80_FR_31078 80 FR 30974 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2

80 FR 30974 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 104 (June 1, 2015)

Page Range30974-30984
FR Document2015-13123

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>) on January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30974-30984]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13123]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972, FRL-9928-52-Region 8]


Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; 
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the 
State of Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008; 
lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 
January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state 
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972. All documents in 
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly 
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of 
Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours 
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding 
federal holidays. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is 
also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, 
fulton.abby@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not 
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark

[[Page 30975]]

the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, 
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your 
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information 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; and,
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone, revising 
the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). Subsequently, 
on October 15, 2008, EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary 
Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 0.15 
[mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964). On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-
hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per 
billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. The 2010 
NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three year average of the 98th 
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average 
concentrations. The secondary NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 
53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010).
    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to 
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These 
submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the 
applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications 
that their existing SIPs for ozone, Pb, and NO2 already meet 
those requirements. EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an 
October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements 
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo). 
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document 
pertaining to the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS 
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)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the 
October 14, 2011, ``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required 
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA 
issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 
13, 2013 (2013 Memo).

III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Colorado that address 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The 
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out 
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must 
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA taking 
any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such 
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to 
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA; ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to 
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and 
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to 
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which EPA 
interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking: 
Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 2008 Lead, 2008 
Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 
South Dakota (79 FR 71040 Dec. 1, 2014) under ``III. What is the Scope 
of this Rulemaking?''
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of

[[Page 30976]]

action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing 
SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess 
emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies 
addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to 
``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that may be 
contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not 
requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be 
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement 
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 
2007. (``NSR Reform'').

IV. What infrastructure elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing 
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is 
promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must 
contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements 
such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are 
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 
elements that are the subject of this action are listed below.
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict 
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.
    A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the 
next section.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by 
the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are 
therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D 
of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due 
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but 
rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements 
are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section 
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as 
``nonattainment NSR'') required under part D, and (2) section 
110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of 
part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure 
elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 
110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, EPA interprets 
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being 
triggered by a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, 
title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.

V. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 
submitted certifications of Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS on July 26, 2012; the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 31, 2012; 
and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on March 7, 2013. Colorado's 
infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State, where 
applicable, has plans in place that meet the requirements of section 
110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. These 
plans reference the current Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) 
regulations and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). These submittals 
are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action 
at www.regulations.gov. The AQCC regulations referenced in the 
submittals are publicly available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs and http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/. 
Colorado's SIP, air pollution control regulations, and statutes that 
have been previously approved by EPA and incorporated into the Colorado 
SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.320.

VI. Analysis of the State Submittals

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) 
requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives 
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as 
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or 
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
    Multiple SIP-approved AQCC regulations citied in Colorado's 
certifications provide enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and 
other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications.
    First, EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the 
nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be 
governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, 
Colorado has included some SIP provisions originally submitted in 
response to part D requirements in its certification for the 
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2). For the purposes of 
this action, EPA is reviewing any rules originally submitted in 
response to part D requirements solely for the purposes of determining 
whether they support a finding that the State has met the basic 
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2). For example, in 
response to the requirement to have enforceable emission limitations 
under section 110(a)(2)(A), Colorado cited to rules in Regulation 
Number 7 that were submitted to meet the reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) requirements of part D. EPA is here approving those 
rules as meeting the requirement to have enforceable emission 
limitations on ozone precursors; any judgment about whether those 
emission limitations discharge the State's obligation to impose RACT 
under part D will be made separately, in an action reviewing those 
rules pursuant to the requirements of part D. Colorado also referenced 
SIP provisions that are relevant, such as limits on emissions of 
particulate matter (PM) in Regulation 1, woodburning controls in 
Regulation 4, and the State's minor NSR and PSD programs in Regulation 
3. We propose to find these provisions adequately address the 
requirements of element (A), again subject to the clarifications made 
in this notice.
    Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's 
discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such 
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 
FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the 
future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state

[[Page 30977]]

having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary 
to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as 
soon as possible.
    Third and finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to 
approve or disapprove any existing state provision with regard to 
excess emissions during SSM or operations at a facility. A number of 
states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing 
EPA guidance \2\ and the Agency is addressing such state regulations 
separately (78 FR 12460, Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (Sept. 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 
requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate 
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to ``(i) monitor, 
compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 
request, make such data available to the Administrator.''
    The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) periodically 
submits a Quality Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan 
to EPA Region 8. These plans cover procedures to monitor and analyze 
data. The provisions for episode monitoring, data compilation and 
reporting, public availability of information, and annual network 
reviews are found in the statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, Sept. 
23, 1993). As part of the monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an Annual 
Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) each year for EPA approval. EPA approved 
2013 and 2014 network changes through an AMNP response letter 
(contained within the docket) mailed to CDPHE on March 13, 2015.
    In the AMNP response letter, EPA noted a deficiency in Colorado's 
AMNP regarding NO2 monitoring. 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv) 
requires that ``a plan for establishing a second near-road 
NO2 monitor in any [Core Based Statistical Area] [CBSA] with 
a population of 2,500,000 or more persons, or a second monitor in any 
CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more persons that has one or more 
roadway segments with 250,000 or greater [annual average daily traffic] 
counts, in accordance with the requirements of Appendix D, section 
4.3.2 to this part, shall be submitted as part of the Annual Monitoring 
Network Plan to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1, 2014. The 
plan shall provide for these required monitors to be operational by 
January 1, 2015.'' Colorado was required to start its second near-road 
NO2 monitor by January 1, 2015. The State did not meet this 
deadline. However, in a letter dated March 31, 2015 (contained within 
the docket) CDPHE committed to install and operate the second near-road 
NO2 monitoring site by December 31, 2015 at I-25/Acoma 
Street and 49th Avenue in Denver. The State will notify EPA once the 
monitor is operational, which will then satisfy the requirements of 40 
CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv).
    We find that Colorado's SIP and practices are adequate for the 
ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements for the 
2008 ozone and 2010 Pb NAAQS; and therefore, propose to approve the 
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS for this 
element.
    CAA 110(k)(4) states ``The Administrator may approve a plan 
revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific 
enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year after 
the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such conditional 
approval shall be treated as a disapproval if the State fails to comply 
with such commitment.'' Based on Colorado's commitment to install and 
operate the second near-road NO2 monitoring site no later 
than December 31, 2015, we propose to conditionally approve this 
element for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. If however, the State fails 
to meet the deadline for installing and operating the near-road 
NO2 monitor, EPA's conditional approval, if finalized, will 
revert automatically to a disapproval.
    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 
110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the 
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and 
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary 
source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure 
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C 
and D.
    To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the 
State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and 
minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2008 ozone, 
2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this 
action, EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as 
the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. EPA is 
evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, 
and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).

PSD Requirements

    With respect to elements (C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to 
require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new 
or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete 
PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all 
regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of element (D)(i)(II) may 
also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD 
permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. 
Colorado has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that 
covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects 
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate 
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase 
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). Among other 
requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their PSD 
programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone. 
EPA approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program reflecting these 
requirements on January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), and therefore, Colorado 
has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 
with respect to 2008 ozone.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision 
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG 
emissions, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that EPA may not treat 
GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source 
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Supreme Court 
also said that EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, 
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, 
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with 
its interpretation of the Court's decision pending further judicial 
action to effectuate the decision, EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 
regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting 
requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, 
EPA is not

[[Page 30978]]

applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program 
require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only 
pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above 
the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant 
emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a 
modification (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to 
revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In 
addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing 
SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision in 
Utility Air. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with 
respect to EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected 
to be informed by additional legal process before the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this 
juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD 
programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only 
evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program 
correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    At present, EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP is sufficient to 
satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs because 
the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA \3\ into the SIP 
continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on 
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved 
Colorado PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that 
are no longer necessary in light of the Utility Air decision, this does 
not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy 
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP contains the necessary PSD 
requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is 
not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions 
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider 
necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. 
Accordingly, the Utility Air decision does not affect EPA's proposed 
approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of 
elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's proposed notice at 78 FR 30830 (May 23, 2013) includes 
a discussion of the history of Colorado's PSD program approvals for 
GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current 
requirements for PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, EPA 
promulgated the rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program 
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' 
(73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 EPA promulgated the rule, 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter 
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant 
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' 
(75 FR 64864). EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as 
a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes 
of element (C).
    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment 
that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA to ``repromulgate these 
rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437. 
Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional 
provisions for PM nonattainment areas.
    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision, 
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321, 
May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of 
PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and 
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4 
only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions 
of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for 
PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by 
the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to 
revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule 
in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's 
proposed approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or 
J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 
Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion.
    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR 
requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not 
affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA 
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements, 
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, 
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or 
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to 
as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by 
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part 
D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some 
elements.
    The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in 
EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). EPA regards 
adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement 
when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).
    On May 11, 2012, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 that 
adopted all elements of the 2008 Implementation Rule and the 2010 
PM2.5 Increment Rule. However, the submittal contained a 
definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was inconsistent with 40 
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, the State submitted revisions to 
Regulation 3 which incorporate the definition of Major Source Baseline 
Date which was consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted 
revisions make Colorado's PSD program up to date with respect to 
current requirements for PM2.5. EPA approved the necessary 
portions of Colorado's May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013 submissions which 
incorporate the requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule on 
September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program 
meets current requirements for PM2.5. EPA therefore is 
proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 
2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part 
C of the Act.

Minor NSR

    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under 
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in 
Regulation 3 of the Colorado SIP, and was originally approved by EPA as 
Regulation 3 of the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since 
approval of the minor NSR program, the State and EPA have relied on the 
program to assure that new and modified sources not captured by the 
major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 
2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to the 
general

[[Page 30979]]

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP 
that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary 
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.
    4. Interstate Transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) 
require each state to submit a SIP 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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions 
activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will 
(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 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that 
will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable 
implementation plan for any other state under part C (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).
    In this action, EPA is addressing the 2008 Pb and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS with regard to elements 1 (significant 
contribution to nonattainment) and 2 (interference with maintenance). 
EPA is addressing elements 3 (interference with PSD) and 4 
(interference with visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with 
regard to the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We are 
not addressing elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this 
action. These elements will be addressed in a later rulemaking.
A. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and 
Interference With Maintenance
2008 Pb NAAQS
    Colorado's analysis of potential interstate transport for the 2008 
Pb NAAQS includes considerations of Colorado's Pb emissions inventory, 
and the distance of Pb sources in Colorado to nearby states. The 
State's analysis is available in the docket for this action.
    As noted in the 2011 Memo, there is a sharp decrease in Pb 
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a 
Pb source increases. For this reason, EPA found that the ``requirements 
of subsection (2)(D)(i)(I) (elements 1 and 2) could be satisfied 
through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb 
sources located in close proximity to their state borders have 
emissions that impact the neighboring state such that they contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that 
state.'' \4\ In that guidance document, EPA further specified that any 
source appeared unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment 
unless it was located less than 2 miles from a state border and emitted 
at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. Colorado's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
analysis specifically noted that there are no sources in the State that 
meet both of these criteria. EPA concurs with the State's analysis and 
conclusion that no Colorado sources have the combination of Pb emission 
levels and proximity to neighboring states to contribute significantly 
to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by other states for 
this NAAQS. Colorado's SIP is therefore adequate to ensure that such 
impacts do not occur. We are proposing to approve Colorado's submission 
in that its SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 
the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 2011 Memo at pg 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2010 NO2 NAAQS
    Colorado's 2010 NO2 submission notes that all states are 
currently designated by EPA as unclassifiable/attainment for 
NO2, and determines that it is therefore unlikely that 
Colorado contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance 
for NO2 in any other state.
    EPA recognizes the reasonableness of Colorado's conclusion, 
specifically with regard to element 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment).\5\ In addition, EPA notes that the highest monitored 
NO2 design values in each state bordering Colorado are 
significantly below the NAAQS (see Table 2, below).\6\ This fact 
further supports the State's contention that significant contribution 
to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NO2 
NAAQS from Colorado is very unlikely based on the lack of areas with 
high levels of NO2. This is especially relevant for element 
2 (interference with maintenance), because in addition to the lack of 
areas violating the NO2 NAAQS, there are also no areas near 
the State approaching violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS which 
might therefore be expected to have difficulty maintaining the 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA has not interpreted element 1 to literally mean 
contribution to designated nonattainment areas, and has applied this 
interpretation in comprehensive actions addressing elements 1 and 2 
(See e.g., Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, August 8, 
2011).
    \6\ EPA did not calculate a 2010 1-hour NO2 design 
value in the state of Nebraska for the 2011-2013 design value 
period.

         Table 2--Highest Monitored 2010 NO2 NAAQS Design Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2011-2013 Design    Percent of NAAQS
              State                      value             (100 ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas..........................  65 ppb............  65.
Nebraska........................  No Data...........  No Data.
New Mexico......................  41 ppb............  41.
Oklahoma........................  54 ppb............  54.
South Dakota....................  37 ppb............  37.
Utah............................  66 ppb............  66.
Wyoming.........................  35 ppb............  35.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

    In addition to the monitored levels of NO2 in states 
bordering Colorado being well below the NAAQS, Colorado's highest 
design value from 2011-2013 was also significantly below this NAAQS (62 
ppb).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on all of these factors, EPA concurs with the State's 
conclusion that Colorado does not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS in other states. EPA is therefore proposing to determine that 
Colorado's SIP includes adequate provisions to prohibit sources or 
other emission activities within the State from emitting NO2 
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or 
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect specifically 
to the NO2 NAAQS.
B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant 
Deterioration (PSD)
    Colorado's certifications with regard to elements 3 and 4 of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) vary by pollutant. Each certification can be found in 
the docket for this action.
    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

[[Page 30980]]

implementation rule(s).\8\ As noted in Section VI.3 of this proposed 
action, Colorado has such a program, and EPA is therefore proposing to 
approve Colorado's SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part 
C of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 2013 Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the 2013 Memo, 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Colorado's SIP meets 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 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 
NAAQS.
C. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility
    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must 
address the potential for interference with visibility protection 
caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or 
revised NAAQS applies. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets 
the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures 
that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required 
to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the 
absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a 
demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 2013 Memo. In addition, EPA approved the visibility 
requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action on the 
State's regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. 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.\11\ 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.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25, 
2013, and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013.
    \12\ 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 other 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.\13\ 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 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) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional Haze 
SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring 
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). 
Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources 
to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
    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 of the 
U.S. EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the ``interstate 
transport'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 
similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution.
    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD 
program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the 
emissions of sources subject to PSD.\14\ This suffices to meet the 
notice requirement of section 126(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 
NAAQS.
    6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to 
provide necessary assurances that the state will have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP 
(and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from 
carrying out the SIP or portion thereof). Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also 
requires each state to comply with the requirements respecting state 
boards under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states 
to ``provide necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a 
local or regional government, agency, or

[[Page 30981]]

instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP] provision, the 
State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such 
[SIP] provision.''
    a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate personnel, funding, and 
legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related 
issues. Colorado revised statues, specifically the Colorado Air 
Pollution Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25-7-105, 25-7-
111, 42-4-301 to 42-4-316, 42-4-414 and Article 7 of Title 25, provide 
adequate authority for the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to carry out 
its SIP obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS. The State receives Sections 103 and 105 grant 
funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required 
state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out 
Colorado's SIP requirements. The regulations cited by Colorado in their 
certifications and contained within this docket also provide the 
necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate 
implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we 
propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 
2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    b. Sub-element (ii): State boards. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
requires each state's SIP to contain provisions that comply with the 
requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two 
explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves 
permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a 
majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive 
a significant portion of their income from persons subject to such 
permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that any potential conflicts 
of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an 
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA's proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) 
includes a discussion of the legislative history of how states could 
meet the requirements of CAA section 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) EPA approved the Procedural Rules, 
Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on January 16, 1998, into the 
Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of section 128 of the Act. 
Section 1.11.0 specifies certain requirements regarding the composition 
of the AQCC and disclosure by its members of potential conflicts of 
interest. Details on how this portion of the Procedural Rules meets the 
requirements of section 128 are provided in our January 4, 2012 
proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our April 10, 2012 action, we 
correspondingly approved Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 
ozone NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado's SIP continues to meet the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the 
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 
NAAQS for this element.
    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) 
requires:
    (i) The installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, 
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators 
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) 
Periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-
related data from such sources, and (iii) Correlation of such reports 
by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards 
established pursuant to the Act, which reports shall be available at 
reasonable times for public inspection.
    The Colorado AQCC Regulations listed in the State's certifications 
(Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Provisions Regulation) and contained 
within this docket provide authority to establish a program for 
measurements and testing of sources, including requirements for 
sampling and testing. Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) requirements 
are defined in Regulation 3 and requires stationary sources to report 
their emissions on a regular basis through APENs. Regulation 3 also 
requires for monitoring to be performed in accordance with EPA accepted 
procedures, and record keeping of air pollutants. Additionally, 
Regulation 3 provides for a permitting program that establishes 
emission limitations and standards. Emissions must be reported by 
sources to the state for correlation with applicable emissions 
limitations and standards. Monitoring may be required for both 
construction and operating permits.
    Additionally, Colorado is required to submit emissions data to the 
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 
the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published 
the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which 
modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions 
data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report 
emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to 
submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a 
comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report 
emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online 
Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six 
criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, 
sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and 
volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado made its latest update 
to the NEI on December 31, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, 
supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public 
through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
    Based on the analysis above, we propose to approve the Colorado's 
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 
2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires 
infrastructure SIPs to ``provide for authority comparable to that in 
[CAA section 303 \16\] and adequate contingency plans to implement such 
authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303 
is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of 
State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for 
the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 
2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South 
Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under ``VI. Analysis of State 
Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 303, the Administrator has authority to bring 
suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an 
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or 
the environment. If such action may not practicably assure prompt 
protection, then the Administrator has authority to issue temporary 
administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the 
environment, and such orders can be extended if EPA subsequently files 
a civil suit.
    APPCA Sections 25-7-112 and 25-7-113 provide APCD with general 
emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of the Act. APPCA 
section 25-7-112(1) provides the Division of Administration in the 
CDPHE with the authority to maintain civil actions over the sources of 
air pollution discharges that constitute ``a clear, present, and 
immediate danger to the environment or to the health of the public.'' 
Specifically, the Division can seek a ``temporary restraining order, 
temporary injunction, or permanent injunction as provided for in the 
Colorado rules of civil procedure'' (C.R.S. section 25-7-112(1)(b)). 
This

[[Page 30982]]

authority extends to discharges that constitute ``an immediate danger 
to the welfare of the public because such pollutants make habitation of 
residences or the conduct of businesses subjected to the pollutants 
extremely unhealthy or disruptive.'' (C.R.S. Section 25-7-113(1)).
    These civil actions may be maintained ``in any district court of 
this state for the district in which the said activity or discharge is 
occurring.'' (C.R.S. Sections 25-7-112(1)(b); 25-7-113(1)(b)). 
Additionally, the action ``shall be given precedence over all other 
matters pending in such district court.'' (Id). As such, Colorado law 
provides statutory authority over sources of air pollution discharges 
that cause an ``immediate danger'' to public health, welfare, or the 
environment. This authority allows for the pursuit of immediate relief 
and provides precedence for such matters. Therefore, Colorado has 
comparable judicial authority to that provided to the Administrator in 
Section 303.
    Similarly, APPCA section 25-7-112(1)(a) provides the Division of 
Administration in the CDPHE with the authority to issue ``cease-and-
desist orders. . .requiring immediate discontinuance of such activity 
or the discharge of such pollutant into the atmosphere'' when the 
activity or discharge ``constitutes a clear, present, and immediate 
danger to the environment or to the health of the public.'' (C.R.S. 
Section 25-7-112(1)(a)). Further, ``upon receipt of such order, such 
person shall immediately discontinue such activity or discharge.'' 
(Id). This authority extends to discharges that constitute ``an 
immediate danger to the welfare of the public because such pollutants 
make habitation of residences or the conduct of businesses subjected to 
the pollutants extremely unhealthy or disruptive.'' (C.R.S. Section 25-
7-113(1)).
    These provisions also allow the Division to ``both issue such a 
cease-and-desist order and apply for any such restraining order or 
injunction'' (C.R.S. Sections 25-7-112(1)(c); 25-7-113(c)). Colorado 
law provides administrative authority over sources of air pollution 
discharges that cause an ``immediate danger'' to public health, 
welfare, or the environment. Furthermore, C.R.S. Sections 25-7-
112(2)(b) allows the Governor to declare a state of air pollution 
emergency and take any and all actions necessary to protect the health 
of the public. This authority is comparable to that provided to the 
Administrator in Section 303.
    States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their 
SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as 
discussed above). This can be met can by submitting a plan that meets 
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the 
relevant NAAQS if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. The Denver 
Emergency Episode Plan, applicable to the Denver metropolitan area, 
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (See 74 FR 
47888). The SIP therefore meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G). Based 
on the above analysis, we propose approval of Colorado's SIP as meeting 
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 
Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs 
provide for revision of such plan: (i) From time to time as may be 
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or 
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved 
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii), 
except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator 
finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that 
the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it 
implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements 
under this [Act].
    Colorado's statutory provision at Colorado APPCA Sections 25-7-
105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient authority to meet the 
requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to approve 
Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. Consultation with government officials, public notification, 
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each 
SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title 
(relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to 
public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of 
air quality and visibility protection).''
    The State has demonstrated it has the authority and rules in place 
through its certifications (contained within this docket) to provide a 
process of consultation with general purpose local governments, 
designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and 
any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which 
the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121. 
Furthermore, EPA previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 
127 for the Colorado SIP and determined public notification 
requirements are appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 1980).
    As discussed above, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that 
incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 
further evaluated Colorado's SIP approved PSD program in this proposed 
action under element (C) and determined the State has satisfied the 
requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as noted above. Therefore, the 
State has also satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(J).
    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the 
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we 
find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
    Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP 
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 
ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires 
each SIP provide for: (i) The performance of such air quality modeling 
as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the 
effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for 
which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and (ii) the 
submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling 
to the Administrator.
    Colorado's Regulation 3 Part A.VIII (Technical Modeling and 
Monitoring Requirements) requires estimates of ambient air 
concentrations be based on applicable air quality models approved by 
EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became effective 
February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part D, 
Section VI.C. requires the Division to transmit to the Administrator of 
the U.S. EPA a copy of each permit application relating to a major 
stationary source or major modification subject to this regulation, and 
provide notice of every action related to the consideration of such 
permit.
    Colorado has broad authority to develop and implement an air 
quality control program that includes conducting air quality modeling 
to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any 
air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and provide that 
modeling data to the EPA. This broad authority can be found in 25-7-
102, C.R.S., which requires that

[[Page 30983]]

emission control measures be evaluated against economic, environmental, 
energy and other impacts, and indirectly authorizes modeling 
activities.\17\ Colorado also has broad authority to conduct modeling 
and submit supporting data to EPA to satisfy federal non-attainment 
area requirements (25-7-105, 25-7-205.1, 25-7-301, and 25-7-302, 
C.R.S.). In addition to statutory authority, all state implementation 
plans and revisions of such plans must be submitted to Colorado's 
Legislature for review providing another layer of review and 
authorization for submittal to EPA (25-7-133(1), C.R.S.). The State 
also has the authority to submit any modeling data to EPA upon request 
under the Colorado Open Records Act (24-72-201 to 24-72-309, C.R.S.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Email from Robert True ``Response Requested for Element 
K on CO's iSIP'' April 6, 2015, available within docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, the SIP provides for such air quality modeling as the 
Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the 
Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 
ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to: Require 
the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the 
permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this 
act, a fee sufficient to cover; (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing 
and acting upon any application for such a permit; and (ii) if the 
owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable 
costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any 
such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated 
with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded 
with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee 
program under title V.
    The State of Colorado requires the owner or operator of a major 
stationary source to pay the Division any fee necessary to cover the 
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any permit application. 
The collection of fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, Part A.
    We also note that the State has an EPA approved title V permit 
program (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) which provides for collection of 
permitting fees. Final approval of the title V operating permit program 
became effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim approval of 
Colorado's title V operating permit program became effective February 
23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As discussed in the proposed interim approval of 
the title V program (59 FR 52123, October 14, 1994), the State 
demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the 
program.
    Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the 
collection of fees as described in AQCC Regulation 3, and the use of 
title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they are 
incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the 
submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 
and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
    13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and 
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP.
    The statutory provisions cited in Colorado's SIP submittals 
(contained within this docket) meet the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting these 
requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 
NAAQS.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the following 
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD 
requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 
(J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing to approve element (B) for the 
2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and proposing to conditionally approve 
element (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Finally, EPA proposes 
approval of D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 
NO2 NAAQS. EPA will act separately on infrastructure element 
(D)(i)(I), interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.

VIII. 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 
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal 
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet 
federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse 
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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


[[Page 30984]]


    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-13123 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

30974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS State effective Missouri citation Title EPA approval date Explanation date Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * * * * * * 10–6.120 ................. Restriction of Emissions of Lead from 3/30/09 6/1/15 and [Insert Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Instal- Federal Register Pertaining to Limitations of Lead lations. citation]. Emissions from Specific Installations, is not approved as part of the SIP. The requirement to limit main stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 gr/dscf lead in Paragraph (3)(B)2 is not approved as part of the SIP. * * * * * * * * * * * * (d) * * * EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS State effective Name of source Order/permit number EPA approval date Explanation date * * * * * * * (29) Doe Run Buick Resource Re- Consent Judgment 13IR–CC00016 7/29/13 6/1/15 and [Insert Federal Reg- cycling Facility. ister citation] * * * * * March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October Colorado, 80202–1129. The EPA [FR Doc. 2015–13128 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on requests that you contact the individual BILLING CODE 6560–50–P January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CAA requires that each state submit a CONTACT section to view the hard copy SIP for the implementation, of the docket. The Regional Office’s ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION maintenance, and enforcement of each official hours of business are Monday AGENCY NAAQS promulgated by EPA. through Friday, 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m., DATES: Written comments must be excluding federal holidays. An 40 CFR Part 52 electronic copy of the State’s SIP received on or before July 1, 2015. [EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0972, FRL–9928–52– compilation is also available at http:// ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Region 8] www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Promulgation of State Implementation Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 2012–0972. All documents in the docket Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Environmental Protection Agency are listed on the http:// Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, www.regulations.gov Web site. Although Lead, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado listed in the index, some information Air Quality Standards; Colorado 80202–1129, 303–312–6563, may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or fulton.abby@epa.gov. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). other information the disclosure of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Proposed rule. which is restricted by statute. Certain I. General Information other material, such as copyrighted SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection material, is not placed on the Internet What should I consider as I prepare my rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve and will be publicly available only in comments for EPA? elements of State Implementation Plan the hard copy form. Publicly available 1. Submitting Confidential Business (SIP) revisions from the State of docket materials are available either Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to Colorado to demonstrate the State meets electronically through http:// EPA through http://www.regulations.gov infrastructure requirements of the Clean www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at or email. Clearly mark the part or all of Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National EPA Region 8, Office of Partnership and the information that you claim to be Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, CBI. For CBI information on a disk or (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30975 the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as maintenance, and enforcement of the Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ CBI and then identify electronically NAAQS. These submissions must does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses within the disk or CD–ROM the specific contain any revisions needed for the term to distinguish this particular information that is claimed as CBI. In meeting the applicable SIP requirements type of SIP submission from addition to one complete version of the of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that submissions that are intended to satisfy comment that includes information their existing SIPs for ozone, Pb, and other SIP requirements under the CAA, claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment NO2 already meet those requirements. such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or that does not contain the information EPA highlighted this statutory ‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to claimed as CBI must be submitted for requirement in an October 2, 2007, address the nonattainment planning inclusion in the public docket. guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance requirements of part D of title I of the Information so marked will not be on SIP Elements Required Under CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions disclosed except in accordance with Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 required by EPA rule to address the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National visibility protection requirements of 2. Tips for preparing your comments. Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 CAA section 169A; and nonattainment When submitting comments, remember Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA new source review (NSR) permit to: issued an additional guidance document program submissions to address the • Identify the rulemaking by docket pertaining to the 2006 fine particulate permit requirements of CAA, title I, part number and other identifying matter (PM2.5) NAAQS entitled D. information (subject heading, Federal ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing Register volume, date, and page Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the and general requirements for number); 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) infrastructure SIP submissions, and • Follow directions and organize your National Ambient Air Quality Standards section 110(a)(2) provides more details comments; (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), followed by concerning the required contents of • Explain why you agree or disagree; the October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on these submissions. The list of required • Suggest alternatives and substitute Infrastructure SIP Elements Required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) language for your requested changes; Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the contains a wide variety of disparate • Describe any assumptions and 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air provisions, some of which pertain to provide any technical information and/ Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 required legal authority, some of which or data that you used; Memo). Most recently, EPA issued pertain to required substantive program • If you estimate potential costs or ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State provisions, and some of which pertain burdens, explain how you arrived at Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements to requirements for both authority and your estimate in sufficient detail to under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) substantive program provisions.1 EPA allow for it to be reproduced; and (2)’’ on September 13, 2013 (2013 therefore believes that while the timing • Provide specific examples to Memo). requirement in section 110(a)(1) is illustrate your concerns, and suggest unambiguous, some of the other alternatives; III. What is the scope of this statutory provisions are ambiguous. In • Explain your views as clearly as rulemaking? particular, EPA believes that the list of possible, avoiding the use of profanity EPA is acting upon the SIP required elements for infrastructure SIP or personal threats; and, submissions from Colorado that address submissions provided in section • Make sure to submit your the infrastructure requirements of CAA 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities comments by the comment period sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the concerning what is required for deadline identified. 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 inclusion in an infrastructure SIP NAAQS. The requirement for states to submission. II. Background make a SIP submission of this type Examples of some of these On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). ambiguities and the context in which a new NAAQS for ozone, revising the Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states EPA interprets the ambiguous portions levels of the primary and secondary 8- must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts years (or such shorter period as the discussed at length in our notice of per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR Administrator may prescribe) after the proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of 16436). Subsequently, on October 15, promulgation of a national primary State Implementation Plan Revisions; 2008, EPA revised the level of the ambient air quality standard (or any Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from revision thereof),’’ and these SIP and 2006 PM2.5 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) submissions are to provide for the and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 FR 66964). On January ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1- enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 71040 Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level statute directly imposes on states the the Scope of this Rulemaking?’’ of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while duty to make these SIP submissions, With respect to certain other issues, retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. and the requirement to make the EPA does not believe that an action on The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as submissions is not conditioned upon a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is the three year average of the 98th EPA taking any action other than necessarily the appropriate type of percentile of the annual distribution of promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS daily maximum 1-hour average Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides concentrations. The secondary NO2 that states must provide assurances that they have specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such adequate legal authority under state and local law NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb plan’’ submission must address. to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). EPA has historically referred to these that states must have a SIP-approved program to Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the SIP submissions made for the purpose address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that CAA, states are required to submit of satisfying the requirements of CAA states must have legal authority to address infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as emergencies as well as contingency plans that are provide for implementation, ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. triggered in the event of such emergencies. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

30976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules action in which to address possible year submission deadline of section and timetables for compliance as may be deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 110(a)(1) and are therefore not necessary or appropriate to meet the These issues include: (i) Existing addressed in this action. These elements applicable requirements of this Act. provisions related to excess emissions relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and Multiple SIP-approved AQCC from sources during periods of startup, submissions to satisfy them are not due regulations citied in Colorado’s shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that within three years after promulgation of certifications provide enforceable may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are emission limitations and other control policies addressing such excess due at the same time nonattainment area measures, means or techniques, emissions; (ii) existing provisions plan requirements are due under section schedules for compliance, and other related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 172. The two elements are: (1) Section related matters necessary to meet the ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to requirements of the CAA section contrary to the CAA because they permit programs (known as 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 purport to allow revisions to SIP- ‘‘nonattainment NSR’’) required under Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, subject to approved emissions limits while part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), the following clarifications. limiting public process or not requiring pertaining to the nonattainment First, EPA does not consider SIP further approval by EPA; and (iii) planning requirements of part D. As a requirements triggered by the existing provisions for Prevention of result, this action does not address nonattainment area mandates in part D Significant Deterioration (PSD) infrastructure elements related to the of Title I of the CAA to be governed by programs that may be inconsistent with nonattainment NSR portion of section the submission deadline of section current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Colorado has NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186, Furthermore, EPA interprets the CAA included some SIP provisions originally Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on submitted in response to part D 32526, June 13, 2007. (‘‘NSR Reform’’). visibility as not being triggered by a new requirements in its certification for the NAAQS because the visibility infrastructure requirements of section IV. What infrastructure elements are requirements in part C, title 1 of the 110(a)(2). For the purposes of this required under Sections 110(a)(1) and CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. action, EPA is reviewing any rules (2)? originally submitted in response to part V. How did Colorado address the D requirements solely for the purposes CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the infrastructure elements of Sections procedural and timing requirements for of determining whether they support a 110(a)(1) and (2)? finding that the State has met the basic SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section The Colorado Department of Public infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP Health and Environment (CDPHE) 110(a)(2). For example, in response to must contain or satisfy. These submitted certifications of Colorado’s the requirement to have enforceable infrastructure elements include infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb emission limitations under section requirements such as modeling, NAAQS on July 26, 2012; the 2008 110(a)(2)(A), Colorado cited to rules in monitoring, and emissions inventories, ozone NAAQS on December 31, 2012; Regulation Number 7 that were which are designed to assure attainment and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on March 7, submitted to meet the reasonably and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 2013. Colorado’s infrastructure available control technology (RACT) elements that are the subject of this certifications demonstrate how the requirements of part D. EPA is here action are listed below. State, where applicable, has plans in approving those rules as meeting the • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and place that meet the requirements of requirement to have enforceable other control measures. section 110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, emission limitations on ozone • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. These plans precursors; any judgment about whether monitoring/data system. reference the current Air Quality those emission limitations discharge the • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for Control Commission (AQCC) regulations State’s obligation to impose RACT enforcement of control measures. and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). under part D will be made separately, in • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. These submittals are available within an action reviewing those rules • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources the electronic docket for today’s pursuant to the requirements of part D. and authority, conflict of interest, and proposed action at www.regulations.gov. Colorado also referenced SIP provisions oversight of local governments and The AQCC regulations referenced in the that are relevant, such as limits on regional agencies. submittals are publicly available at emissions of particulate matter (PM) in • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/ Regulation 1, woodburning controls in monitoring and reporting. cdphe/aqcc-regs and http:// Regulation 4, and the State’s minor NSR • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/ and PSD programs in Regulation 3. We • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. colorado/. Colorado’s SIP, air pollution propose to find these provisions • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with control regulations, and statutes that adequately address the requirements of government officials; public have been previously approved by EPA element (A), again subject to the notification; and PSD and visibility and incorporated into the Colorado SIP clarifications made in this notice. protection. can be found at 40 CFR 52.320. Second, in this action, EPA is not • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ proposing to approve or disapprove any VI. Analysis of the State Submittals existing state rules with regard to data. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 1. Emission limits and other control director’s discretion or variance • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires provisions. A number of states have participation by affected local entities. SIPs to include enforceable emission such provisions which are contrary to A detailed discussion of each of these limitations and other control measures, the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 elements is contained in the next means, or techniques (including FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the section. economic incentives such as fees, Agency plans to take action in the future Two elements identified in section marketable permits, and auctions of to address such state regulations. In the 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three emissions rights), as well as schedules meantime, EPA encourages any state VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30977 having a director’s discretion or for these required monitors to be Act, and the State’s minor NSR program variance provision which is contrary to operational by January 1, 2015.’’ as required by 110(a)(2)(C). the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps Colorado was required to start its PSD Requirements to correct the deficiency as soon as second near-road NO2 monitor by possible. January 1, 2015. The State did not meet With respect to elements (C) and (J), Third and finally, in this action, EPA this deadline. However, in a letter dated EPA interprets the CAA to require each is also not proposing to approve or March 31, 2015 (contained within the state to make an infrastructure SIP disapprove any existing state provision docket) CDPHE committed to install and submission for a new or revised NAAQS with regard to excess emissions during operate the second near-road NO2 that demonstrates that the air agency SSM or operations at a facility. A monitoring site by December 31, 2015 at has a complete PSD permitting program number of states have SSM provisions I–25/Acoma Street and 49th Avenue in meeting the current requirements for all which are contrary to the CAA and Denver. The State will notify EPA once regulated NSR pollutants. The existing EPA guidance 2 and the Agency the monitor is operational, which will requirements of element (D)(i)(II) may is addressing such state regulations then satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR also be satisfied by demonstrating the separately (78 FR 12460, Feb. 22, 2013). 58.10(a)(5)(iv). air agency has a complete PSD 2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ We find that Colorado’s SIP and permitting program correctly addressing data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) practices are adequate for the ambient all regulated NSR pollutants. Colorado requires SIPs to provide for air quality monitoring and data system has shown that it currently has a PSD establishment and operation of requirements for the 2008 ozone and program in place that covers all appropriate devices, methods, systems, 2010 Pb NAAQS; and therefore, propose regulated NSR pollutants, including and procedures necessary to ‘‘(i) to approve the infrastructure SIP for the greenhouse gases (GHGs). monitor, compile, and analyze data on EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS for ambient air quality, and (ii) upon Hour Ozone National Ambient Air this element. request, make such data available to the Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule CAA 110(k)(4) states ‘‘The to Implement Certain Aspects of the Administrator.’’ The Colorado Air Pollution Control Administrator may approve a plan 1990 Amendments Relating to New Division (APCD) periodically submits a revision based on a commitment of the Source Review and Prevention of Quality Management Plan and a Quality State to adopt specific enforceable Significant Deterioration as They Apply Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8. measures by a date certain, but not later in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, These plans cover procedures to than 1 year after the date of approval of and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for monitor and analyze data. The the plan revision. Any such conditional Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) provisions for episode monitoring, data approval shall be treated as a was published on November 29, 2005 compilation and reporting, public disapproval if the State fails to comply (70 FR 71612). Among other availability of information, and annual with such commitment.’’ Based on requirements, the Phase 2 Rule network reviews are found in the Colorado’s commitment to install and obligated states to revise their PSD statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, operate the second near-road NO2 programs to explicitly identify NOX as Sept. 23, 1993). As part of the monitoring site no later than December a precursor to ozone. EPA approved monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an 31, 2015, we propose to conditionally revisions to Colorado’s PSD program Annual Monitoring Network Plan approve this element for the 2010 NO2 reflecting these requirements on January (AMNP) each year for EPA approval. NAAQS. If however, the State fails to 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), and therefore, EPA approved 2013 and 2014 network meet the deadline for installing and Colorado has met the infrastructure SIP changes through an AMNP response operating the near-road NO2 monitor, requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) letter (contained within the docket) EPA’s conditional approval, if finalized, with respect to 2008 ozone. mailed to CDPHE on March 13, 2015. will revert automatically to a On June 23, 2014, the United States In the AMNP response letter, EPA disapproval. Supreme Court issued a decision noted a deficiency in Colorado’s AMNP 3. Program for enforcement of control addressing the application of PSD regarding NO2 monitoring. 40 CFR measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires permitting requirements to GHG 58.10(a)(5)(iv) requires that ‘‘a plan for SIPs to include a program to provide for emissions, Utility Air Regulatory Group establishing a second near-road NO2 the enforcement of the measures v. Environmental Protection Agency, monitor in any [Core Based Statistical described in subparagraph (A), and 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said Area] [CBSA] with a population of regulation of the modification and that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 2,500,000 or more persons, or a second construction of any stationary source pollutant for purposes of determining monitor in any CBSA with a population within the areas covered by the plan as whether a source is a major source of 500,000 or more persons that has one necessary to assure NAAQS are required to obtain a PSD permit. The or more roadway segments with 250,000 achieved, including a permit program as Supreme Court also said that EPA could or greater [annual average daily traffic] required in parts C and D. continue to require that PSD permits, counts, in accordance with the To generally meet the requirements of otherwise required based on emissions requirements of Appendix D, section section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 4.3.2 to this part, shall be submitted as required to have SIP-approved PSD, limitations on GHG emissions based on part of the Annual Monitoring Network nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR the application of Best Available Plan to the EPA Regional Administrator permitting programs adequate to Control Technology (BACT). In order to rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS by July 1, 2014. The plan shall provide implement the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, act consistently with its interpretation and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As explained of the Court’s decision pending further 2 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for elsewhere in this action, EPA is not judicial action to effectuate the decision, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and evaluating nonattainment related EPA is not continuing to apply EPA Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air provisions, such as the nonattainment regulations that would require that SIPs and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): NSR program required by part D of the include permitting requirements that Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, Act. EPA is evaluating the State’s PSD the Supreme Court found Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20, 1999). program as required by part C of the impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

30978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules applying the requirement that a state’s EPA promulgated the rule, attainment plan elements, which would SIP-approved PSD program require that ‘‘Implementation of the New Source be due by the dates statutorily sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs Review Program for Particulate Matter prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 are the only pollutant (i) that the source Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 under part D, extending as far as 10 emits or has the potential to emit above FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 EPA years following designations for some the major source thresholds, or (ii) for promulgated the rule, ‘‘Prevention of elements. which there is a significant emissions Significant Deterioration (PSD) for The second PSD requirement for increase and a significant net emissions Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 PM2.5 is contained in EPA’s October 20, increase from a modification (e.g., 40 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate need to revise federal PSD rules in light Significant Monitoring Concentration Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers of the Supreme Court opinion. In (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). EPA regards (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact addition, EPA anticipates that many adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring states will revise their existing SIP- necessary requirement when assessing a Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). approved PSD programs in light of the PSD program for the purposes of EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5 Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Air. element (C). increments as a necessary requirement The timing and content of subsequent On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of when assessing a PSD program for the EPA actions with respect to EPA Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense purposes of element (C). regulations and state PSD program Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), On May 11, 2012, the State submitted approvals are expected to be informed issued a judgment that remanded EPA’s revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted by additional legal process before the 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the all elements of the 2008 Implementation United States Court of Appeals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment District of Columbia Circuit. At this EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these rules Rule. However, the submittal contained juncture, EPA is not expecting states to pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with a definition of Major Source Baseline have revised their PSD programs for this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of Date which was inconsistent with 40 purposes of infrastructure SIP part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, submissions and is only evaluating such additional provisions for PM the State submitted revisions to submissions to assure that the state’s nonattainment areas. Regulation 3 which incorporate the program correctly addresses GHGs The 2008 implementation rule definition of Major Source Baseline Date consistent with the Supreme Court’s addressed by the court decision, which was consistent with 40 CFR decision. ‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted At present, EPA has determined that (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter revisions make Colorado’s PSD program Colorado’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 up to date with respect to current elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated requirements for PM2.5. EPA approved respect to GHGs because the PSD NSR requirements for implementation the necessary portions of Colorado’s permitting program previously of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013 approved by EPA 3 into the SIP (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/ submissions which incorporate the continues to require that PSD permits unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 (otherwise required based on emissions requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain Implementation Rule and the 2010 of pollutants other than GHGs) contain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not PM2.5 Increment Rule on September 23, limitations on GHG emissions based on consider the portions of the 2008 2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado’s SIP- the application of BACT. Although the Implementation rule that address approved PSD program meets current approved Colorado PSD permitting requirements for PM2.5 attainment and requirements for PM2.5. EPA therefore is program may currently contain unclassifiable areas to be affected by the proposing to approve Colorado’s SIP for provisions that are no longer necessary court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does not the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 in light of the Utility Air decision, this anticipate the need to revise any PSD NAAQS with respect to the requirement does not render the infrastructure SIP requirements promulgated in the 2008 in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a submission inadequate to satisfy Implementation rule in order to comply permit program in the SIP as required elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP with the court’s decision. Accordingly, by part C of the Act. contains the necessary PSD EPA’s proposed approval of Colorado’s infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J Minor NSR requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not with respect to the PSD requirements The State has a SIP-approved minor impeded by the presence of other promulgated by the 2008 NSR program, adopted under section previously-approved provisions Implementation rule does not conflict 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR regarding the permitting of sources of with the court’s opinion. program is found in Regulation 3 of the The court’s decision with respect to Colorado SIP, and was originally GHGs that EPA does not consider the nonattainment NSR requirements approved by EPA as Regulation 3 of the necessary at this time in light of the promulgated by the 2008 SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, Implementation rule also does not affect Since approval of the minor NSR the Utility Air decision does not affect EPA’s action on the present program, the State and EPA have relied EPA’s proposed approval of Colorado’s infrastructure action. EPA interprets the on the program to assure that new and rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS infrastructure SIP as to the requirements Act to exclude nonattainment area modified sources not captured by the of elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). Finally, we evaluate the PSD program requirements, including requirements major NSR permitting programs do not with respect to current requirements for associated with a nonattainment NSR interfere with attainment and PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, program, from infrastructure SIP maintenance of the NAAQS. submissions due three years after EPA is proposing to approve 3 EPA’s proposed notice at 78 FR 30830 (May 23, adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the 2013) includes a discussion of the history of Instead, these elements are typically 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 Colorado’s PSD program approvals for GHGs. referred to as nonattainment SIP or NAAQS with respect to the general VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30979 requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to distance from a Pb source increases. For lack of areas with high levels of NO2. include a program in the SIP that this reason, EPA found that the This is especially relevant for element 2 regulates the modification and ‘‘requirements of subsection (2)(D)(i)(I) (interference with maintenance), construction of any stationary source as (elements 1 and 2) could be satisfied because in addition to the lack of areas necessary to assure that the NAAQS are through a state’s assessment as to violating the NO2 NAAQS, there are also achieved. whether or not emissions from Pb no areas near the State approaching 4. Interstate Transport: The interstate sources located in close proximity to violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS transport provisions in CAA section their state borders have emissions that which might therefore be expected to 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good impact the neighboring state such that have difficulty maintaining the neighbor’’ provisions) require each state they contribute significantly to standard. to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions nonattainment or interfere with that will have certain adverse air quality maintenance in that state.’’ 4 In that TABLE 2—HIGHEST MONITORED 2010 effects in other states. CAA section guidance document, EPA further NO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct specified that any source appeared elements related to the impacts of air unlikely to contribute significantly to 2011–2013 Percent of pollutants transported across state lines. nonattainment unless it was located less State Design NAAQS The two elements under section value (100 ppb) than 2 miles from a state border and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. Kansas ............. 65 ppb ........ 65. adequate provisions to prohibit any Colorado’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis Nebraska ......... No Data ...... No Data. source or other type of emissions specifically noted that there are no New Mexico ..... 41 ppb ........ 41. activity within the state from emitting sources in the State that meet both of Oklahoma ........ 54 ppb ........ 54. air pollutants that will (element 1) these criteria. EPA concurs with the South Dakota ... 37 ppb ........ 37. contribute significantly to State’s analysis and conclusion that no Utah ................. 66 ppb ........ 66. nonattainment in any other state with Colorado sources have the combination Wyoming .......... 35 ppb ........ 35. respect to any such national primary or of Pb emission levels and proximity to * Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) neighboring states to contribute values.html. interfere with maintenance by any other significantly to nonattainment in or In addition to the monitored levels of state with respect to the same NAAQS. interfere with maintenance by other NO2 in states bordering Colorado being The two elements under section states for this NAAQS. Colorado’s SIP is well below the NAAQS, Colorado’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain therefore adequate to ensure that such highest design value from 2011–2013 adequate provisions to prohibit impacts do not occur. We are proposing was also significantly below this emissions that will interfere with to approve Colorado’s submission in NAAQS (62 ppb).7 measures required to be included in the that its SIP meets the requirements of Based on all of these factors, EPA applicable implementation plan for any section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb concurs with the State’s conclusion that other state under part C (element 3) to NAAQS. Colorado does not contribute prevent significant deterioration of air significantly to nonattainment or 2010 NO2 NAAQS quality or (element 4) to protect interfere with maintenance of the 2010 visibility. In this action, EPA is Colorado’s 2010 NO2 submission NO2 NAAQS in other states. EPA is addressing all four elements of CAA notes that all states are currently therefore proposing to determine that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). designated by EPA as unclassifiable/ Colorado’s SIP includes adequate In this action, EPA is addressing the attainment for NO2, and determines that provisions to prohibit sources or other 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with it is therefore unlikely that Colorado emission activities within the State from regard to elements 1 (significant contributes to nonattainment or emitting NO2 in amounts that will contribution to nonattainment) and 2 interferes with maintenance for NO2 in contribute significantly to (interference with maintenance). EPA is any other state. nonattainment in or interfere with addressing elements 3 (interference with EPA recognizes the reasonableness of maintenance by any other state with PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility Colorado’s conclusion, specifically with respect specifically to the NO2 NAAQS. protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard regard to element 1 (significant to the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 contribution to nonattainment).5 In B. Evaluation of Interference With NO2 NAAQS. We are not addressing addition, EPA notes that the highest Measures To Prevent Significant elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone monitored NO2 design values in each Deterioration (PSD) NAAQS in this action. These elements state bordering Colorado are Colorado’s certifications with regard will be addressed in a later rulemaking. significantly below the NAAQS (see to elements 3 and 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Table 2, below).6 This fact further vary by pollutant. Each certification can A. Evaluation of Significant supports the State’s contention that be found in the docket for this action. Contribution to Nonattainment and significant contribution to With regard to the PSD portion of Interference With Maintenance nonattainment or interference with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 2008 Pb NAAQS maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS from requirement may be met by a state’s Colorado’s analysis of potential Colorado is very unlikely based on the confirmation in an infrastructure SIP interstate transport for the 2008 Pb submission that new major sources and rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 4 2011 Memo at pg 8. NAAQS includes considerations of 5 EPA major modifications in the state are has not interpreted element 1 to literally Colorado’s Pb emissions inventory, and mean contribution to designated nonattainment subject to a comprehensive EPA- the distance of Pb sources in Colorado areas, and has applied this interpretation in approved PSD permitting program in to nearby states. The State’s analysis is comprehensive actions addressing elements 1 and the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR available in the docket for this action. 2 (See e.g., Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR pollutants and that satisfies the 48208, August 8, 2011). As noted in the 2011 Memo, there is 6 EPA did not calculate a 2010 1-hour NO design requirements of EPA’s PSD 2 a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at value in the state of Nebraska for the 2011–2013 least in the coarse fraction, as the design value period. 7 http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

30980 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules implementation rule(s).8 As noted in satisfies the visibility requirement visibility modeling into its regional haze Section VI.3 of this proposed action, section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).10 SIP, and the SIP included the controls Colorado has such a program, and EPA Colorado submitted a regional haze assumed in the modeling. For these is therefore proposing to approve SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA reasons, EPA determined that Colorado Colorado’s SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 approved Colorado’s regional haze SIP had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In requirements for consultation and to the requirement in section early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and included controls in the SIP sufficient to 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program the National Parks Conservation address the relevant requirements in the SIP as required by part C of the Association (NPCA) filed separate related to impacts on Class I areas in Act. petitions for reconsideration of certain other states. Therefore, we are proposing aspects of EPA’s approval of the to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting As stated in the 2013 Memo, in-state Colorado’s regional haze SIP.11 After the requirements of element 4 of CAA sources not subject to PSD for any one these petitions were filed, a settlement section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 or more of the pollutants subject to agreement was entered into concerning ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. regulation under the CAA because they the Craig Generating Station by the 5. Interstate and International are in a nonattainment area for a petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State transport provisions: CAA section NAAQS related to those particular Generation and Transmission 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include pollutants may also have the potential Association, Inc., and filed with the provisions ensuring compliance with to interfere with PSD in an attainment court on July 10, 2014.12 In accordance the applicable requirements of CAA or unclassifiable area of another state. with the settlement agreement, EPA sections 126 and 115 (relating to One way a state may satisfy element 3 requested and the court granted a interstate and international pollution with respect to these sources is by citing voluntary remand to EPA of the portions abatement). Specifically, CAA section an air agency’s EPA-approved of EPA’s December 2012 regional haze 126(a) requires new or modified major nonattainment NSR provisions SIP approval that related to Craig Unit sources to notify neighboring states of addressing any pollutants for which the 1. Because of this remand, and because potential impacts from the source. state has designated nonattainment the additional controls at the Craig Section 126(a) requires notification to areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved facility will be implemented through a affected, nearby states of major nonattainment NSR program which revision to the Colorado regional haze proposed new (or modified) sources. ensures regulation of major sources and SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to major modifications in nonattainment cannot rely on this approval as petitions by affected states to the areas.9 automatically satisfying element 4. Administrator of the U.S. EPA EPA does, however, consider other (Administrator) regarding sources As Colorado’s SIP meets PSD aspects of our approval of Colorado’s violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements for all regulated NSR regional haze SIP to be sufficient to provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). pollutants, and contains a fully satisfy this requirement. Specifically, Section 115 similarly pertains to approved nonattainment NSR program, EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR international transport of air pollution. EPA is proposing to approve the 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include As required by 40 CFR infrastructure SIP submission as in its regional haze SIP all measures 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado’s SIP- meeting the applicable requirements of necessary to (1) obtain its share of the approved PSD program requires notice element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for emission reductions needed to meet the to states whose lands may be affected by the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 reasonable progress goals for any other the emissions of sources subject to NAAQS. state’s Class I area to which Colorado PSD.14 This suffices to meet the notice causes or contributes to visibility requirement of section 126(a). C. Evaluation of Interference With Colorado has no pending obligations impairment, and; (2) ensure it has Measures To Protect Visibility under sections 126(c) or 115(b); included all measures needed to achieve To determine whether the CAA its apportionment of emission reduction therefore, its SIP currently meets the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement obligations agreed upon through a requirements of those sections. In for visibility protection is satisfied, the regional planning process. Colorado summary, the SIP meets the SIP must address the potential for participated in a regional planning requirements of CAA section interference with visibility protection process with Western Regional Air 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 caused by the pollutant (including Partnership (WRAP). In the regional Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. precursors) to which the new or revised planning process, Colorado analyzed the 6. Adequate resources: Section NAAQS applies. An approved regional WRAP modeling and determined that 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide emissions from the State do not necessary assurances that the state will haze SIP that fully meets the regional significantly impact other states’ Class I have adequate personnel, funding, and haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 areas.13 Colorado accepted and authority under state law to carry out satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) incorporated the WRAP-developed the SIP (and is not prohibited by any requirement for visibility protection as provision of federal or state law from it ensures that emissions from the state 10 See 2013 Memo. In addition, EPA approved the carrying out the SIP or portion thereof). will not interfere with measures visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires required to be included in other state Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking each state to comply with the rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence action on the State’s regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011). requirements respecting state boards of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a 11 WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on under CAA section 128. Section state can still make a demonstration that February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to March 1, 2013. ‘‘provide necessary assurances that, 8 See 2013 Memo. 12 This settlement agreement is included in the 9 See docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement where the State has relied on a local or Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). regional government, agency, or final rulemaking dated February 13, 2014 (79 FR 13 See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado 8632). regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012. 14 See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30981 instrumentality for the implementation provided in our January 4, 2012 sources annually through the EPA’s of any [SIP] provision, the State has proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our online Emissions Inventory System. responsibility for ensuring adequate April 10, 2012 action, we States report emissions data for the six implementation of such [SIP] correspondingly approved Colorado’s criteria pollutants and their associated provision.’’ infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado’s dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon personnel, funding, and legal authority SIP continues to meet the requirements monoxide, particulate matter, and under state law to carry out its SIP, and of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we volatile organic compounds. Many related issues. Colorado revised statues, propose to approve the infrastructure states also voluntarily report emissions specifically the Colorado Air Pollution SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) 2010 NO2 NAAQS for this element. made its latest update to the NEI on Sections 25–7–105, 25–7–111, 42–4–301 7. Stationary source monitoring December 31, 2014. EPA compiles the to 42–4–316, 42–4–414 and Article 7 of system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: emissions data, supplementing it where Title 25, provide adequate authority for (i) The installation, maintenance, and necessary, and releases it to the general the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC replacement of equipment, and the public through the Web site http:// to carry out its SIP obligations with implementation of other necessary www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ respect to the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and steps, by owners or operators of eiinformation.html. 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The State receives stationary sources to monitor emissions Based on the analysis above, we Sections 103 and 105 grant funds from such sources, (ii) Periodic reports propose to approve the Colorado’s SIP through its Performance Partnership on the nature and amounts of emissions as meeting the requirements of CAA Grant along with required state and emissions-related data from such section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 ozone, matching funds to provide funding sources, and (iii) Correlation of such 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. necessary to carry out Colorado’s SIP reports by the state agency with any 8. Emergency powers: Section requirements. The regulations cited by emission limitations or standards 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires Colorado in their certifications and established pursuant to the Act, which infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for contained within this docket also reports shall be available at reasonable authority comparable to that in [CAA provide the necessary assurances that times for public inspection. section 303 16] and adequate the State has responsibility for adequate The Colorado AQCC Regulations contingency plans to implement such implementation of SIP provisions by listed in the State’s certifications authority.’’ local governments. Therefore, we (Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Under CAA section 303, the Provisions Regulation) and contained Administrator has authority to bring suit propose to approve Colorado’s SIP as within this docket provide authority to to immediately restrain an air pollution meeting the requirements of section establish a program for measurements source that presents an imminent and 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 and testing of sources, including substantial endangerment to public ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. requirements for sampling and testing. health or welfare, or the environment. If b. Sub-element (ii): State boards. Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) such action may not practicably assure Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each requirements are defined in Regulation prompt protection, then the state’s SIP to contain provisions that 3 and requires stationary sources to comply with the requirements of section Administrator has authority to issue report their emissions on a regular basis 128 of the CAA. That provision contains temporary administrative orders to through APENs. Regulation 3 also two explicit requirements: (i) That any protect the public health or welfare, or requires for monitoring to be performed board or body which approves permits the environment, and such orders can in accordance with EPA accepted or enforcement orders under the CAA be extended if EPA subsequently files a procedures, and record keeping of air shall have at least a majority of members civil suit. pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3 who represent the public interest and do APPCA Sections 25–7–112 and 25–7– provides for a permitting program that not derive a significant portion of their 113 provide APCD with general establishes emission limitations and income from persons subject to such emergency authority comparable to that standards. Emissions must be reported permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) in section 303 of the Act. APPCA by sources to the state for correlation that any potential conflicts of interest by section 25–7–112(1) provides the with applicable emissions limitations members of such board or body or the Division of Administration in the and standards. Monitoring may be head of an executive agency with required for both construction and CDPHE with the authority to maintain similar powers be adequately operating permits. civil actions over the sources of air disclosed.15 Additionally, Colorado is required to pollution discharges that constitute ‘‘a On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) EPA submit emissions data to the EPA for clear, present, and immediate danger to approved the Procedural Rules, Section purposes of the National Emissions the environment or to the health of the 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s public.’’ Specifically, the Division can January 16, 1998, into the Colorado SIP central repository for air emissions data. seek a ‘‘temporary restraining order, as meeting the requirements of section The EPA published the Air Emissions temporary injunction, or permanent 128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0 specifies Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, injunction as provided for in the certain requirements regarding the 2008, which modified the requirements Colorado rules of civil procedure’’ composition of the AQCC and for collecting and reporting air (C.R.S. section 25–7–112(1)(b)). This rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS disclosure by its members of potential emissions data (73 FR 76539). The conflicts of interest. Details on how this AERR shortened the time states had to 16 Discussion of the requirements for meeting portion of the Procedural Rules meets CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of report emissions data from 17 to 12 proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State the requirements of section 128 are months, giving states one calendar year Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure to submit emissions data. All states are Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 15 EPA’s proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative required to submit a comprehensive Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, history of how states could meet the requirements emissions inventory every three years Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State of CAA section 128. and report emissions for certain larger Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

30982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules authority extends to discharges that emergency episode authority (as As discussed above, the State has a constitute ‘‘an immediate danger to the discussed above). This can be met can SIP-approved PSD program that welfare of the public because such by submitting a plan that meets the incorporates by reference the federal pollutants make habitation of residences applicable requirements of 40 CFR part program at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has or the conduct of businesses subjected 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS further evaluated Colorado’s SIP to the pollutants extremely unhealthy or if the NAAQS is covered by those approved PSD program in this proposed disruptive.’’ (C.R.S. Section 25–7– regulations. The Denver Emergency action under element (C) and 113(1)). Episode Plan, applicable to the Denver determined the State has satisfied the These civil actions may be maintained metropolitan area, satisfies the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as ‘‘in any district court of this state for the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart noted above. Therefore, the State has district in which the said activity or H (See 74 FR 47888). The SIP therefore also satisfied the requirements of discharge is occurring.’’ (C.R.S. Sections meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G). element 110(a)(2)(J). 25–7–112(1)(b); 25–7–113(1)(b)). Based on the above analysis, we propose Finally, with regard to the applicable Additionally, the action ‘‘shall be given approval of Colorado’s SIP as meeting requirements for visibility protection, precedence over all other matters the requirements of CAA section EPA recognizes states are subject to pending in such district court.’’ (Id). As 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 visibility and regional haze program such, Colorado law provides statutory Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. requirements under part C of the Act. In authority over sources of air pollution 9. Future SIP revisions: Section the event of the establishment of a new discharges that cause an ‘‘immediate 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide NAAQS, however, the visibility and danger’’ to public health, welfare, or the for revision of such plan: (i) From time regional haze program requirements environment. This authority allows for to time as may be necessary to take under part C do not change. Thus, we the pursuit of immediate relief and account of revisions of such national find that there are no applicable provides precedence for such matters. primary or secondary ambient air visibility requirements under section Therefore, Colorado has comparable quality standard or the availability of 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS judicial authority to that provided to the improved or more expeditious methods becomes effective. Administrator in Section 303. of attaining such standard, and (ii), Based on the above analysis, we Similarly, APPCA section 25–7– except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), propose to approve the Colorado SIP as 112(1)(a) provides the Division of whenever the Administrator finds on meeting the requirements of CAA Administration in the CDPHE with the the basis of information available to the section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 ozone, authority to issue ‘‘cease-and-desist Administrator that the SIP is 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. orders. . .requiring immediate substantially inadequate to attain the 11. Air quality and modeling/data: discontinuance of such activity or the NAAQS which it implements or to Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP discharge of such pollutant into the otherwise comply with any additional provide for: (i) The performance of such atmosphere’’ when the activity or requirements under this [Act]. air quality modeling as the discharge ‘‘constitutes a clear, present, Colorado’s statutory provision at Administrator may prescribe for the and immediate danger to the Colorado APPCA Sections 25–7– purpose of predicting the effect on environment or to the health of the 105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient ambient air quality of any emissions of public.’’ (C.R.S. Section 25–7–112(1)(a)). authority to meet the requirements of any air pollutant for which the Further, ‘‘upon receipt of such order, 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to Administrator has established a such person shall immediately approve Colorado’s SIP as meeting the NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon discontinue such activity or discharge.’’ requirements of CAA section request, of data related to such air (Id). This authority extends to 110(a)(2)(H). quality modeling to the Administrator. discharges that constitute ‘‘an 10. Consultation with government Colorado’s Regulation 3 Part A.VIII immediate danger to the welfare of the officials, public notification, PSD and (Technical Modeling and Monitoring public because such pollutants make visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) Requirements) requires estimates of habitation of residences or the conduct requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the ambient air concentrations be based on of businesses subjected to the pollutants applicable requirements of section 121 applicable air quality models approved extremely unhealthy or disruptive.’’ of this title (relating to consultation), by EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 (C.R.S. Section 25–7–113(1)). section 127 of this title (relating to Part A.VIII became effective February These provisions also allow the public notification), and part C of this 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, Division to ‘‘both issue such a cease- subchapter (relating to PSD of air Regulation 3 Part D, Section VI.C. and-desist order and apply for any such quality and visibility protection).’’ requires the Division to transmit to the restraining order or injunction’’ (C.R.S. The State has demonstrated it has the Administrator of the U.S. EPA a copy of Sections 25–7–112(1)(c); 25–7–113(c)). authority and rules in place through its each permit application relating to a Colorado law provides administrative certifications (contained within this major stationary source or major authority over sources of air pollution docket) to provide a process of modification subject to this regulation, discharges that cause an ‘‘immediate consultation with general purpose local and provide notice of every action danger’’ to public health, welfare, or the governments, designated organizations related to the consideration of such environment. Furthermore, C.R.S. of elected officials of local governments permit. Sections 25–7–112(2)(b) allows the and any Federal Land Manager having Colorado has broad authority to Governor to declare a state of air authority over federal land to which the develop and implement an air quality rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS pollution emergency and take any and SIP applies, consistent with the control program that includes all actions necessary to protect the requirements of CAA section 121. conducting air quality modeling to health of the public. This authority is Furthermore, EPA previously addressed predict the effect on ambient air quality comparable to that provided to the the requirements of CAA section 127 for of any emissions of any air pollutant for Administrator in Section 303. the Colorado SIP and determined public which a NAAQS has been promulgated States must also have adequate notification requirements are and provide that modeling data to the contingency plans adopted into their appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, EPA. This broad authority can be found SIP to implement the air agency’s 1980). in 25–7–102, C.R.S., which requires that VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30983 emission control measures be evaluated interim approval of the title V program • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory against economic, environmental, (59 FR 52123, October 14, 1994), the action’’ subject to review by the Office energy and other impacts, and indirectly State demonstrated that the fees of Management and Budget under authorizes modeling activities.17 collected were sufficient to administer Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Colorado also has broad authority to the program. Oct. 4, 1993); conduct modeling and submit Therefore, based on the State’s • Does not impose an information supporting data to EPA to satisfy federal experience in relying on the collection collection burden under the provisions non-attainment area requirements (25– of fees as described in AQCC Regulation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 7–105, 25–7–205.1, 25–7–301, and 25– 3, and the use of title V fees to U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 7–302, C.R.S.). In addition to statutory implement and enforce PSD permits once they are incorporated into title V • Is certified as not having a authority, all state implementation significant economic impact on a plans and revisions of such plans must permits, we propose to approve the submissions as supplemented by the substantial number of small entities be submitted to Colorado’s Legislature under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 for review providing another layer of State for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. U.S.C. 601 et seq.); review and authorization for submittal to EPA (25–7–133(1), C.R.S.). The State 13. Consultation/participation by • Does not contain any unfunded also has the authority to submit any affected local entities: Section mandate or significantly or uniquely modeling data to EPA upon request 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide affect small governments, as described under the Colorado Open Records Act for consultation and participation in SIP in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (24–72–201 to 24–72–309, C.R.S.). development by local political of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); As a result, the SIP provides for such subdivisions affected by the SIP. • Does not have federalism air quality modeling as the The statutory provisions cited in implications as specified in Executive Administrator has prescribed. Colorado’s SIP submittals (contained Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, Therefore, we propose to approve the within this docket) meet the 1999); Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA requirements of CAA section • Is not an economically significant section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 ozone, 110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve regulatory action based on health or 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Colorado’s SIP as meeting these safety risks subject to Executive Order 12. Permitting fees: Section requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to: Require the Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. • Is not a significant regulatory action owner or operator of each major VII. What action is EPA taking? subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR stationary source to pay to the 28355, May 22, 2001); permitting authority, as a condition of In this action, EPA is proposing to any permit required under this act, a fee approve the following infrastructure • Is not subject to requirements of sufficient to cover; (i) the reasonable elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, Section 12(d) of the National costs of reviewing and acting upon any and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C) with Technology Transfer and Advancement application for such a permit; and (ii) if respect to minor NSR and PSD Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because the owner or operator receives a permit requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, application of those requirements would for such source, the reasonable costs of (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and be inconsistent with the CAA; and, implementing and enforcing the terms (M). EPA is proposing to approve • Does not provide EPA with the and conditions of any such permit (not element (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 discretionary authority to address, as including any court costs or other costs ozone NAAQS and proposing to appropriate, disproportionate human associated with any enforcement conditionally approve element (B) for health or environmental effects, using action), until such fee requirement is the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Finally, EPA practicable and legally permissible superseded with respect to such sources proposes approval of D(i)(I) elements 1 methods, under Executive Order 12898 by the Administrator’s approval of a fee and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). program under title V. NAAQS. EPA will act separately on The SIP is not approved to apply on The State of Colorado requires the infrastructure element (D)(i)(I), any Indian reservation land or in any owner or operator of a major stationary interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for other area where EPA or an Indian tribe source to pay the Division any fee the 2008 ozone NAAQS. has demonstrated that a tribe has necessary to cover the reasonable costs VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian of reviewing and acting upon any Review country, the rule does not have tribal permit application. The collection of implications and will not impose Under the CAA, the Administrator is fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, substantial direct costs on tribal required to approve a SIP submission Part A. governments or preempt tribal law as We also note that the State has an that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 EPA approved title V permit program FR 67249, November 9, 2000). (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) which (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). provides for collection of permitting Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 fees. Final approval of the title V EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of Environmental protection, Air operating permit program became pollution control, Carbon monoxide, the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR Incorporation by reference, 49919). Interim approval of Colorado’s action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and Intergovernmental relations, title V operating permit program became Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen effective February 23, 1995 (60 FR disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 4563). As discussed in the proposed Reporting and recordkeeping proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 17 See Email from Robert True ‘‘Response imposed by state law. For that reason, organic compounds. Requested for Element K on CO’s iSIP’’ April 6, 2015, available within docket. this proposed action: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

30984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules Dated: May 13, 2015. INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing available, e.g., CBI or other information Shaun L. McGrath, comments). whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Regional Administrator, Region 8. • Mail: Director, Air Program, Certain other material, such as [FR Doc. 2015–13123 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency copyrighted material, will be publicly BILLING CODE 6560–50–P (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, available only in hard copy. Publicly 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado available docket materials are available 80202–1129. either electronically in ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION • Hand Delivery: Director, Air www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at AGENCY Program, Environmental Protection the Air Program, Environmental Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 40 CFR Part 52 AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all [EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0304; FRL–9928–51– are only accepted Monday through possible, you contact the individual Region 8] Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION federal holidays. Special arrangements CONTACT section to view the hard copy Approval and Promulgation of Air should be made for deliveries of boxed Quality Implementation Plans; of the docket. You may view the hard information. copy of the docket Monday through Montana; Revisions to the Instructions: Direct your comments to Administrative Rules of Montana; Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010– federal holidays. Correction 0304. EPA’s policy is that all comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection received will be included in the public FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agency (EPA). docket without change and may be Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. made available online at Environmental Protection Agency ACTION: Proposed rule. www.regulations.gov, including any (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection personal information provided, unless 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the comment includes information 80202–1129, (303) 312–6563, State Implementation Plan (SIP) claimed to be Confidential Business fulton.abby@epa.gov. revisions submitted by the State of Information (CBI) or other information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Montana on March 17, 2010, August 1, whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 2011, November 22, 2011, and Do not submit information that you Definitions September 19, 2014. The revisions are to consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov For the purpose of this document, we the Administrative Rules of Montana or email. The www.regulations.gov Web are giving meaning to certain words or (ARM) and include minor editorial and site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, initials as follows: grammatical changes, updates to citations and references to federal and which means EPA will not know your (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean state laws and regulations, revisions to identity or contact information unless or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the open burning rules, changes to the you provide it in the body of your context indicates otherwise. process for appealing air quality comment. If you send an email (ii) The initials ARM mean or refer to the permits, and providing a process for comment directly to EPA, without going Administrative Rules of Montana. revocation of air quality permits when through www.regulations.gov your email (iii) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best address will be automatically captured Available Control Technology. owners cannot be found by mail. Also (iv) The word or initials Board or BER in this action, EPA is proposing to and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and mean or refer to the Montana Board of correct final rules pertaining to Environmental Review. Montana’s SIP. On January 29, 2010, made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA (v) The initials CAMR mean or refer to the EPA took direct final action to approve Environmental Protection Agency’s Clear Air recommends that you include your SIP revisions as submitted by the State Mercury Rule. name and other contact information in of Montana on January 16, 2009 and (vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to the body of your comment and with any May 4, 2009. EPA subsequently confidential business information. disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA (vii) The initials CFR mean or refer to the discovered an error in our January 29, cannot read your comment due to United States Code of Federal Regulations. 2010 direct final action related to technical difficulties and cannot contact (viii) The initials DEQ mean or refer to the ‘‘incorporation by reference’’ (IBR) you for clarification, EPA may not be Department of Environmental Quality. materials and the associated regulatory able to consider your comment. (ix) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or text numbering. EPA is proposing to Electronic files should avoid the use of refer to the United States Environmental correct this error with today’s action. special characters, any form of Protection Agency. This action is being taken under section (x) The initials IBR mean or refer to encryption, and be free of any defects or 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Incorporate by Reference. viruses. For additional information DATES: Written comments must be about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA (xi) The initials MCA mean or refer to the received on or before July 1, 2015. Docket Center homepage at http:// Montana Code Annotated. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. (xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– national ambient air quality standards. For additional instructions on rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS (xiii) The initials NESHAP mean or refer to OAR–2010–0304, by one of the submitting comments, go to section I, National Emission Standards for Hazardous following methods: General Information, of the Air Pollutants. • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of (xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer to the on-line instructions for submitting this document. New Source Performance Standards. comments. Docket: All documents in the docket (xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State • Email: fulton.abby@epa.gov. are listed in the www.regulations.gov Implementation Plan. • Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert index. Although listed in the index, (xvi) The word State means or refers to the the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER some information is not publicly State of Montana. VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1


Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:18:24
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:18:24
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.
DatesWritten comments must be received on or before July 1, 2015.
ContactAbby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 30974 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Greenhouse Gases; Lead; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR