernmental relations,                 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California                  Francisco, California 94105. EPA
                                                    Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate                    94105.                                                requests that you contact the person
                                                    matter, Reporting and recordkeeping                        4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey               listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
                                                    requirements, Volatile Organic                          Buss, Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                                                                                  CONTACT section to schedule your
                                                    Compounds.                                              Environmental Protection Agency,                      inspection during normal business
                                                       Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.                    Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San                          hours.
                                                                                                            Francisco, California 94105. Such
                                                      Dated: April 29, 2015.                                deliveries are only accepted during the               FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                    Shaun L. McGrath,                                       Regional Office’s normal hours of                     Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S.
                                                    Regional Administrator, Region 8.                       operation. Special arrangements should                Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                    [FR Doc. 2015–11338 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am]             be made for deliveries of boxed                       Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email:
                                                    BILLING CODE 6560–50–P                                  information.                                          buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:06 May 11, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\12MYP1.SGM   12MYP1



Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:55:39
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:55:39
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesComments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.
ContactAdam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104, [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 27121 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR