30830 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: April 12, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12204 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0810; FRL–9816–4] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Requirements for PM2.5

Increments and Major and Minor 

Source Baseline Dates; Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions from the State of Colorado 

to demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for particulate matter less 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in 

diameter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997 and on 

October 17, 2006. The CAA requires that 

each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 

SIP to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ necessary to implement the 

new or revised NAAQS. Colorado 

submitted certifications of its 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on April 4, 2008 

and on June 4, 2010, respectively. 

Colorado also submitted revisions to 

Regulation 3 of the Air Quality Control 

Commission permitting requirements 

for the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program on May 11, 

2012 and May 13, 2013 that incorporate 

the required elements of the 2008 PM2.5

Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule. EPA proposes to 

approve portions of these two SIP 

revisions that bring Colorado’s PSD 

regulations up to date for regulated 

pollutants. EPA does not propose to act 

on the portions of the submission for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that are intended to 

meet requirements related to interstate 

transport of air pollution. EPA will act 

on the remainder of the submissions in 

a separate action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0810, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 

0810. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I, 

General Information, of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30831 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6142, 

ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The initials APCD mean or refer to 

the Air Pollution Control Division. 

(iii) The initials APENs mean or refer to 

Air Pollution Emission Notices. 

(iv) The initials APPCA mean or refer to 

the Air Pollution Prevention and 

Control Act. 

(v) The initials AQCC mean or refer to 

the Air Quality Control 

Commission. 

(vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(vii) The initials CFC mean or refer to 

chlorofluorocarbons. 

(viii) The initials CRS mean or refer to 

Colorado Revised Statutes. 

(ix) The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(x) The initials FIP mean or refer to a 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

(xi) The initials GHG mean or refer to 

greenhouse gases. 

(xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to national ambient air quality 

standards. 

(xiii) The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

(xiv) The initials NNSR mean or refer to 

nonattainment new source review. 

(xv) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

new source review. 

(xvi) The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

(xvii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 

2.5 micrometers (fine particulate 

matter). 

(xviii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 

10 micrometers (course particulate 

matter). 

(xix) The initials ppm mean or refer to 

parts per million. 

(xx) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. 

(xxi) The initials SIL mean or refer to 

Significant Impact Levels. 

(xxii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xxiii) The initials SSM mean or refer to 

start-up, shutdown, or malfunction. 

(xxiv) The initials SMC mean or refer to 

Significant Monitoring 

Concentrations. 

(xxv) The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

IV. What infrastructure elements are required 

under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

V. How did Colorado address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for PM2.5. Two new PM2.5

standards were added, set at 15 mg/m3, 

based on the three-year average of 

annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentration from single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors, and 65 

mg/m3, based on the three-year average 

of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area. In 

addition, the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was revised to be based on the 99th 

percentile of 24-hour PM10

concentration at each monitor within an 

area (62 FR 38652). 

On October 17, 2006 EPA 

promulgated a revised NAAQS for 

PM2.5, tightening the level of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard to 35 mg/m3 and 

retaining the level of the annual PM2.5

standard at 15 mg/m3. EPA also retained 

the 24-hour PM10 and revoked the 

annual PM10 standard (71 FR 61144). By 

statute, SIPs meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides 

basic requirements for SIPs, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling, to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards. These 

requirements are set out in several 

‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ listed in 

section 110(a)(2). 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, states typically have met the 

basic program elements required in 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. 

III. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

This rulemaking will not cover four 

substantive issues that are not integral 

to acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (1) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (2) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30832 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20, 1999). 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (3) existing 

provisions for minor source new source 

review (NSR) programs that may be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (‘‘minor source 

NSR’’); and (4) existing provisions for 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) programs that may be inconsistent 

with current requirements of EPA’s 

‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 

80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended 

by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has indicated 

that it has other authority to address any 

such existing SIP defects in other 

rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed 

rationale for why these four substantive 

issues are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found in EPA’s July 13, 2011, final rule 

entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ in the section entitled, 

‘‘What is the scope of this final 

rulemaking?’’ (see 76 FR 41075 at 

41076–41079). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

We will act separately on element 

110(a)(2)(D), which pertains to interstate 

transport of pollutants. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the three 

year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (1) section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)’’) required under part D, and (2) 

section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D. As a result, this action does not 

address infrastructure elements related 

to the nonattainment NSR portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 

110(a)(2)(I). 

V. How did Colorado address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

1. Emission limits and other control 

measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Enforceable limitations 

and control measures are detailed in the 

various Air Quality Control Commission 

(AQCC) regulations for all sources of 

criteria pollutants as well as hazardous 

air pollutants, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), smoke and 

odors. A summary of the regulations 

which the State submitted as relevant to 

this element can be found within the 

State’s certification documents dated 

April 4, 2008 and June 4, 2010 which 

are included in the docket prepared for 

public review. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), subject to the following 

clarifications. First, EPA does not 

consider SIP requirements triggered by 

the nonattainment area mandates in part 

D of Title I of the CAA to be governed 

by the submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1). Nevertheless, Colorado has 

included some SIP provisions originally 

submitted in response to part D 

requirements in its certification for the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2). In general, those provisions 

addressed ozone non-attainment in the 

Denver metropolitan area and are not 

relevant to implementation of the 1997 

or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado also 

referenced SIP provisions that are 

relevant, such as limits on emissions of 

particulate matter in Regulation 1, 

woodburning controls in Regulation 4, 

and the State’s minor NSR and PSD 

programs in Regulation 3. We propose 

to find these provisions adequately 

address the requirements of element (A), 

again subject to the clarifications made 

in this notice. 

Second, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. A number of states have 

such provisions which are contrary to 

the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109, November 24, 1987), and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provision with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) or 

operations at a facility. A number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance 1 and the Agency is addressing 

such state regulations separately (78 FR 

12460, February 22, 2013). 

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.’’ 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The provisions for episode 

monitoring, data compilation and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30833 

reporting, public availability of 

information, and annual network 

reviews are found in the statewide 

monitoring SIP which was approved by 

EPA on July 9, 1980 (45 FR 46073) and 

August 11, 1980 (45 FR 53147). The 

State has since revised the monitoring 

SIP to include all new federal 

requirements. The revised SIP includes 

a commitment to operate a particulate 

monitoring network in accordance with 

EPA regulations (40 CFR 58.20 and 

appendices A through G). The AQCC 

adopted monitoring SIP revisions on 

March 18, 1993. 

As part of the monitoring SIP, 

Colorado submits a Colorado Annual 

Network Monitoring Plan (ANMP) each 

year for EPA approval. The ANMP 

details monitoring locations for all 

criteria pollutants, including PM2.5, and 

lists the quality assurance accuracy 

audits and precision check methods 

performed for each monitor. The 

Colorado APCD periodically submits a 

Quality Management Plan and a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8. 

These plans cover procedures to 

monitor, analyze data and report data to 

an EPA central database. The State of 

Colorado has an approved monitoring 

SIP, a plan and authority for monitoring, 

and the ability to properly handle all 

related data. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s air 

monitoring programs and data systems 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The Colorado 2011 ANMP was 

approved by EPA Region 8 on 

September 20, 2011. 

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 that NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado has an approved 

SIP regulating the construction and 

modification of stationary sources as 

necessary to assure the NAAQS are 

achieved (AQCC Regulation 3), 

including a permit program as required 

in parts C and D of the federal CAA. 

Colorado has an approved SIP which 

provides for the enforcement of the 

control measures required by CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Many of the AQCC regulations 

address in some manner the programs 

for enforcement of control measures. 

Some of these AQCC regulations and 

other relevant Colorado-specific 

programs that are in the SIP are 

described below. 

Regulation 1, Particulates, Smokes, 

Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur 

Dioxides—Regulation 1 sets forth 

emissions limitations, equipment 

requirements, and work practices 

(abatement and control measures) 

intended to control the emissions of 

particulates, smoke, and sulfur oxides 

from new and existing stationary 

sources. Control measures specified in 

this regulation are designed to limit 

emissions into the atmosphere and 

thereby minimize the ambient 

concentrations of particulates and sulfur 

dioxides. 

Regulation 3, Stationary Source 

Permitting and Air Pollution Emission 

Notice Requirements—Regulation 3 

provides for a procedural permitting 

program and requires air pollution 

sources to file Air Pollution Emissions 

Notices (APENs). The regulation also 

requires new or modified sources of air 

pollution, with certain exemptions, to 

obtain preconstruction permits. 

Regulation 3 has been revised to 

incorporate PM2.5 emissions, requiring 

major sources in the State to be subject 

to PSD and NSR permitting thresholds 

for PM2.5 at the same level as PM10. On 

May 11, 2012, Colorado submitted a 

revision to incorporate the 2008 PM2.5

Implementation rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment 

rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). 

Specifically, the AQCC adopted 

revisions to incorporate significant 

emission rates for PM2.5 emissions, 

including PM2.5 precursors (sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and 

condensable particulate matter), PM2.5

increments, the definitions of major and 

minor source baseline dates and 

baseline area. 

Regulation 3 also was revised in 2008 

to address ozone formation in the 

Denver Metro Area/North Front Range 

Ozone nonattainment area. Specifically, 

the AQCC adopted revisions to control 

and reduce ozone precursor emissions. 

The revisions are part of the federallyenforceable SIP to help Colorado make 

progress toward eventual compliance 

with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Regulation 4, Woodburning 

Controls—Regulation 4 requires new 

woodstove and fireplace inserts to meet 

the federal certification requirements in 

specified areas of Colorado. 

Regulation 7, Volatile Organic 

Compound Control—Regulation 7 

controls the emissions of VOCs, 

primarily in the Denver-metro area. It 

sets standards and mandates control for 

specific types of VOC sources. In 2008 

Regulation 7 was revised to increase 

control requirements for oil and gas 

condensate tanks, glycol dehydrators, 

and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines. These revisions were made as 

part of the State’s Ozone SIP. 

Regulation 11, Motor Vehicle 

Inspection—Regulation 11 requires 

automobile emission inspection and 

maintenance programs to be 

implemented in specified areas of the 

state for gasoline powered on-road 

vehicles. These programs apply to 

businesses, industry, and the general 

public. In addition, the State’s 

Automobile Inspection and 

Readjustment (AIR) program’s purpose 

is to reduce motor vehicle related 

pollution through the inspection and 

emissions related repair of automobiles. 

The program as defined in Regulation 

11, works in specific areas of the state, 

and requires motor vehicles to meet 

emission standards through periodic 

inspection and, as necessary, repair. 

Regulation 16, Street Sanding and 

Sweeping—Regulation 16 sets 

specification standards for street 

sanding material and street sweeping 

practices in the area covered by the AIR 

program and Denver-metro particulate 

attainment/maintenance area. 

Common Provisions Regulation—The 

Colorado APCD may require owners and 

operators of stationary air pollution 

sources to install, maintain, and use 

instrumentation to monitor and record 

emission data as a basis for periodic 

reports to the Division under the 

provisions of the AQCC Common 

Provisions regulation. 

b. EPA analysis: 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 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. As explained above, in this 

action EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. EPA is 

evaluating the State’s PSD program as 

required by part C of the Act, and the 

State’s minor NSR program as required 

by 110(a)(2)(C). 

PSD Requirements 

Colorado has a SIP-approved PSD 

program that meets the general 

requirements of part C of the Act (51 FR 

31125). To satisfy the particular 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

states should have a PSD program that 

applies to all regulated NSR pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). See 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(48) and (b)(49). The 

PSD program should reflect current 

requirements for these pollutants. In 

particular, for three pollutants—ozone, 

PM2.5, and GHGs—there are additional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30834 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

regulatory requirements (set out in 

portions of 40 CFR 51.166) that we 

consider in evaluating Colorado’s PSD 

program. 

On January 9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), we 

approved a revision to the Colorado PSD 

program that addressed the PSD 

requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule promulgated in 

2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the 

approved Colorado PSD program meets 

current requirements for ozone. 

We evaluate PSD Requirements for 

GHGs. In EPA’s rule, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans’’ (‘‘PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule’’), (75 FR 82536, 

December 30, 2010), EPA withdrew its 

previous approval of Colorado’s PSD 

program to the extent that it applied 

PSD permitting to GHG emissions 

increases from GHG-emitting sources 

below thresholds set in EPA’s June 3, 

2010 ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (‘‘Tailoring Rule’’), 

75 FR 31514. EPA withdrew its 

approval on the basis that the State 

lacked sufficient resources to issue PSD 

permits to such sources at the statutory 

thresholds in effect in the previouslyapproved PSD program. After the PSD 

SIP Narrowing Rule, the portion of 

Colorado’s PSD SIP from which EPA 

withdrew its approval had the status of 

having been submitted to EPA but not 

yet acted upon. In its April 4, 2008 and 

June 4, 2010 infrastructure 

certifications, Colorado relied upon its 

PSD program as approved at that date— 

which was before December 30, 2010, 

the effective date of the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule—to satisfy the 

requirements of infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C). In a letter dated May 10, 

2011, the State clarified its certifications 

to make clear that the State relies only 

on the portion of the PSD program that 

remains approved after the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule issued on December 30, 

2010, and for which the State has 

sufficient resources to implement. As a 

result, Colorado’s PSD program as 

approved in the SIP meets current 

requirements for GHGs. 

Finally, we evaluate the PSD program 

with respect to current requirements for 

PM2.5. In particular, on May 16, 2008, 

EPA promulgated the rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) and 

on October 20, 2010 EPA promulgated 

the rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

EPA regards adoption of these PM2.5

rules as a necessary requirement when 

assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of element (C). 

On January 4, 2013,the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (DC Cir.), 

issued a judgment that 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 particulate matter 

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 

New Source Review (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 Court’s opinion. 

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 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 3 

years after adoption or revision of a 

NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which 

would be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as 10 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

The second PSD requirement for 

PM2.5 is contained in EPA’s October 20, 

2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5

increments as a necessary requirement 

when assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of element (C). 

On May 11, 2012, the State submitted 

revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted 

all elements of the 2008 Implementation 

Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment 

Rule. However, the submittal contained 

a definition of Major Source Baseline 

Date which was inconsistent with 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). On May 13, 2013, 

the State submitted revisions to 

Regulation 3 which incorporate the 

definition of Major Source Baseline Date 

which was consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(i). These submitted 

revisions make Colorado’s PSD program 

up to date with respect to current 

requirements for PM2.5. We propose to 

approve the necessary portions of 

Colorado’s May 11, 2012 and May 13, 

2013 submissions to reflect the 2008 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 

2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically 

40 CFR part 166, paragraphs (b)(14)(i), 

(ii), (iii), (b)(15)(i), (ii), (b)(23)(i), 

(b)(49)(i), (vi), and paragraph (c)(1). 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions to: Part D, sections 

II.A.5.a and b, II.A.23.a and b, 

II.A.25.a.(i), (a).(ii), (a).(iii), and (b).(i), 

II.A.38.c and g, II.A.42.a. and X.A.1. as 

submitted on May 11, 2012, and 

revisions to II.A.23.c, as submitted on 

May 13, 2013. We are not proposing to 

act on any other portions of the May 11, 

2012 submittal, including the adoption 

of significant impact levels (SILs) and 

significant monitoring concentrations 

(SMCs) for PM2.5. 

With these revisions, Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program will meet 

current requirements for PM2.5. As a 

result, EPA is proposing to approve 

Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 and 2006 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 Section II of the 

Colorado SIP, and was originally 

approved by EPA as Section 2 of the SIP 

(see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since 

approval of the minor NSR program, the 

State and EPA have relied on the 

program to assure that new and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30835 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Colorado’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 and 2006 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. EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the State’s existing minor NSR program 

itself to the extent that it is inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. A number of states may have 

minor NSR provisions that are contrary 

to the existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and it may be time to revisit 

the regulatory requirements for this 

program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design 

a program that meets their particular air 

quality concerns, while assuring 

reasonable consistency across the 

country in protecting the NAAQS with 

respect to new and modified minor 

sources. 

4. Interstate Transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) is subdivided into four 

‘‘prongs,’’ two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

and two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The 

two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

require SIPs to contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

(prong 1) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

require SIPs to contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

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. As noted, 

we are not acting on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposed 

rulemaking. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP 

shall contain adequate provisions 

insuring compliance with applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). As noted, we are 

not acting on the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) in this proposed 

rulemaking. 

6. Adequate resources and authority: 

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)(iii) 

requires states to ‘‘provide necessary 

assurances that, where the State has 

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. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: There are no state or 

federal provisions prohibiting the 

implementation of any provision of the 

Colorado SIP. In general, Colorado 

provides the necessary assurances that 

funding, personnel, and authority exist 

and that the State of Colorado has 

responsibility for implementing local 

provisions. The AQCC adopted all of the 

regulatory provisions in the SIP 

pursuant to authority delegated to it by 

statute. The AQCC’s general authority to 

adopt the rules and regulations 

necessary to implement the SIP is set 

out in the Colorado Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) 

section 25–7–105 of the Colorado 

Revised Statutes (CRS). The authority 

for the APCS to administer and enforce 

the program is set out at 25–7–111 CRS. 

Additional authority to regulate air 

pollution and implement provisions in 

the SIP is set out elsewhere in the 

Colorado APPCA, Article 7 of Title 25. 

In addition, the AQCC and the APCD 

have the authority delegated to them in 

sections 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, CRS 

(concerning motor vehicle emissions) 

and 42–4–414 (concerning emissions 

from diesel-powered vehicles). 

The AQCC’s authority includes the 

authority to regulate particulate 

emissions, regardless of size (CRS 

section 25–7–109(2)(b)). 

The Colorado APCD has staff and an 

annual budget to operate its six 

programs (Stationary Sources, Mobile 

Sources, Indoor Air, Technical Service, 

Planning and Policy, and 

Administrative Services). As of June 30, 

2009, the APCD employed 159 people 

and had a budget of $19.7 million for 

fiscal year 2009. 

Of the total budget, 17 percent was 

derived from federal grants, 32 percent 

from mobile source fees, 47 percent 

from stationary source fees, and 4 

percent from other cash sources. 

Relationships with other agencies 

responsible for carrying out State 

activities—The Colorado APCD 

contracts with local governments in two 

distinct ways: (1) Colorado grants 

monies to local health departments to 

endow them as agents of the State to 

provide inspections of some local 

stationary sources, asbestos abatement 

jobs, and CFC sources. Some local 

health departments also operate gaseous 

and particulate monitors under contract 

for the State. These efforts must comply 

with federal and state regulations; and 

(2) Colorado grants monies to local 

governments to help pay for their 

support of SIP elements via public and 

private partnerships, education and 

informal campaigns. Most of these 

agencies create their own work plan that 

consists of programs they believe will 

help enhance air quality in their 

communities in accordance with SIP 

directives. 

Colorado has adopted specific 

regulations for local attainment/ 

maintenance areas to assure these areas 

meet requirements of the SIP. These 

regulations include the Colorado AQCC 

SIP-specific regulations, 5 CCR 1001–20. 

These regulations provide the necessary 

authority for the Colorado APCD to 

adequately enforce the provisions of the 

SIP elements in local attainment/ 

maintenance areas. 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The State cites 

the Colorado Revised Statutes, 

specifically the APPCA Sections 25–7– 

105, 25–7–111, 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, 

42–4–414 and Article 7 of Title 25 to 

demonstrate that the APCD and AQCC 

have adequate authority to carry out 

Colorado’s SIP obligations with respect 

to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

to revise its SIP as necessary. The State 

received 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 also provide the necessary 

assurances that the State has 

responsibility for adequate 

implementation of SIP provisions by 

local governments. 

7. State boards: Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the State 

comply with the requirements 

respecting State boards under section 

128. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Section 128 of the CAA 

indicates Colorado’s SIP must contain 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30836 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requirements that anybody approving 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

CAA must have a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do 

not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement actions. 

The AQCC Procedural Rules, section 

1.11.0, state that ‘‘The Commission 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 permits 

or enforcement orders under this article 

or under the federal act. The members 

of the Commission shall disclose any 

potential conflicts of interest that arise 

during their terms of membership to the 

other Commissioners in a public 

meeting of the Commission.’’ 

b. EPA Analysis: On April 10, 2012 

(77 FR 21453) EPA approved the 

Procedural Rules, Section 1.11.0, as 

adopted by the AQCC on January 16, 

1998, into the 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 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

for this element. 

8. 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 emissionsrelated 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. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado AQCC 

Regulations 1, 3, and 6 address the issue 

of stationary source monitoring. 

Colorado Regulation 1 sets forth 

emission limitations, equipment 

requirements, and work practices 

(abatement and control measures) 

intended to control the emissions of 

particulates, smoke, and sulfur dioxides 

from new and existing stationary 

sources. Colorado Regulation 3 requires 

stationary sources to report their 

emissions on a regular basis through 

APENs. This air pollutant inventory 

program is described in the APPCA 

Section 25–7–114.1 (CRS) and in 

Colorado Regulation 3, Part I.VIII that 

allows for record keeping of air 

pollutants. Colorado Regulation 6 sets 

standards of performance for monitoring 

and new stationary sources in the state 

and establishes monitoring system 

requirements. 

The Colorado APCD may require 

owners and operators of stationary air 

pollution sources to install, maintain, 

and use instrumentation to monitor and 

record emission data as a basis for 

periodic reports to the APCD under the 

provisions of the AQCC Common 

Provisions regulation. 

b. EPA Analysis: The regulations cited 

by Colorado, including APEN reporting 

requirements and requirements in 

Regulation 3, Part I.VIII, meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

9. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide 

for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, 

including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The State has the authority 

to implement emergency powers similar 

to section 303 of the CAA. First, the 

EPA-approved ‘‘Denver Emergency 

Episode Plan’’ addresses ozone, 

particulate matter (PM10), and carbon 

monoxide for the Denver-metro region 

and requires the State to implement 

protective measures when air quality 

exceeds defined thresholds. 

Additionally, the APPCA Sections 25– 

7–112 and 25–7–113, which have 

various sections similar to 42 U.S.C. 

7603, generally describe Colorado’s 

authority regarding Emergency 

Episodes. For example, 25–7–112(2) 

provides the Governor the authority to 

implement emergency provisions 

through an order to the Colorado APCD. 

As described in EPA’s September 25, 

2009 guidance, areas that have had a 

PM2.5 exceedance greater than 140.4 

mg/m3 should have an emergency 

episode plan. If no such concentration 

was recorded since 2006, the State can 

rely on its general emergency 

authorities. Colorado has never had 

such a PM2.5 level and thus an 

emergency episode plan for PM2.5 is not 

necessary. Nevertheless, the State 

certifies it has the appropriate 

emergency powers to address PM2.5

episodes, as described above. 

Additionally, the State implements 

EPA’s air quality index system and 

typically issues alerts and advisories to 

the public when any pollutant is 

expected to or exceeds an AQI value of 

100. If PM2.5 concentrations are 

expected to or actually exceed EPA’s 

recommended index value thresholds of 

201 (alert), 301 (warning), 350.5 

(significant harm), or 401 (emergency), 

the State can invoke emergency powers. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act Sections 

25–7–112 and 25–7–113 provide APCD 

with general emergency authority 

comparable to that in section 303 of the 

Act. In our 2009 guidance for 

infrastructure requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, we suggested that states 

that had monitored and recorded 24- 

hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140.4 mg/ 

m3, using the most recent three years of 

data, should develop emergency episode 

plans for the areas with the monitored 

values. We also suggested that, if these 

levels had not been exceeded, states 

could certify that they had adequate 

general emergency authority to address 

PM2.5 episodes. In this rulemaking, we 

view these suggestions as still 

appropriate in assessing Colorado’s SIP 

for this element. Colorado has not 

monitored any values above the 140.4 

mg/m3 level for PM2.5 for the past three 

years (e.g., 2009, 2010, and 2011). Since 

this level was not exceeded in any area 

of the state and the State has 

demonstrated that it has appropriate 

general emergency powers to address 

PM2.5 related episodes, no specific 

emergency episode plans are necessary 

at this time. The SIP therefore meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

10. Future SIP revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide 

for revision of such plan: 

(i) From time to time as may be 

necessary to take account of revisions of 

such national primary or secondary 

ambient air quality standard or the 

availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and 

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph 

(3)(C), whenever the Administrator 

finds on the basis of information 

available to the Administrator that the 

[SIP] is substantially inadequate to 

attain the [NAAQS] which it 

implements or to otherwise comply 

with any additional requirements under 

this [Act]. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The State of Colorado has 

the ability and authority to address and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30837 

revise the SIP due to changes in the 

NAAQS or due to findings of 

inadequacies. 

The Colorado AQCC has the authority 

and duty to adopt and revise a SIP as 

necessary to comply with the federal 

requirements. Colorado APPCA section 

25–7–105(1)(a)(I) (CRS) directs the 

Colorado AQCC to promulgate rules and 

regulations as related to a 

comprehensive SIP which will assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS and which will prevent 

significant deterioration or air quality in 

the State of Colorado. 

Colorado APPCA section 25–7–109 

(CRS) also gives the Colorado AQCC the 

authority to promulgate emission 

control regulations. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s statutory 

provision at Colorado APPCA Section 

25–7–105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC 

sufficient authority to meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(H). 

11. 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).’’ 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Consultation—Engineering 

and meteorological consultation is 

provided by the State to local agencies. 

The State assists local agencies in 

planning air management programs for 

their respective areas. The Colorado 

AQCC holds public meetings and 

hearings on all SIP revisions in 

accordance with the AQCC Procedural 

Rules. Public comment is solicited and 

accepted at Colorado AQCC meetings 

and hearings. 

Colorado’s Transportation Conformity 

Rule, Regulation 10, specifies 

consultation procedures for SIP 

revisions in Section IV.F. 

Also, as part of the State of Colorado’s 

Visibility SIP, the APCD consults with 

the Federal Land Managers and other 

states as necessary and required. 

Public notification—Colorado notifies 

the public of instances or of areas in 

which any national primary ambient air 

quality standard is exceeded. Included 

in this notification are public awareness 

announcements regarding health 

hazards and manners in which the 

public can participate in regulatory and 

other efforts to improve Colorado’s air 

quality. Not only does the State provide 

after-the-fact information about readings 

in excess of the NAAQS, the Denver 

PM10 SIP provides for advance warnings 

to the public that the NAAQS may be 

exceeded whenever meteorological 

conditions make it possible or likely for 

ambient concentrations to exceed the 

NAAQS. 

The Colorado APCD prepares a daily 

public notification in the form of an Air 

Pollution Advisory for a nine-county 

Denver-Boulder metropolitan and North 

Front Range area and the communities 

of Fort Collins and Greeley. The 

advisory is posted on the APCD Web 

site and includes details of the day’s air 

quality and visibility, a forecast of the 

coming day’s air quality, residential 

burning restrictions, and voluntary 

motor vehicle driving reduction 

requests during the winter high 

pollution season. The advisory includes 

links to an open burning forecast and 

other important information such as the 

day’s Air Quality Index, the health 

effects of specific pollutants, and 

measures that can be taken by the public 

to reduce exposure. While not part of 

Colorado’s SIP, the advisories are part of 

an ongoing commitment by the State to 

inform and educate citizens about air 

quality. 

Other Colorado communities also 

maintain and operate daily air quality 

forecasts, including Mesa County on the 

Western Slope and El Paso County in 

the Colorado Springs area. 

The State has developed Natural 

Events Action Plans that include public 

notification and education elements. 

While not a formal part of the State SIP, 

the plans include provisions to notify 

the public about actions to take during 

imminent blowing dust and wildfire 

events that could lead to high levels of 

particulate matter. 

Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration—Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 3 (Stationary Source 

Permitting and Air Pollution Emission 

Notice Requirements), Regulation 6 

(Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources), and Colorado’s 

Long Term Strategy for Visibility 

Protection adequately address PSD and 

Visibility Protection. For example, new 

major stationary sources or major 

modifications are restricted in their 

emissions in order to protect the PSD 

increment under Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 3. PSD and visibility 

analyses are also required by NSR 

regulations of Colorado. Colorado is 

required to review new major stationary 

sources and major modifications prior to 

construction to assess potential impacts 

on visibility in any Class I Area. 

Colorado AQCC Regulation 3.XI.E, 

‘‘New Source Review’’ (Appendix D) 

describes the applicant’s demonstration 

that the proposed source will not have 

an adverse effect on visibility in Class 

I areas. 

Visibility—For PM2.5, Colorado’s 

visibility program contains adequate 

provisions that are either in the SIP or 

submitted for inclusion into the SIP to 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emission activity in the State from 

emitting air pollutants in amounts that 

will interfere with measures required to 

be included in the applicable 

implementation plan of another state to 

protect visibility. Colorado’s 

implementation plan also adheres to the 

direction set forth in EPA’s applicable 

guidance interpreting this section of the 

CAA. 

The plan submitted to EPA on March 

31, 2010 demonstrates that there is a 

significant downward trend in 

Colorado’s visibility impairing 

emissions, visibility in surrounding 

Mandatory Class I Areas is improving 

over time, and regional modeling 

indicates Colorado has a small 

contribution to out-of-state haze. Thus, 

air pollution sources and other types of 

emission activity within the State of 

Colorado do not interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan of 

another state to protect visibility. 

b. EPA Analysis: The State has 

demonstrated that it has the authority 

and rules in place to provide a process 

of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121. Furthermore, EPA 

previously approved Colorado’s SIP 

submission to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 127 (45 FR 53147, August 

11, 1980). 

Colorado’s SIP regulations for its PSD 

program were federally-approved and 

made part of the SIP on September 2, 

1986 (51 FR 31125). EPA has further 

evaluated the State’s SIP-approved PSD 

program in section V.3, element 

110(a)(2)(C) of this proposed action. As 

explained in that section, we propose to 

approve Colorado’ s infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with respect to the requirement in 

element (C) to have a permit program as 

required by Part C of the Act. We 

correspondingly propose to approve the 

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirement in element (J) that the SIP 

meet the applicable requirements of Part 

C with respect to PSD. 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the act. In 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30838 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In conclusion, the 

Colorado SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

requirements of sections 121 and 127 of 

the Act, and also meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

12. Air quality and modeling/data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that each 

SIP provide for: 

(i) The performance of such air 

quality modeling as the Administrator 

may prescribe for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of any emissions of any air 

pollutant for which the Administrator 

has established a [NAAQS], and 

(ii) The submission, upon request, of 

data related to such air quality modeling 

to the Administrator. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado has the authority 

and resources to model for criteria 

pollutants, including PM2.5. Air quality 

modeling is done for SIP revisions and 

for transportation conformity. Colorado 

Regulation 3 (Stationary Source 

Permitting and Air Pollution Emission 

Notice Requirements) requires 

stationary sources to predict the effect of 

air pollutants in attainment areas. 

Regulation 3 also details the State of 

Colorado’s program regarding 

permitting as related to air quality 

modeling and data handling in 

predicting the effect of emissions of a 

pollutant with an established NAAQS. 

Regulatory requirements for Air Quality 

Related Values as related to modeling 

are described within Colorado 

Regulation 3, Part B, subsection X and 

XI. A permit modification for purposes 

of the acid rain portion of a permit are 

governed by regulations promulgated 

under Title VI of the federal act, found 

in 40 CFR Part 72 as described under 

Colorado Regulation 3, Part C, 

subsection X.K. 

The Modeling, Meteorology, and 

Emission Inventory Unit within the 

Colorado APCD performs and reviews 

air quality impact analyses for a variety 

of programs, including SIP revisions, 

transportation conformity 

determinations, stationary source 

permitting, environmental impact 

statements, and hazardous waste site 

audits. The analyses include modeling, 

meteorological analysis, and emission 

inventory development for mobile 

sources and area stationary sources such 

as woodburning. The Unit also performs 

air quality forecasting for the Denvermetro area High Pollution Season, open 

burning, and for special air quality 

studies. Additional information 

regarding these programs and authority 

is provided below. Some of these 

programs are found in the SIP. For 

example, both Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 4 (Woodburning) and the 

Denver PM10 SIP address state air 

quality modeling programs. 

PSD and Increment Consumption— 

Colorado’s PSD program includes a 

requirement that the State periodically 

assess the adequacy of its plan to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. This is presented in Regulation 

3, Part B, section VII. In addition, 

Regulation 3, Part A, section VIII, 

‘‘Technical Modeling and Monitoring 

Requirements’’ states that all estimates 

of ambient concentrations required 

under Regulation 3 shall be based on the 

applicable air quality models, data 

bases, and other requirements generally 

approved by EPA and specifically 

approved by the APCD. 

SIP Development—Modeling is 

performed in the development and 

revision of SIPs, as needed, to ensure 

specific areas of the State will maintain 

or re-attain compliance with the 

NAAQS in light of development and 

increased population and traffic. 

Permits—The primary Colorado 

regulation for air quality permits is 

Colorado AQCC Regulation 3. Certain 

new/modified air pollution sources are 

subject to the regulatory modeling 

requirements in Regulation 3. 

Regulation 3, Part A, subsection VIII 

describes Colorado’s technical modeling 

and monitoring requirements. Modeling 

is often required to obtain a 

construction permit. While modeling is 

not required to obtain an operating 

permit, it may be required if the 

operating permit is modified (in 

Regulation 3, Part C, subsection X— 

Minor Permit Modification Procedures). 

Operating permits may also be subject to 

modeling if the application is for a 

combined construction/operating permit 

(Regulation 3, Part C, subsection 

III.C.12.d). 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In particular, Colorado’s 

Regulation 3 Part A.VIII requires 

estimates of ambient air concentrations 

be based on applicable air quality 

models approved by EPA. Final 

approval for Regulation 3 Part A.VIII 

became effective February 20, 1997 (62 

FR 2910). As a result, the SIP provides 

for such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator has prescribed. 

13. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to: 

Require the owner or operator of each 

major stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover— 

(i) The reasonable costs of reviewing 

and acting upon any application for 

such a permit, and 

(ii) If the owner or operator receives 

a permit for such source, the reasonable 

costs of implementing and enforcing the 

terms and conditions of any such permit 

(not including any court costs or other 

costs associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under [title] V * * * 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The State of Colorado 

requires the owner or operator of a 

major stationary source to pay the 

Colorado APCD any fee necessary to 

cover the reasonable costs of reviewing 

and acting upon any permit application. 

The collection of fees is described in 

Colorado AQCC Regulation 3. 

Specifically, Regulations 3, Part A.VI 

describes how each applicant required 

to obtain a permit must pay a fee, 

including the cost of permit review and 

relevant actions. Also, stationary source 

owners or operators must pay an annual 

fee based on total emissions. The funds 

are used by the State to administer 

programs for the control of air pollution 

from stationary sources. 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s approved 

title V operating permit program meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

111(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 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. In addition, as described 

by Colorado, the State collects fees that 

cover the cost of review of permits for 

major stationary sources. 

14. 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. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 10, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity,’’ defines the criteria the 

Colorado AQCC uses for transportation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30839 

conformity determinations to develop 

SIP revisions in non-attainment areas. 

Interagency consultation requirements 

are detailed in Regulation 10, and meet 

the federal requirements under 40 CFR 

51.390, as published at 62 FR 43780 

(August 15, 1997). Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 3 also provides for 

consultation and participation by local 

entities. Local governments receive 

notice and have the opportunity to 

comment on and participate in 

construction permit review procedures 

and operating permit application 

procedures. 

The Colorado AQCC holds a public 

hearing before adopting any regulatory 

revisions to the SIP. Local political 

subdivisions may participate in the 

hearing. 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to 

minor NSR requirements, (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J) with respect to the requirements 

of sections 121 and 127 of the Act, (K), 

(L), and (M). EPA proposes to approve 

infrastructure elements (C) and (J) with 

respect to PSD requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve revisions to 

Regulation 3 submitted by Colorado on 

May 11, 2012, and May 13, 2013, which 

incorporate the requirements of the 

2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 

the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; 

specifically, revisions to: Regulation 3, 

Part D, sections II.A.5.a and b, II.A.23.a 

and b, II.A.25.a.(i), (a).(ii), (a).(iii), and 

(b).(i), II.A.38.c and g, II.A.42.a. and 

X.A.1. as submitted on May 11, 2012, 

and revisions to II.A.23.c, as submitted 

on May 13, 2013. EPA is taking no 

action at this time on infrastructure 

element (D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

VII. 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, 

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, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

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. 

Dated: May 13, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12215 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2012–0017; FWS– 

R1–ES–2013–0012; 4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AX72; 1018–AZ54 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Status and 

Designation of Critical Habitat for 

Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert 

Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii 

subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs 

Bladderpod) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on our May 15, 2012, proposed listing 

and designation of critical habitat for 

the Eriogonum codium (Umtanum 

desert buckwheat) and Physaria 

douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White 

Bluffs bladderpod) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We are reopening the 

comment period to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rules and to follow proper 

procedure in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 

section 1533(b)(5). Comments 

previously submitted on the proposed 

rules need not be resubmitted, as they 

will be fully considered in our 

determinations on these rulemaking 

actions. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published May 15, 2012 

(77 FR 28704), is reopened. We will 

consider all comments received or 

postmarked on or before July 22, 2013. 

Comments submitted electronically 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES, below) must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the proposed rule 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2012–0017, or by mail 

from the Washington Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS