82 FR 25999 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 107 (June 6, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 107 (June 6, 2017)
| Page Range | 25999-26007 | |
| FR Document | 2017-11574 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 25999-26007] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-11574] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557; FRL-9963-29-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Colorado submitted to demonstrate that the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) on June 2, 2010, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) on December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2013-0557 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through 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 the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number); Follow directions and organize your comments; Explain why you agree or disagree; Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes; Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information or data that you used; If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced; Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives; Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and, Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. [[Page 26000]] II. Background On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary SO 2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013). Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs providing for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made to satisfy sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from those intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; ``regional haze SIP'' submissions to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D. Infrastructure SIP submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that the existing SIPs for SO2 and PM2.5 already satisfy those requirements. EPA guidance on these provisions and their implementation may be found in the following documents: ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (October 2, 2007); ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (Sep. 25, 2009); ``Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (Oct. 14, 2011); and ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' (Sept. 13, 2013). III. What is the scope of this rulemaking? The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Colorado that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). This provision directs that, within three years after the promulgation of a NAAQS, states make SIP submissions that provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of the NAAQS. The statute imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and does not condition this requirement on the EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for these infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The section 110(a)(2) list of required elements contains a variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some to required substantive program provisions, and some to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ The EPA has concluded that although the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is clear, some of the section 110(a)(2) language is ambiguous with respect to what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission. For discussion of some of these ambiguities and the EPA's interpretation of them, see Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014), under ``III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007. IV. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are:110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; PSD and visibility protection 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities. Section VI, below, contains a detailed discussion of each of these elements. Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and are therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (1) Section [[Page 26001]] 110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as ``nonattainment NSR'') required under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. Therefore, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). Further, the EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by a new NAAQS, because the visibility requirements in part C, title 1 of the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. V. How did Colorado address the infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) submitted certifications concerning Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS on July 10, 2013, and for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 1, 2015. Colorado's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State has plans in place that meet the applicable requirements of section 110 for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Colorado infrastructure SIPs were subject to public notice and comment, as indicated in the cover letter of each certification, and are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. These plans reference the current Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) regulations and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The cited AQCC regulations are available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs and http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/. Colorado's SIP, air pollution control regulations, and statutes that have been previously approved by the EPA and incorporated into the Colorado SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.320. VI. Analysis of the State Submittals 1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that SIPs include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. Colorado's infrastructure SIP submissions identify existing EPA- approved SIP provisions limiting emissions of relevant pollutants. The State references a variety of SIP-approved Colorado AQCC regulations cited under element (C), including: Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollution Emission Notice Requirements; Regulation 4, Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7, Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11, Motor Vehicle Inspection; Regulation 16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and Common Provisions Regulation. Subject to the following clarifications, the EPA proposes to find that SIP-approved AQCC regulations citied in Colorado's certifications provide enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, the EPA does not consider SIP requirements triggered by the nonattainment area mandates in part D of Title I of the CAA to be governed by the submission deadline of section 110(a)(1). Furthermore, Colorado has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado's certifications (contained within this docket) generally listed provisions within its SIP which regulate pollutants through various programs, such as limits on emissions of particulate matter (PM) in Regulation 1, woodburning controls in Regulation 4, and the State's minor NSR and PSD programs in Regulation 3. This suffices, in the case of Colorado, to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, as previously discussed, the EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such provisions that are contrary to the CAA and to EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, the EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible. As a final clarification, in this action the EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provision with regard to excess emissions during SSM operations at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,\2\ and the agency is addressing such state regulations separately (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to the EPA Air Division Directors, ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (Sep. 20, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject to the above clarifications, the EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques to meet the applicable requirements of this element. 2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to ``(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.'' The provisions for episode monitoring, data compilation and reporting, public availability of information, and annual network reviews are found in the statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, Sept. 23, 1993). As part of the monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP) each year for EPA approval. The EPA approved 2015 and 2016 network changes through an AMNP response letter (contained within the docket) mailed to CDPHE on December 22, 2016. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) also periodically submits a Quality Management Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan to the EPA. These plans cover procedures to monitor and analyze data. In our August 19, 2015 rulemaking (80 FR 50205), we conditionally approved element (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS based on Colorado's commitment to install and operate a second near-road NO2 monitoring site no later than December 31, 2015. In a letter dated February 17, 2016 (contained within this docket), the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division notified the EPA that the second near-road site in Denver became operational on October 1, 2015, thus satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 58.10(a)(5)(iv). We find Colorado's SIP adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements for the 2010 [[Page 26002]] SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and therefore propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element. 3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to ``include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D.'' To generally meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained elsewhere in this action, the EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. The EPA is evaluating the State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, and the State's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C). Enforcement of Control Measures Requirement The State's submissions for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure requirement cite a variety of SIP- approved Colorado AQCC regulations that provide for enforcement of emission limits and control measures. These include Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Dioxides; Regulation 3, Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollution Emission Notice Requirements; Regulation 4, Woodburning Controls; Regulation 7, Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Nitrogen Oxides; Regulation 11, Motor Vehicle Inspection; Regulation 16, Street Sanding and Sweeping; and Common Provisions Regulation. PSD Requirements With respect to elements (C) and (J), the EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants; this demonstration will also satisfy the requirements of element (D)(i)(II). To meet this requirement, Colorado cited SIP approved AQCC Regulation 3 Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a PSD program in the SIP that covers all regulated pollutants including greenhouse gases (GHGs). In addition to these requirements, there are four other revisions to the Colorado SIP that are necessary to meet the requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These four revisions are related to (1) the Ozone Implementation NSR Update (November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612); (2) the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514); (3) the NSR PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321); and (4) the final rulemaking entitled ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864, Oct. 20, 2010). On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), we approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program that addressed the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule promulgated on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the approved Colorado PSD program meets the current requirements for ozone. With respect to GHGs, on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also held that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, (anyway sources) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 F. App'x. 6, at *7-8 (D.C. Cir. April 10, 2015), issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or ``anyway'' sources.\3\ With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ``to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a modification.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See 77 FR 41066 (July 12, 2012) (rulemaking for definition of ``anyway'' sources). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA is planning to take additional steps to revise the federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court and subsequent D.C. Circuit opinion. Some states have begun to revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of these court decisions, and some states may prefer not to initiate this process until they have more information about the planned revisions to the EPA's PSD regulations. The EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs in anticipation of the EPA's planned actions to revise its PSD program rules in response to the court decisions. The EPA has determined that Colorado's SIP is sufficient to satisfy elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs, because the PSD permitting program previously approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to ``anyway sources'' contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. The EPA most recently approved revisions to Colorado's PSD program on January 25, 2016 (81 FR 3963). The approved Colorado PSD permitting program still contains some provisions regarding Step 2 sources that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision and D.C. Circuit's amended judgment. But the presence of these provisions in the previously-approved plan does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). The SIP contains the currently necessary PSD requirements for applying the BACT requirement to greenhouse gas emissions from ``anyway sources.'' And the application of those requirements is not impeded by the [[Page 26003]] presence of other previously approved provisions regarding the permitting of Step 2 sources. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, and (J). Finally, we evaluate the PSD program with respect to current requirements for PM2.5 . In particular, on May 16, 2008, the EPA promulgated the rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )'' (73 FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010, the EPA promulgated the rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )-- Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C). On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), remanded the EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for PM nonattainment areas. The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision, ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )'' (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the decision. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 Implementation rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of Colorado's infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion. The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not affect the EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. The EPA interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements. The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in the EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5 )--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). The EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C). On May 11, 2012, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted all elements of the 2008 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. However, the submittal contained a definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was inconsistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, the State submitted revisions to Regulation 3 which incorporate the definition of Major Source Baseline Date which was consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted revisions make Colorado's PSD program up to date with respect to current requirements for PM2.5 . The EPA approved the necessary portions of Colorado's May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013 submissions which incorporate the requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado's SIP- approved PSD program meets current requirements for PM2.5 . The EPA therefore is proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2010 SO2 and PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act. Minor NSR The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in Regulation 3 of the Colorado SIP, and was originally approved by the EPA as Regulation 3 of the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since approval of the minor NSR program, the State and the EPA have relied on the program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. 4. Interstate transport: The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit a SIP prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements (or prongs) related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (prong 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS or (prong 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (prong 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility. In this action, the EPA is addressing the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to prongs 3 (interference with PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). We are not addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in this action. These prongs will be addressed in a later rulemaking. A. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD) The PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and that satisfies the [[Page 26004]] requirements of the EPA's PSD implementation rule(s).\4\ As noted in Section VI.3 of this proposed action, Colorado has such a program, and the EPA is therefore proposing to approve Colorado's SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program in the SIP as required by part C of the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As stated in the 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements, in- state sources not subject to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another state. One way a state may satisfy prong 3 with respect to these sources is by citing EPA-approved nonattainment NSR provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated nonattainment areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program that ensures regulation of major sources and major modifications in nonattainment areas.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a final rulemaking dated January 25, 2016 (81 FR 3963). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Colorado's SIP meets PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, and contains a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, the EPA is proposing to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. B. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements. In addition, EPA approved the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action on the State's regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. The EPA approved Colorado's regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) filed separate petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the EPA's approval of the Colorado's regional haze SIP.\7\ After these petitions were filed, a settlement agreement was entered into concerning the Craig Generating Station by the petitioners, the EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., and filed with the court on July 10, 2014.\8\ In accordance with the settlement agreement, the EPA requested and the court granted a voluntary remand to the EPA of the portions of the EPA's December 2012 regional haze SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 1. Because the additional controls at the Craig facility will be implemented through a revision to the Colorado regional haze SIP that the EPA has not yet acted on, the EPA cannot rely on this approval as automatically satisfying prong 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013. \8\ This settlement agreement is included in the docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA does, however, consider other aspects of our approval of Colorado's regional haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Specifically, the EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary to (1) obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for any other state's Class I area to which Colorado causes or contributes to visibility impairment, and; (2) ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through a regional planning process. Colorado participated in a regional planning process with the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In the regional planning process, Colorado analyzed the WRAP modeling and determined that emissions from the State do not significantly impact other states' Class I areas.\9\ Colorado accepted and incorporated the WRAP-developed visibility modeling into its regional haze SIP, and the SIP included the controls assumed in the modeling. For these reasons, the EPA determined that Colorado had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule requirements for consultation and included controls in the SIP sufficient to address the relevant requirements related to impacts on Class I areas in other states. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of prong 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Interstate and International transport provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement). Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the Administrator of the U.S. EPA (Administrator) regarding sources violating the ``interstate transport'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains to international transport of air pollution. As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD.\10\ This suffices to meet the notice requirement of section 126(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections. In summary, the SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 6. Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide ``necessary assurances that the State [. . .] will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out [the SIP] (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof).'' Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to ``comply with the requirements respecting State boards'' under CAA section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to provide ``necessary assurances that, where the State has [[Page 26005]] relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any [SIP] provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such [SIP] provision.'' a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Colorado law, specifically the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25-7-105, 25-7-111, 42-4-301 to 42-4- 316, 42-4-414 and Article 7 of Title 25, provides adequate authority for the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State receives Sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out Colorado's SIP requirements. The regulations cited by Colorado in its certifications, which are contained within this docket, also provide the necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for adequate implementation of SIP provisions by local governments. Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. b. Sub-element (ii): State Boards Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state's SIP to contain provisions that comply with the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive a significant portion of their income from persons subject to such permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed \11\. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ The EPA's proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative history of how states could meet the requirements of CAA section 128. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) the EPA approved the Procedural Rules, Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on January 16, 1998, into the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of section 128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0 specifies certain requirements regarding the composition of the AQCC and disclosure by its members of potential conflicts of interest. Details on how this portion of the Procedural Rules meets the requirements of section 128 are provided in our January 4, 2012 proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our April 10, 2012 action, we correspondingly approved Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado's SIP continues to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element. 7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires ``(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources; (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources; and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to [the Act], which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.'' The Colorado AQCC Regulations listed in the State's certifications (Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Provisions Regulation) and contained within this docket provide authority to establish a program for measurements and testing of sources, including requirements for sampling and testing. Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) requirements are defined in Regulation 3 and requires stationary sources to report their emissions on a regular basis through APENs. Regulation 3 also requires that monitoring be performed in accordance with EPA-accepted procedures, and record keeping of air pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3 provides for a permitting program that establishes emission limitations and standards. Emissions must be reported by sources to the State for correlation with applicable emissions limitations and standards. Monitoring may be required for both construction and operating permits. Additionally, Colorado is required to submit emissions data to the EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which is the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. The EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, modifying the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and to report emissions for certain larger sources annually through the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado made its latest update to the NEI on January 18, 2016. The EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the public at 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 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires infrastructure SIPs to ``provide for authority comparable to that in [CAA section 303 \12\] and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Discussion of the requirements for meeting CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 , 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under ``VI. Analysis of State Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under CAA section 303, the Administrator has authority to bring suit to immediately restrain an air pollution source that presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. If such action may not practicably ensure prompt protection, then the Administrator has the authority to issue temporary administrative orders to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment, and such orders can be extended if the EPA subsequently files a civil suit. APPCA Sections 25-7-112 and 25-7-113 provide APCD with general emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of the Act.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ See our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 3098 (June 1, 2015), section VI.8 for a complete discussion on how APPCA Sections 25-7- 112 and 35-7-113 provide authority comparable to that in CAA section 303. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- States must also have adequate contingency plans adopted into their SIP to implement the air agency's emergency episode authority (as discussed above). This can be met can by submitting a plan that meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS [[Page 26006]] if the NAAQS is covered by those regulations. The Denver Emergency Episode Plan (applicable to the Denver metropolitan area) addresses ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, and satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (See 74 FR 47888). Furthermore, Colorado is classified as Priority III for SO2 and accordingly is not required to submit emergency episode contingency plans for SO2. Therefore, we propose approval of Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of such plan: (i) ``[f]rom time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially inadequate to attain the [NAAQS] which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under this [Act].'' The Colorado APPCA Sections 25-7-105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient authority to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 10. Consultation With government officials, public notification, PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title (relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of air quality and visibility protection).'' The State has demonstrated that it has the authority and rules in place through its certifications (contained within this docket) to provide a process of consultation with general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, the EPA previously addressed the requirements of CAA section 127 for the Colorado SIP and determined public notification requirements are appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 1980). As discussed above, the State has a SIP-approved PSD program that incorporates by reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA has further evaluated Colorado's SIP approved PSD program in this proposed action under element (C) and determined the State has satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as noted above. Therefore, the State has also satisfied the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(J). Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, the EPA recognizes states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there are no applicable visibility requirements under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. Based on the above analysis, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP to provide for ``(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a [NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator.'' Colorado's Regulation 3 Part A.VIII (Technical Modeling and Monitoring Requirements) requires that estimates of ambient air concentrations be based on applicable air quality models approved by the EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became effective February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part D, Section VI.C. requires the Division to transmit to the Administrator of the EPA a copy of each permit application relating to a major stationary source or major modification subject to this regulation, and provide notice of every action related to the consideration of such permit. Colorado has broad authority to develop and implement an air quality control program that includes conducting air quality modeling to predict the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated and provide that modeling data to the EPA. This broad authority can be found in 25-7- 102, C.R.S., which requires that emission control measures be evaluated against economic, environmental, energy and other impacts, and indirectly authorizes modeling activities. Colorado also has broad authority to conduct modeling and submit supporting data to the EPA to satisfy federal nonattainment area requirements (25-7-105, 25-7-205.1, and 25-7-301, C.R.S.). The State also has the authority to submit any modeling data to the EPA on request under the Colorado Open Records Act (24-72-201 to 24-72-309, C.R.S.). As a result, the SIP provides for the air quality modeling that the Administrator has prescribed. Therefore, we propose to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires ``the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i) The reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under [title] V.'' The State of Colorado requires the owner or operator of a major stationary source to pay the Division any fee necessary to cover the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any permit application. The collection of fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, Part A. We also note that the State has an EPA-approved title V permit program (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) that provides for collection of permitting fees. Final approval of the title V operating permit program became effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim approval of Colorado's title V operating permit program became effective February 23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As discussed in the proposed interim approval of the title V program (59 FR 52123, October 14, 1994), the State demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the program. Therefore, based on the State's experience in relying on the collection of fees as described in AQCC Regulation 3, and the use of title V fees to implement and enforce PSD permits once they are incorporated into title V permits, we propose to approve the [[Page 26007]] submissions as supplemented by the State for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to ``provide for consultation and participation [in SIP development] by local political subdivisions affected by [the SIP].'' The statutory provisions cited in Colorado's SIP submittals (contained within this docket) meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve Colorado's SIP as meeting these requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. VII. What action is the EPA taking? In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we propose no action on are reflected in Table 2. A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements organized by the EPA's proposed rule action are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1--List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Approve ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed for approval ------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 10, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). December 1, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 2--List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the EPA Is Proposing To Take No Action On ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed for no action (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 13, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. December 1, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and, Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 16, 2017. Suzanne J. Bohan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2017-11574 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 25999
not impose additional requirements Dated: May 17, 2017. submissions, and general guidance on
beyond those imposed by state law. For Alexis Strauss, making effective comments, please visit
that reason, this proposed action: Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory [FR Doc. 2017–11681 Filed 6–5–17; 8:45 am] commenting-epa-dockets.
action’’ subject to review by the Office BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
of Management and Budget under Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Environmental Protection Agency
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
January 21, 2011); AGENCY 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
• does not impose an information 80202–1129, 303–312–6563,
collection burden under the provisions 40 CFR Part 52
fulton.abby@epa.gov.
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0557; FRL–9963–29–
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 8] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
• is certified as not having a I. General Information
significant economic impact on a Promulgation of State Implementation
substantial number of small entities Plan Revisions; Infrastructure What should I consider as I prepare my
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and comments for EPA?
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 1. Submitting Confidential Business
• does not contain any unfunded Quality Standards; Colorado Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to
mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection the EPA through http://
affect small governments, as described Agency. www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act mark the part or all of the information
ACTION: Proposed rule.
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
• does not have Federalism SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection information on a disk or CD–ROM that
implications as specified in Executive Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, elements of State Implementation Plan of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
1999); (SIP) revisions from the State of identify electronically within the disk or
• is not an economically significant Colorado submitted to demonstrate that CD–ROM the specific information that
regulatory action based on health or the State meets infrastructure is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
safety risks subject to Executive Order requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) complete version of the comment that
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); for the National Ambient Air Quality includes information claimed as CBI, a
• is not a significant regulatory action Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for copy of the comment that does not
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010, contain the information claimed as CBI
28355, May 22, 2001); and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on must be submitted for inclusion in the
• is not subject to requirements of December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of public docket. Information so marked
Section 12(d) of the National the CAA requires that each state submit will not be disclosed except in
Technology Transfer and Advancement a SIP for the implementation, accordance with procedures set forth in
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because maintenance, and enforcement of each 40 CFR part 2.
application of those requirements would NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. 2. Tips for preparing your comments.
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; DATES: Written comments must be When submitting comments, remember
and received on or before July 6, 2017. to:
• does not provide the EPA with the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, • Identify the rulemaking by docket
discretionary authority to address identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– number and other identifying
disproportionate human health or OAR–2013–0557 at http:// information (subject heading, Federal
environmental effects with practical, www.regulations.gov. Follow the online Register volume, date, and page
appropriate, and legally permissible instructions for submitting comments. number);
methods under Executive Order 12898 Once submitted, comments cannot be
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). • Follow directions and organize your
edited or removed from comments;
In addition, the SIP is not approved www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
to apply on any Indian reservation land • Explain why you agree or disagree;
publish any comment received to its
or in any other area where the EPA or • Suggest alternatives and substitute
public docket. Do not submit
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a language for your requested changes;
electronically any information you
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of consider to be Confidential Business • Describe any assumptions and
Indian country, the rule does not have Information (CBI) or other information provide any technical information or
tribal implications and will not impose whose disclosure is restricted by statute. data that you used;
substantial direct costs on tribal Multimedia submissions (audio, video, • If you estimate potential costs or
governments or preempt tribal law as etc.) must be accompanied by a written burdens, explain how you arrived at
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 comment. The written comment is your estimate in sufficient detail to
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). considered the official comment and allow for it to be reproduced;
should include discussion of all points • Provide specific examples to
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
you wish to make. The EPA will illustrate your concerns, and suggest
Environmental protection, Air generally not consider comments or alternatives;
pollution control, Incorporation by comment contents located outside of the • Explain your views as clearly as
reference, Intergovernmental relations, primary submission (i.e., on the web, possible, avoiding the use of profanity
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate cloud, or other file sharing system). For or personal threats; and,
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping additional submission methods, the full • Make sure to submit your
requirements. EPA public comment policy, comments by the comment period
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. information about CBI or multimedia deadline identified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:12 Jun 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM 06JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26106/page/1.svg)
![26000 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
II. Background III. What is the scope of this Existing provisions related to excess
rulemaking? emissions from sources during periods
On June 2, 2010, the EPA of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
promulgated a revised primary SO2 The EPA is acting upon the SIP
submissions from Colorado that address (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA
standard at 75 ppb, based on a three- and the EPA’s policies addressing such
the infrastructure requirements of CAA
year average of the annual 99th sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions
percentile of one-hour daily maximum 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or
concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, requirement for states to make a SIP ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be
2010). On December 14, 2012, the EPA submission of this type arises out of contrary to the CAA because they
promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 CAA section 110(a)(1). This provision purport to allow revisions to SIP-
standard by lowering the level to 12.0 directs that, within three years after the approved emissions limits while
mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 promulgation of a NAAQS, states make limiting public process or not requiring
standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR SIP submissions that provide for the further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
3086, Jan. 15, 2013). ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and existing provisions for Prevention of
enforcement’’ of the NAAQS. The Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
statute imposes on states the duty to programs that may be inconsistent with
CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
make these SIP submissions, and does current requirements of the EPA’s
providing for implementation, ‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR
maintenance, and enforcement of the not condition this requirement on the
EPA’s taking any action other than 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72
NAAQS. The EPA has historically FR 32526, June 13, 2007.
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
referred to these SIP submissions made
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of IV. What infrastructure elements are
to satisfy sections 110(a)(1) and
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such required under sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
plan’’ submission must address. (2)?
submissions. Although the term Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in and general requirements for these CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the
the CAA, the EPA uses the term to infrastructure SIP submissions, and procedural and timing requirements for
distinguish this particular type of SIP section 110(a)(2) provides more details SIP submissions after a new or revised
submission from those intended to concerning the required contents of NAAQS is promulgated. Section
satisfy other SIP requirements under the these submissions. The section 110(a)(2) 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP
CAA, such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or list of required elements contains a must contain or satisfy. The elements
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to variety of disparate provisions, some of that are the subject of this action are:
address the nonattainment planning which pertain to required legal • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
requirements of part D of title I of the authority, some to required substantive other control measures
CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions program provisions, and some to • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
requirements for both authority and monitoring/data system
to address the visibility protection
substantive program provisions.1 The • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
requirements of CAA section 169A; and enforcement of control measures
nonattainment new source review (NSR) EPA has concluded that although the
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport
permit program submissions to address timing requirement in section 110(a)(1)
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, is clear, some of the section 110(a)(2)
and authority, conflict of interest, and
part D. language is ambiguous with respect to
oversight of local governments and
what is required for inclusion in an
Infrastructure SIP submissions must regional agencies
infrastructure SIP submission. For • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source
contain any revisions needed for discussion of some of these ambiguities
meeting the applicable SIP requirements monitoring and reporting
and the EPA’s interpretation of them, • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers
of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that see Promulgation of State • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions
the existing SIPs for SO2 and PM2.5 Implementation Plan Revisions; • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
already satisfy those requirements. EPA Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 government officials; public
guidance on these provisions and their and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, notification; PSD and visibility
implementation may be found in the and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air protection
following documents: ‘‘Guidance on SIP Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/
Elements Required Under Sections 71040, Dec. 1, 2014), under ‘‘III. What data
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour is the scope of this rulemaking?’’ • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air With respect to certain other issues, • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
Quality Standards’’ (October 2, 2007); the EPA does not believe that an action participation by affected local entities.
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required on a state’s infrastructure SIP Section VI, below, contains a detailed
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the submission is necessarily the discussion of each of these elements.
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) appropriate type of action in which to Two elements identified in section
National Ambient Air Quality Standards address possible deficiencies in a state’s 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-
(NAAQS)’’ (Sep. 25, 2009); ‘‘Guidance existing SIP. These issues include: (i) year submission deadline of section
on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required 110(a)(1), and are therefore not
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the addressed in this action. These elements
that states must provide assurances that they have
2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air adequate legal authority under state and local law
relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and
Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (Oct. 14, to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides submissions to satisfy them are not due
2011); and ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
that states must have a SIP-approved program to within three years after promulgation of
address certain sources as required by part C of title a new or revised NAAQS, but rather at
State Implementation Plan (SIP) I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
the same time nonattainment area plan
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections states must have legal authority to address
emergencies as well as contingency plans that are requirements are due under section 172.
110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (Sept. 13, 2013). triggered in the event of such emergencies. The two elements are: (1) Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:12 Jun 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM 06JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26106/page/2.svg)
![26004 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
requirements of the EPA’s PSD satisfies the visibility requirement areas.9 Colorado accepted and
implementation rule(s).4 As noted in section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).6 incorporated the WRAP-developed
Section VI.3 of this proposed action, Colorado submitted a regional haze visibility modeling into its regional haze
Colorado has such a program, and the SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. The EPA SIP, and the SIP included the controls
EPA is therefore proposing to approve approved Colorado’s regional haze SIP assumed in the modeling. For these
Colorado’s SIP for the 2010 SO2 and on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In reasons, the EPA determined that
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and Colorado had satisfied the Regional
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to the National Parks Conservation Haze Rule requirements for consultation
include a permit program in the SIP as and included controls in the SIP
Association (NPCA) filed separate
required by part C of the Act. sufficient to address the relevant
petitions for reconsideration of certain
requirements related to impacts on Class
As stated in the 2013 Guidance on aspects of the EPA’s approval of the
I areas in other states. Therefore, we are
Infrastructure SIP Elements, in-state Colorado’s regional haze SIP.7 After
proposing to approve the Colorado SIP
sources not subject to PSD for any one these petitions were filed, a settlement as meeting the requirements of prong 4
or more of the pollutants subject to agreement was entered into concerning of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
regulation under the CAA because they the Craig Generating Station by the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
are in a nonattainment area for a petitioners, the EPA, CDPHE, and Tri- 5. Interstate and International
NAAQS related to those particular State Generation and Transmission transport provisions: CAA section
pollutants may also have the potential Association, Inc., and filed with the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include
to interfere with PSD in an attainment court on July 10, 2014.8 In accordance provisions ensuring compliance with
or unclassifiable area of another state. with the settlement agreement, the EPA the applicable requirements of CAA
One way a state may satisfy prong 3 requested and the court granted a sections 126 and 115 (relating to
with respect to these sources is by citing voluntary remand to the EPA of the interstate and international pollution
EPA-approved nonattainment NSR portions of the EPA’s December 2012 abatement). Specifically, CAA section
provisions addressing any pollutants for regional haze SIP approval that related 126(a) requires new or modified major
which the state has designated to Craig Unit 1. Because the additional sources to notify neighboring states of
nonattainment areas. Colorado has a controls at the Craig facility will be potential impacts from the source.
SIP-approved nonattainment NSR implemented through a revision to the Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to
program that ensures regulation of major Colorado regional haze SIP that the EPA petitions by affected states to the
sources and major modifications in has not yet acted on, the EPA cannot Administrator of the U.S. EPA
nonattainment areas.5 rely on this approval as automatically (Administrator) regarding sources
satisfying prong 4. violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’
As Colorado’s SIP meets PSD
requirements for all regulated NSR The EPA does, however, consider provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
other aspects of our approval of Section 115 similarly pertains to
pollutants, and contains a fully
Colorado’s regional haze SIP to be international transport of air pollution.
approved nonattainment NSR program, As required by 40 CFR
the EPA is proposing to approve the sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Specifically, the EPA found that 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado’s SIP-
infrastructure SIP submission as approved PSD program requires notice
meeting the applicable requirements of Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)
requirements to include in its regional to states whose lands may be affected by
element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the emissions of sources subject to
the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. haze SIP all measures necessary to (1)
obtain its share of the emission PSD.10 This suffices to meet the notice
B. Evaluation of Interference With reductions needed to meet the requirement of section 126(a).
Measures To Protect Visibility reasonable progress goals for any other Colorado has no pending obligations
state’s Class I area to which Colorado under sections 126(c) or 115(b);
To determine whether the CAA causes or contributes to visibility therefore, its SIP currently meets the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement impairment, and; (2) ensure it has requirements of those sections. In
for visibility protection is satisfied, the included all measures needed to achieve summary, the SIP satisfies the
SIP must address the potential for its apportionment of emission reduction requirements of CAA section
interference with visibility protection 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 SO2 and
obligations agreed upon through a
caused by the pollutant (including 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
regional planning process. Colorado
precursors) to which the new or revised 6. Adequate resources: Section
participated in a regional planning
NAAQS applies. An approved regional 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide
process with the Western Regional Air
haze SIP that fully meets the regional ‘‘necessary assurances that the State
Partnership (WRAP). In the regional
haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 [. . .] will have adequate personnel,
planning process, Colorado analyzed the
satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) funding, and authority under State law
WRAP modeling and determined that
requirement for visibility protection as to carry out [the SIP] (and is not
emissions from the State do not
it ensures that emissions from the state prohibited by any provision of federal or
significantly impact other states’ Class I
will not interfere with measures state law from carrying out the SIP or
required to be included in other state portion thereof).’’ Section
6 See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP
SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence Elements. In addition, EPA approved the visibility
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state
to ‘‘comply with the requirements
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 Ozone
state can still make a demonstration that and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking action respecting State boards’’ under CAA
on the State’s regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 (April section 128. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii)
20, 2011).
4 See 2013 Guidance on Infrastructure SIP 7 WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on
requires states to provide ‘‘necessary
Elements. February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on assurances that, where the State has
5 See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section March 1, 2013.
9 See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado
V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a 8 This settlement agreement is included in the
final rulemaking dated January 25, 2016 (81 FR docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.
3963). Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). 10 See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:12 Jun 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM 06JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26106/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 26005
relied on a local or regional government, conflicts of interest. Details on how this submit a comprehensive emissions
agency, or instrumentality for the portion of the Procedural Rules meets inventory every three years and to
implementation of any [SIP] provision, the requirements of section 128 are report emissions for certain larger
the State has responsibility for ensuring provided in our January 4, 2012 sources annually through the EPA’s
adequate implementation of such [SIP] proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our online Emissions Inventory System.
provision.’’ April 10, 2012 action, we States report emissions data for the six
a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate correspondingly approved Colorado’s criteria pollutants and their associated
personnel, funding, and legal authority infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur
under state law to carry out its SIP, and NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado’s dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon
related issues. SIP continues to meet the requirements monoxide, particulate matter, and
Colorado law, specifically the of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we volatile organic compounds. Many
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and propose to approve the infrastructure states also voluntarily report emissions
Control Act (APPCA) Sections 25–7– SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado
105, 25–7–111, 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, NAAQS for this element. made its latest update to the NEI on
42–4–414 and Article 7 of Title 25, 7. Stationary source monitoring January 18, 2016. The EPA compiles the
provides adequate authority for the system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires ‘‘(i) emissions data, supplementing it where
State of Colorado APCD and AQCC to the installation, maintenance, and necessary, and releases it to the public
carry out its SIP obligations with respect replacement of equipment, and the at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
to the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 implementation of other necessary eiinformation.html.
NAAQS. The State receives Sections steps, by owners or operators of Based on the analysis above, we
103 and 105 grant funds through its stationary sources to monitor emissions propose to approve the Colorado’s SIP
Performance Partnership Grant along from such sources; (ii) periodic reports as meeting the requirements of CAA
with required state matching funds to on the nature and amounts of emissions section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 SO2
provide funding necessary to carry out and emissions-related data from such and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Colorado’s SIP requirements. The sources; and (iii) correlation of such 8. Emergency powers: Section
regulations cited by Colorado in its reports by the state agency with any 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires
certifications, which are contained emission limitations or standards infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for
within this docket, also provide the established pursuant to [the Act], which authority comparable to that in [CAA
necessary assurances that the State has reports shall be available at reasonable section 303 12] and adequate
responsibility for adequate times for public inspection.’’ contingency plans to implement such
implementation of SIP provisions by The Colorado AQCC Regulations authority.’’
local governments. Therefore, we listed in the State’s certifications Under CAA section 303, the
(Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common Administrator has authority to bring suit
propose to approve Colorado’s SIP as
Provisions Regulation) and contained to immediately restrain an air pollution
meeting the requirements of section
within this docket provide authority to source that presents an imminent and
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2010
establish a program for measurements substantial endangerment to public
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
and testing of sources, including health or welfare, or the environment. If
b. Sub-element (ii): State Boards requirements for sampling and testing. such action may not practicably ensure
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) prompt protection, then the
state’s SIP to contain provisions that requirements are defined in Regulation Administrator has the authority to issue
comply with the requirements of section 3 and requires stationary sources to temporary administrative orders to
report their emissions on a regular basis protect the public health or welfare, or
128 of the CAA. That provision contains
through APENs. Regulation 3 also the environment, and such orders can
two explicit requirements: (i) That any
requires that monitoring be performed be extended if the EPA subsequently
board or body that approves permits or
in accordance with EPA-accepted files a civil suit. APPCA Sections 25–7–
enforcement orders under the CAA shall
procedures, and record keeping of air 112 and 25–7–113 provide APCD with
have at least a majority of members who
pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3 general emergency authority comparable
represent the public interest and do not
provides for a permitting program that to that in section 303 of the Act.13
derive a significant portion of their
establishes emission limitations and States must also have adequate
income from persons subject to such
standards. Emissions must be reported contingency plans adopted into their
permits and enforcement orders; and (ii)
by sources to the State for correlation SIP to implement the air agency’s
that any potential conflicts of interest by
with applicable emissions limitations emergency episode authority (as
members of such board or body or the and standards. Monitoring may be
head of an executive agency with discussed above). This can be met can
required for both construction and by submitting a plan that meets the
similar powers be adequately operating permits.
disclosed 11. applicable requirements of 40 CFR part
Additionally, Colorado is required to
On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) the 51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS
submit emissions data to the EPA for
EPA approved the Procedural Rules, purposes of the National Emissions 12 Discussion of the requirements for meeting
Section 1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC Inventory (NEI), which is the EPA’s CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of
on January 16, 1998, into the Colorado central repository for air emissions data. proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State
SIP as meeting the requirements of The EPA published the Air Emissions Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
section 128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0 Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008
specifies certain requirements regarding Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient
2008, modifying the requirements for Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040,
the composition of the AQCC and collecting and reporting air emissions Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State
disclosure by its members of potential data (73 FR 76539). The AERR Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’
13 See our proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 3098
11 The EPA’s proposed rule notice (79 FR 71040,
shortened the time states had to report
(June 1, 2015), section VI.8 for a complete
Dec. 1, 2014) includes a discussion of the legislative
emissions data from 17 to 12 months, discussion on how APPCA Sections 25–7–112 and
history of how states could meet the requirements giving states one calendar year to submit 35–7–113 provide authority comparable to that in
of CAA section 128. emissions data. All states are required to CAA section 303.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:12 Jun 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM 06JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26106/page/7.svg)
![26006 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules
if the NAAQS is covered by those As discussed above, the State has a emission control measures be evaluated
regulations. The Denver Emergency SIP-approved PSD program that against economic, environmental,
Episode Plan (applicable to the Denver incorporates by reference the federal energy and other impacts, and indirectly
metropolitan area) addresses ozone, program at 40 CFR 52.21. The EPA has authorizes modeling activities. Colorado
particulate matter, and carbon further evaluated Colorado’s SIP also has broad authority to conduct
monoxide, and satisfies the approved PSD program in this proposed modeling and submit supporting data to
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart action under element (C) and the EPA to satisfy federal nonattainment
H (See 74 FR 47888). Furthermore, determined the State has satisfied the area requirements (25–7–105, 25–7–
Colorado is classified as Priority III for requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as 205.1, and 25–7–301, C.R.S.). The State
SO2 and accordingly is not required to noted above. Therefore, the State has also has the authority to submit any
submit emergency episode contingency also satisfied the requirements of modeling data to the EPA on request
plans for SO2. Therefore, we propose element 110(a)(2)(J). under the Colorado Open Records Act
approval of Colorado’s SIP as meeting Finally, with regard to the applicable (24–72–201 to 24–72–309, C.R.S.).
the requirements of CAA section requirements for visibility protection, As a result, the SIP provides for the
110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 the EPA recognizes states are subject to air quality modeling that the
PM2.5 NAAQS. visibility and regional haze program Administrator has prescribed.
9. Future SIP revisions: Section requirements under part C of the Act. In Therefore, we propose to approve the
110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide the event of the establishment of a new Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA
for revision of such plan: (i) ‘‘[f]rom NAAQS, however, the visibility and section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 SO2
time to time as may be necessary to take regional haze program requirements and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
account of revisions of such national under part C do not change. Thus, we 12. Permitting fees: Section
primary or secondary ambient air find that there are no applicable 110(a)(2)(L) requires ‘‘the owner or
quality standard or the availability of visibility requirements under section operator of each major stationary source
improved or more expeditious methods 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS to pay to the permitting authority, as a
of attaining such standard[;] and (ii) becomes effective. condition of any permit required under
except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), Based on the above analysis, we this [Act], a fee sufficient to cover[:] (i)
propose to approve the Colorado SIP as The reasonable costs of reviewing and
whenever the Administrator finds on
meeting the requirements of CAA acting upon any application for such a
the basis of information available to the
section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 SO2 and permit[;] and (ii) if the owner or
Administrator that the [SIP] is
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. operator receives a permit for such
substantially inadequate to attain the 11. Air quality and modeling/data: source, the reasonable costs of
[NAAQS] which it implements or to Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires each SIP to implementing and enforcing the terms
otherwise comply with any additional provide for ‘‘(i) the performance of such and conditions of any such permit (not
requirements under this [Act].’’ air quality modeling as the including any court costs or other costs
The Colorado APPCA Sections 25–7– Administrator may prescribe for the associated with any enforcement
105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient purpose of predicting the effect on action), until such fee requirement is
authority to meet the requirements of ambient air quality of any emissions of superseded with respect to such sources
110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to any air pollutant for which the by the Administrator’s approval of a fee
approve Colorado’s SIP as meeting the Administrator has established a program under [title] V.’’
requirements of CAA section [NAAQS]; and (ii) the submission, upon The State of Colorado requires the
110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 request, of data related to such air owner or operator of a major stationary
PM2.5 NAAQS. quality modeling to the Administrator.’’ source to pay the Division any fee
10. Consultation With government Colorado’s Regulation 3 Part A.VIII necessary to cover the reasonable costs
officials, public notification, PSD and (Technical Modeling and Monitoring of reviewing and acting upon any
visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) Requirements) requires that estimates of permit application. The collection of
requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the ambient air concentrations be based on fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3,
applicable requirements of section 121 applicable air quality models approved Part A.
of this title (relating to consultation), by the EPA. Final approval for We also note that the State has an
section 127 of this title (relating to Regulation 3 Part A.VIII became EPA-approved title V permit program
public notification), and part C of this effective February 20, 1997 (62 FR (60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) that provides
subchapter (relating to PSD of air 2910). Additionally, Regulation 3 Part for collection of permitting fees. Final
quality and visibility protection).’’ D, Section VI.C. requires the Division to approval of the title V operating permit
The State has demonstrated that it has transmit to the Administrator of the EPA program became effective October 16,
the authority and rules in place through a copy of each permit application 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim approval of
its certifications (contained within this relating to a major stationary source or Colorado’s title V operating permit
docket) to provide a process of major modification subject to this program became effective February 23,
consultation with general purpose local regulation, and provide notice of every 1995 (60 FR 4563). As discussed in the
governments, designated organizations action related to the consideration of proposed interim approval of the title V
of elected officials of local governments such permit. program (59 FR 52123, October 14,
and any Federal Land Manager having Colorado has broad authority to 1994), the State demonstrated that the
authority over federal land to which the develop and implement an air quality fees collected were sufficient to
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
SIP applies, consistent with the control program that includes administer the program.
requirements of CAA section 121. conducting air quality modeling to Therefore, based on the State’s
Furthermore, the EPA previously predict the effect on ambient air quality experience in relying on the collection
addressed the requirements of CAA of any emissions of any air pollutant for of fees as described in AQCC Regulation
section 127 for the Colorado SIP and which a NAAQS has been promulgated 3, and the use of title V fees to
determined public notification and provide that modeling data to the implement and enforce PSD permits
requirements are appropriate (45 FR EPA. This broad authority can be found once they are incorporated into title V
53147, Aug. 11, 1980). in 25–7–102, C.R.S., which requires that permits, we propose to approve the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:12 Jun 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM 06JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26106/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 26007
submissions as supplemented by the within this docket) meet the the State’s certifications as shown in
State for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 requirements of CAA section Table 1. Elements we propose no action
NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve on are reflected in Table 2. A
13. Consultation/participation by Colorado’s SIP as meeting these comprehensive summary of
affected local entities: Section requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 infrastructure elements organized by the
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to ‘‘provide PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s proposed rule action are provided
for consultation and participation [in in Table 1 and Table 2.
SIP development] by local political VII. What action is the EPA taking?
subdivisions affected by [the SIP].’’ In this action, the EPA is proposing to
The statutory provisions cited in approve infrastructure elements for the
Colorado’s SIP submittals (contained 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from
TABLE 1—LIST OF COLORADO INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO APPROVE
Proposed for approval
July 10, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
TABLE 2—LIST OF COLORADO INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO TAKE NO
ACTION ON
Proposed for no action
(Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action)
July 13, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
December 1, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Reviews of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is • Does not have federalism List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
required to approve a SIP submission implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, Environmental protection, Air
that complies with the provisions of the
1999); pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Act and applicable federal regulations
Incorporation by reference,
(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). • Is not an economically significant Intergovernmental relations,
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the regulatory action based on health or Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, safety risks subject to Executive Order dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
provided that they meet the criteria of 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Reporting and recordkeeping
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed • Is not a significant regulatory action requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
action merely approves some state law subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR organic compounds.
as meeting federal requirements and 28355, May 22, 2001);
disapproves other state law because it Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
• Is not subject to requirements of
does not meet federal requirements; this section 12(d) of the National Dated: May 16, 2017.
proposed action does not impose Technology Transfer and Advancement Suzanne J. Bohan,
additional requirements beyond those Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
imposed by state law. For that reason, application of those requirements would [FR Doc. 2017–11574 Filed 6–5–17; 8:45 am]
this proposed action: be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
action’’ subject to review by the Office • Does not provide the EPA with the
of Management and Budget under discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, AGENCY
Oct. 4, 1993); health or environmental effects, using
• Does not impose an information practicable and legally permissible
40 CFR Part 52
collection burden under the provisions methods, under Executive Order 12898
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). [EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0709; FRL–9963–27–
The SIP is not approved to apply on Region 8]
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
• Is certified as not having a any Indian reservation land or in any
Promulgation of State Implementation
significant economic impact on a other area where the EPA or an Indian
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure
substantial number of small entities tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); country, the rule does not have tribal
Quality Standards; South Dakota
• Does not contain any unfunded implications and will not impose
mandate or significantly or uniquely substantial direct costs on tribal AGENCY: Environmental Protection
affect small governments, as described governments or preempt tribal law as Agency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 02:12 Jun 06, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM 06JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_26106/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2017-06-06 06:21:53
Document Modified: 2017-06-06 06:21:53
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017. | |
| Contact | Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 25999 | |
| CFR Associated | 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 and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR