30974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of 

Missouri 

*******

10–6.120 ................. Restriction of Emissions of Lead from 

Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations.

3/30/09 6/1/15 and [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision 

Pertaining to Limitations of Lead 

Emissions from Specific Installations, 

is not approved as part of the SIP. 

The requirement to limit main stack 

lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 

gr/dscf lead in Paragraph (3)(B)2 is 

not approved as part of the SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/permit number State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility.Consent Judgment 13IR–CC00016 7/29/13 6/1/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–13128 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0972, FRL–9928–52– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 

Lead, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of 

Colorado to demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on 

March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October 

15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 

January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the 

CAA requires that each state submit a 

SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR– 

2012–0972. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

the hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 8, Office of Partnership and 

Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado, 80202–1129. The EPA 

requests that you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m., 

excluding federal holidays. An 

electronic copy of the State’s SIP 

compilation is also available at http://

www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, 303–312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30975 

1For 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. 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a new NAAQS for ozone, revising the 

levels of the primary and secondary 8- 

hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). Subsequently, on October 15, 

2008, EPA revised the level of the 

primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 

1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 FR 66964). On January 

22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1- 

hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level 

of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while 

retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. 

The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as 

the three year average of the 98th 

percentile of the annual distribution of 

daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations. The secondary NO2

NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb 

(75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for ozone, Pb, and 

NO2 already meet those requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), followed by 

the October 14, 2011, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 

Memo). Most recently, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2)’’ on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Memo). 

III. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Colorado that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A; and nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Examples of some of these 

ambiguities and the context in which 

EPA interprets the ambiguous portions 

of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are 

discussed at length in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of 

State Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 

and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 

71040 Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is 

the Scope of this Rulemaking?’’ 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they 

purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186, 

Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 

32526, June 13, 2007. (‘‘NSR Reform’’). 

IV. What infrastructure elements are 

required under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

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

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are listed below. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

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

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

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

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

A detailed discussion of each of these 

elements is contained in the next 

section. 

Two elements identified in section 

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

year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

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

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (1) Section 

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

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment NSR’’) required under 

part D, and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

Furthermore, EPA interprets the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on 

visibility as not being triggered by a new 

NAAQS because the visibility 

requirements in part C, title 1 of the 

CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS. 

V. How did Colorado address the 

infrastructure elements of Sections 

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

The Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

submitted certifications of Colorado’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS on July 26, 2012; the 2008 

ozone NAAQS on December 31, 2012; 

and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on March 7, 

2013. Colorado’s infrastructure 

certifications demonstrate how the 

State, where applicable, has plans in 

place that meet the requirements of 

section 110 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. These plans 

reference the current Air Quality 

Control Commission (AQCC) regulations 

and Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). 

These submittals are available within 

the electronic docket for today’s 

proposed action at www.regulations.gov. 

The AQCC regulations referenced in the 

submittals are publicly available at 

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/

cdphe/aqcc-regs and http://

www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/

colorado/. Colorado’s SIP, air pollution 

control regulations, and statutes that 

have been previously approved by EPA 

and incorporated into the Colorado SIP 

can be found at 40 CFR 52.320. 

VI. Analysis of the State Submittals 

1. Emission limits and other control 

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

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

Multiple SIP-approved AQCC 

regulations citied in Colorado’s 

certifications provide enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters necessary to meet the 

requirements of the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 

Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, subject to 

the following clarifications. 

First, EPA does not consider SIP 

requirements triggered by the 

nonattainment area mandates in part D 

of Title I of the CAA to be governed by 

the submission deadline of section 

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

included some SIP provisions originally 

submitted in response to part D 

requirements in its certification for the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2). For the purposes of this 

action, EPA is reviewing any rules 

originally submitted in response to part 

D requirements solely for the purposes 

of determining whether they support a 

finding that the State has met the basic 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2). For example, in response to 

the requirement to have enforceable 

emission limitations under section 

110(a)(2)(A), Colorado cited to rules in 

Regulation Number 7 that were 

submitted to meet the reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

requirements of part D. EPA is here 

approving those rules as meeting the 

requirement to have enforceable 

emission limitations on ozone 

precursors; any judgment about whether 

those emission limitations discharge the 

State’s obligation to impose RACT 

under part D will be made separately, in 

an action reviewing those rules 

pursuant to the requirements of part D. 

Colorado also referenced SIP provisions 

that are relevant, such as limits on 

emissions of particulate matter (PM) in 

Regulation 1, woodburning controls in 

Regulation 4, and the State’s minor NSR 

and PSD programs in Regulation 3. We 

propose to find these provisions 

adequately address the requirements of 

element (A), again subject to the 

clarifications made in this notice. 

Second, in this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. A number of states have 

such provisions which are contrary to 

the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30977 

2Steven 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). 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Third and finally, in this action, EPA 

is also not proposing to approve or 

disapprove any existing state provision 

with regard to excess emissions during 

SSM or operations at a facility. A 

number of states have SSM provisions 

which are contrary to the CAA and 

existing EPA guidance 2 and the Agency 

is addressing such state regulations 

separately (78 FR 12460, Feb. 22, 2013). 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/

data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to ‘‘(i) 

monitor, compile, and analyze data on 

ambient air quality, and (ii) upon 

request, make such data available to the 

Administrator.’’ 

The Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division (APCD) periodically submits a 

Quality Management Plan and a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8. 

These plans cover procedures to 

monitor and analyze data. The 

provisions for episode monitoring, data 

compilation and reporting, public 

availability of information, and annual 

network reviews are found in the 

statewide monitoring SIP (58 FR 49435, 

Sept. 23, 1993). As part of the 

monitoring SIP, Colorado submits an 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan 

(AMNP) each year for EPA approval. 

EPA approved 2013 and 2014 network 

changes through an AMNP response 

letter (contained within the docket) 

mailed to CDPHE on March 13, 2015. 

In the AMNP response letter, EPA 

noted a deficiency in Colorado’s AMNP 

regarding NO2 monitoring. 40 CFR 

58.10(a)(5)(iv) requires that ‘‘a plan for 

establishing a second near-road NO2

monitor in any [Core Based Statistical 

Area] [CBSA] with a population of 

2,500,000 or more persons, or a second 

monitor in any CBSA with a population 

of 500,000 or more persons that has one 

or more roadway segments with 250,000 

or greater [annual average daily traffic] 

counts, in accordance with the 

requirements of Appendix D, section 

4.3.2 to this part, shall be submitted as 

part of the Annual Monitoring Network 

Plan to the EPA Regional Administrator 

by July 1, 2014. The plan shall provide 

for these required monitors to be 

operational by January 1, 2015.’’ 

Colorado was required to start its 

second near-road NO2 monitor by 

January 1, 2015. The State did not meet 

this deadline. However, in a letter dated 

March 31, 2015 (contained within the 

docket) CDPHE committed to install and 

operate the second near-road NO2

monitoring site by December 31, 2015 at 

I–25/Acoma Street and 49th Avenue in 

Denver. The State will notify EPA once 

the monitor is operational, which will 

then satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 

58.10(a)(5)(iv). 

We find that Colorado’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data system 

requirements for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 Pb NAAQS; and therefore, propose 

to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS for 

this element. 

CAA 110(k)(4) states ‘‘The 

Administrator may approve a plan 

revision based on a commitment of the 

State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain, but not later 

than 1 year after the date of approval of 

the plan revision. Any such conditional 

approval shall be treated as a 

disapproval if the State fails to comply 

with such commitment.’’ Based on 

Colorado’s commitment to install and 

operate the second near-road NO2

monitoring site no later than December 

31, 2015, we propose to conditionally 

approve this element for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. If however, the State fails to 

meet the deadline for installing and 

operating the near-road NO2 monitor, 

EPA’s conditional approval, if finalized, 

will revert automatically to a 

disapproval. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

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

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), the State is 

required to have SIP-approved PSD, 

nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, 

and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As explained 

elsewhere in this action, EPA is not 

evaluating nonattainment related 

provisions, such as the nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D of the 

Act. EPA is evaluating the State’s PSD 

program as required by part C of the 

Act, and the State’s minor NSR program 

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

PSD Requirements 

With respect to elements (C) and (J), 

EPA interprets the CAA to require each 

state to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of element (D)(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Colorado 

has shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone. EPA approved 

revisions to Colorado’s PSD program 

reflecting these requirements on January 

9, 2012 (77 FR 1027), and therefore, 

Colorado has met the infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to 2008 ozone. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions, Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Supreme Court also said that EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). In order to 

act consistently with its interpretation 

of the Court’s decision pending further 

judicial action to effectuate the decision, 

EPA is not continuing to apply EPA 

regulations that would require that SIPs 

include permitting requirements that 

the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3EPA’s proposed notice at 78 FR 30830 (May 23, 

2013) includes a discussion of the history of 

Colorado’s PSD program approvals for GHGs. 

applying the requirement that a state’s 

SIP-approved PSD program require that 

sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs 

are the only pollutant (i) that the source 

emits or has the potential to emit above 

the major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase from a modification (e.g., 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Utility Air. 

The timing and content of subsequent 

EPA actions with respect to EPA 

regulations and state PSD program 

approvals are expected to be informed 

by additional legal process before the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. At this 

juncture, EPA is not expecting states to 

have revised their PSD programs for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions and is only evaluating such 

submissions to assure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

decision. 

At present, EPA has determined that 

Colorado’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with 

respect to GHGs because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by EPA 3 into the SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits 

(otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Colorado PSD permitting 

program may currently contain 

provisions that are no longer necessary 

in light of the Utility Air decision, this 

does not render the infrastructure SIP 

submission inadequate to satisfy 

elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). The SIP 

contains the necessary PSD 

requirements at this time, and the 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of sources of 

GHGs that EPA does not consider 

necessary at this time in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, 

the Utility Air decision does not affect 

EPA’s proposed approval of Colorado’s 

infrastructure SIP as to the requirements 

of elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). 

Finally, we evaluate the PSD program 

with respect to current requirements for 

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

EPA promulgated the rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 

FR 28321) and on October 20, 2010 EPA 

promulgated the rule, ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). EPA regards 

adoption of these PM2.5 rules as a 

necessary requirement when assessing a 

PSD program for the purposes of 

element (C). 

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

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

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

issued a judgment that remanded EPA’s 

2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered 

EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these rules 

pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with 

this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of 

part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes 

additional provisions for PM 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008), promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain 

to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 

Implementation rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does not 

anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated in the 2008 

Implementation rule in order to comply 

with the court’s decision. Accordingly, 

EPA’s proposed approval of Colorado’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements C or J 

with respect to the PSD requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. 

The court’s decision with respect to 

the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 

Implementation rule also does not affect 

EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the 

Act to exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program, from infrastructure SIP 

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS. 

Instead, these elements are typically 

referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would 

be due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as 10 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

The second PSD requirement for 

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

2010 rule, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (75 FR 64864). 

EPA regards adoption of the PM2.5

increments as a necessary requirement 

when assessing a PSD program for the 

purposes of element (C). 

On May 11, 2012, the State submitted 

revisions to Regulation 3 that adopted 

all elements of the 2008 Implementation 

Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment 

Rule. However, the submittal contained 

a definition of Major Source Baseline 

Date which was inconsistent with 40 

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

the State submitted revisions to 

Regulation 3 which incorporate the 

definition of Major Source Baseline Date 

which was consistent with 40 CFR 

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

revisions make Colorado’s PSD program 

up to date with respect to current 

requirements for PM2.5. EPA approved 

the necessary portions of Colorado’s 

May 11, 2012 and May 13, 2013 

submissions which incorporate the 

requirements of the 2008 PM2.5

Implementation Rule and the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule on September 23, 

2013 (78 FR 58186). Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program meets current 

requirements for PM2.5. EPA therefore is 

proposing to approve Colorado’s SIP for 

the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2

NAAQS with respect to the requirement 

in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

permit program in the SIP as required 

by part C of the Act. 

Minor NSR 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR 

program is found in Regulation 3 of the 

Colorado SIP, and was originally 

approved by EPA as Regulation 3 of the 

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

Since approval of the minor NSR 

program, the State and EPA have relied 

on the program to assure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2

NAAQS with respect to the general 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30979 

4 2011 Memo at pg 8. 

5EPA has not interpreted element 1 to literally 

mean contribution to designated nonattainment 

areas, and has applied this interpretation in 

comprehensive actions addressing elements 1 and 

2 (See e.g., Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 

48208, August 8, 2011). 

6EPA did not calculate a 2010 1-hour NO2 design 

value in the state of Nebraska for the 2011–2013 

design value period. 7http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. 

4. Interstate Transport: The interstate 

transport provisions in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ‘‘good 

neighbor’’ provisions) require each state 

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions 

that will have certain adverse air quality 

effects in other states. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct 

elements related to the impacts of air 

pollutants transported across state lines. 

The two elements under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will (element 1) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two elements under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C (element 3) to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or (element 4) to protect 

visibility. In this action, EPA is 

addressing all four elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

In this action, EPA is addressing the 

2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with 

regard to elements 1 (significant 

contribution to nonattainment) and 2 

(interference with maintenance). EPA is 

addressing elements 3 (interference with 

PSD) and 4 (interference with visibility 

protection) of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard 

to the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. We are not addressing 

elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in this action. These elements 

will be addressed in a later rulemaking. 

A. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment and 

Interference With Maintenance 

2008 Pb NAAQS 

Colorado’s analysis of potential 

interstate transport for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS includes considerations of 

Colorado’s Pb emissions inventory, and 

the distance of Pb sources in Colorado 

to nearby states. The State’s analysis is 

available in the docket for this action. 

As noted in the 2011 Memo, there is 

a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at 

least in the coarse fraction, as the 

distance from a Pb source increases. For 

this reason, EPA found that the 

‘‘requirements of subsection (2)(D)(i)(I) 

(elements 1 and 2) could be satisfied 

through a state’s assessment as to 

whether or not emissions from Pb 

sources located in close proximity to 

their state borders have emissions that 

impact the neighboring state such that 

they contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in that state.’’ 4 In that 

guidance document, EPA further 

specified that any source appeared 

unlikely to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment unless it was located less 

than 2 miles from a state border and 

emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. 

Colorado’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis 

specifically noted that there are no 

sources in the State that meet both of 

these criteria. EPA concurs with the 

State’s analysis and conclusion that no 

Colorado sources have the combination 

of Pb emission levels and proximity to 

neighboring states to contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in or 

interfere with maintenance by other 

states for this NAAQS. Colorado’s SIP is 

therefore adequate to ensure that such 

impacts do not occur. We are proposing 

to approve Colorado’s submission in 

that its SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. 

2010 NO2 NAAQS 

Colorado’s 2010 NO2 submission 

notes that all states are currently 

designated by EPA as unclassifiable/

attainment for NO2, and determines that 

it is therefore unlikely that Colorado 

contributes to nonattainment or 

interferes with maintenance for NO2 in 

any other state. 

EPA recognizes the reasonableness of 

Colorado’s conclusion, specifically with 

regard to element 1 (significant 

contribution to nonattainment).5 In 

addition, EPA notes that the highest 

monitored NO2 design values in each 

state bordering Colorado are 

significantly below the NAAQS (see 

Table 2, below).6 This fact further 

supports the State’s contention that 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS from 

Colorado is very unlikely based on the 

lack of areas with high levels of NO2. 

This is especially relevant for element 2 

(interference with maintenance), 

because in addition to the lack of areas 

violating the NO2 NAAQS, there are also 

no areas near the State approaching 

violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

which might therefore be expected to 

have difficulty maintaining the 

standard. 

TABLE 2—HIGHEST MONITORED 2010 

NO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES

State 

2011–2013 

Design 

value 

Percent of 

NAAQS 

(100 ppb) 

Kansas ............. 65 ppb ........ 65. 

Nebraska ......... No Data ...... No Data. 

New Mexico ..... 41 ppb ........ 41. 

Oklahoma ........ 54 ppb ........ 54. 

South Dakota ... 37 ppb ........ 37. 

Utah ................. 66 ppb ........ 66. 

Wyoming .......... 35 ppb ........ 35. 

* Source: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

values.html. 

In addition to the monitored levels of 

NO2 in states bordering Colorado being 

well below the NAAQS, Colorado’s 

highest design value from 2011–2013 

was also significantly below this 

NAAQS (62 ppb).7

Based on all of these factors, EPA 

concurs with the State’s conclusion that 

Colorado does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in other states. EPA is 

therefore proposing to determine that 

Colorado’s SIP includes adequate 

provisions to prohibit sources or other 

emission activities within the State from 

emitting NO2 in amounts that will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance by any other state with 

respect specifically to the NO2 NAAQS. 

B. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

Colorado’s certifications with regard 

to elements 3 and 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

vary by pollutant. Each certification can 

be found in the docket for this action. 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in 

the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30980 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8See 2013 Memo. 

9See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section 

V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a 

final rulemaking dated February 13, 2014 (79 FR 

8632). 

10See 2013 Memo. In addition, EPA approved the 

visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for Colorado before taking 

action on the State’s regional haze SIP. 76 FR 22036 

(April 20, 2011). 

11WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on 

February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on 

March 1, 2013. 

12This settlement agreement is included in the 

docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement 

Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). 

13See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado 

regional Haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012. 14See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1. 

implementation rule(s).8 As noted in 

Section VI.3 of this proposed action, 

Colorado has such a program, and EPA 

is therefore proposing to approve 

Colorado’s SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 

Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect 

to the requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a permit program 

in the SIP as required by part C of the 

Act. 

As stated in the 2013 Memo, in-state 

sources not subject to PSD for any one 

or more of the pollutants subject to 

regulation under the CAA because they 

are in a nonattainment area for a 

NAAQS related to those particular 

pollutants may also have the potential 

to interfere with PSD in an attainment 

or unclassifiable area of another state. 

One way a state may satisfy element 3 

with respect to these sources is by citing 

an air agency’s EPA-approved 

nonattainment NSR provisions 

addressing any pollutants for which the 

state has designated nonattainment 

areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved 

nonattainment NSR program which 

ensures regulation of major sources and 

major modifications in nonattainment 

areas.9

As Colorado’s SIP meets PSD 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants, and contains a fully 

approved nonattainment NSR program, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission as 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Protect Visibility 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement 

for visibility protection is satisfied, the 

SIP must address the potential for 

interference with visibility protection 

caused by the pollutant (including 

precursors) to which the new or revised 

NAAQS applies. An approved regional 

haze SIP that fully meets the regional 

haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 

satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement for visibility protection as 

it ensures that emissions from the state 

will not interfere with measures 

required to be included in other state 

SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence 

of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a 

state can still make a demonstration that 

satisfies the visibility requirement 

section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).10

Colorado submitted a regional haze 

SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA 

approved Colorado’s regional haze SIP 

on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In 

early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association (NPCA) filed separate 

petitions for reconsideration of certain 

aspects of EPA’s approval of the 

Colorado’s regional haze SIP.11 After 

these petitions were filed, a settlement 

agreement was entered into concerning 

the Craig Generating Station by the 

petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State 

Generation and Transmission 

Association, Inc., and filed with the 

court on July 10, 2014.12 In accordance 

with the settlement agreement, EPA 

requested and the court granted a 

voluntary remand to EPA of the portions 

of EPA’s December 2012 regional haze 

SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 

1. Because of this remand, and because 

the additional controls at the Craig 

facility will be implemented through a 

revision to the Colorado regional haze 

SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA 

cannot rely on this approval as 

automatically satisfying element 4. 

EPA does, however, consider other 

aspects of our approval of Colorado’s 

regional haze SIP to be sufficient to 

satisfy this requirement. Specifically, 

EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include 

in its regional haze SIP all measures 

necessary to (1) obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for any other 

state’s Class I area to which Colorado 

causes or contributes to visibility 

impairment, and; (2) ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through a 

regional planning process. Colorado 

participated in a regional planning 

process with Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP). In the regional 

planning process, Colorado analyzed the 

WRAP modeling and determined that 

emissions from the State do not 

significantly impact other states’ Class I 

areas.13 Colorado accepted and 

incorporated the WRAP-developed 

visibility modeling into its regional haze 

SIP, and the SIP included the controls 

assumed in the modeling. For these 

reasons, EPA determined that Colorado 

had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule 

requirements for consultation and 

included controls in the SIP sufficient to 

address the relevant requirements 

related to impacts on Class I areas in 

other states. Therefore, we are proposing 

to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting 

the requirements of element 4 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 

ozone, 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

5. Interstate and International 

transport provisions: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include 

provisions ensuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement). Specifically, CAA section 

126(a) requires new or modified major 

sources to notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from the source. 

Section 126(a) requires notification to 

affected, nearby states of major 

proposed new (or modified) sources. 

Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to 

petitions by affected states to the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA 

(Administrator) regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 similarly pertains to 

international transport of air pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program requires notice 

to states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to 

PSD.14 This suffices to meet the notice 

requirement of section 126(a). 

Colorado has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b); 

therefore, its SIP currently meets the 

requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 

Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

6. Adequate resources: Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires states to provide 

necessary assurances that the state will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof). 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires 

each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under CAA section 128. Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires states to 

‘‘provide necessary assurances that, 

where the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30981 

15EPA’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. 

16 Discussion of the requirements for meeting 

CAA section 303 is provided in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5, 2008 

Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘VI. Analysis of State 

Submittals, 8. Emergency powers.’’ 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any [SIP] provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such [SIP] 

provision.’’ 

a. Sub-elements (i) and (iii): Adequate 

personnel, funding, and legal authority 

under state law to carry out its SIP, and 

related issues. Colorado revised statues, 

specifically the Colorado Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act (APPCA) 

Sections 25–7–105, 25–7–111, 42–4–301 

to 42–4–316, 42–4–414 and Article 7 of 

Title 25, provide adequate authority for 

the State of Colorado APCD and AQCC 

to carry out its SIP obligations with 

respect to the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. The State receives 

Sections 103 and 105 grant funds 

through its Performance Partnership 

Grant along with required state 

matching funds to provide funding 

necessary to carry out Colorado’s SIP 

requirements. The regulations cited by 

Colorado in their certifications and 

contained within this docket also 

provide the necessary assurances that 

the State has responsibility for adequate 

implementation of SIP provisions by 

local governments. Therefore, we 

propose to approve Colorado’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (E)(iii) for the 2008 

ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

b. Sub-element (ii): State boards. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each 

state’s SIP to contain provisions that 

comply with the requirements of section 

128 of the CAA. That provision contains 

two explicit requirements: (i) That any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA 

shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do 

not derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to such 

permits and enforcement orders; and (ii) 

that any potential conflicts of interest by 

members of such board or body or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately 

disclosed.15

On April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21453) EPA 

approved the Procedural Rules, Section 

1.11.0, as adopted by the AQCC on 

January 16, 1998, into the Colorado SIP 

as meeting the requirements of section 

128 of the Act. Section 1.11.0 specifies 

certain requirements regarding the 

composition of the AQCC and 

disclosure by its members of potential 

conflicts of interest. Details on how this 

portion of the Procedural Rules meets 

the requirements of section 128 are 

provided in our January 4, 2012 

proposal notice (77 FR 235). In our 

April 10, 2012 action, we 

correspondingly approved Colorado’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS for element (E)(ii). Colorado’s 

SIP continues to meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and we 

propose to approve the infrastructure 

SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS for this element. 

7. Stationary source monitoring 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: 

(i) The installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) Periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) Correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the Act, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

The Colorado AQCC Regulations 

listed in the State’s certifications 

(Regulations 1, 3, 7, and Common 

Provisions Regulation) and contained 

within this docket provide authority to 

establish a program for measurements 

and testing of sources, including 

requirements for sampling and testing. 

Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) 

requirements are defined in Regulation 

3 and requires stationary sources to 

report their emissions on a regular basis 

through APENs. Regulation 3 also 

requires for monitoring to be performed 

in accordance with EPA accepted 

procedures, and record keeping of air 

pollutants. Additionally, Regulation 3 

provides for a permitting program that 

establishes emission limitations and 

standards. Emissions must be reported 

by sources to the state for correlation 

with applicable emissions limitations 

and standards. Monitoring may be 

required for both construction and 

operating permits. 

Additionally, Colorado is required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Colorado 

made its latest update to the NEI on 

December 31, 2014. EPA compiles the 

emissions data, supplementing it where 

necessary, and releases it to the general 

public through the Web site http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

eiinformation.html. 

Based on the analysis above, we 

propose to approve the Colorado’s SIP 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2008 ozone, 

2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA requires 

infrastructure SIPs to ‘‘provide for 

authority comparable to that in [CAA 

section 303 16] and adequate 

contingency plans to implement such 

authority.’’ 

Under CAA section 303, the 

Administrator has authority to bring suit 

to immediately restrain an air pollution 

source that presents an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment. If 

such action may not practicably assure 

prompt protection, then the 

Administrator has authority to issue 

temporary administrative orders to 

protect the public health or welfare, or 

the environment, and such orders can 

be extended if EPA subsequently files a 

civil suit. 

APPCA Sections 25–7–112 and 25–7– 

113 provide APCD with general 

emergency authority comparable to that 

in section 303 of the Act. APPCA 

section 25–7–112(1) provides the 

Division of Administration in the 

CDPHE with the authority to maintain 

civil actions over the sources of air 

pollution discharges that constitute ‘‘a 

clear, present, and immediate danger to 

the environment or to the health of the 

public.’’ Specifically, the Division can 

seek a ‘‘temporary restraining order, 

temporary injunction, or permanent 

injunction as provided for in the 

Colorado rules of civil procedure’’ 

(C.R.S. section 25–7–112(1)(b)). This 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

authority extends to discharges that 

constitute ‘‘an immediate danger to the 

welfare of the public because such 

pollutants make habitation of residences 

or the conduct of businesses subjected 

to the pollutants extremely unhealthy or 

disruptive.’’ (C.R.S. Section 25–7– 

113(1)). 

These civil actions may be maintained 

‘‘in any district court of this state for the 

district in which the said activity or 

discharge is occurring.’’ (C.R.S. Sections 

25–7–112(1)(b); 25–7–113(1)(b)). 

Additionally, the action ‘‘shall be given 

precedence over all other matters 

pending in such district court.’’ (Id). As 

such, Colorado law provides statutory 

authority over sources of air pollution 

discharges that cause an ‘‘immediate 

danger’’ to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. This authority allows for 

the pursuit of immediate relief and 

provides precedence for such matters. 

Therefore, Colorado has comparable 

judicial authority to that provided to the 

Administrator in Section 303. 

Similarly, APPCA section 25–7– 

112(1)(a) provides the Division of 

Administration in the CDPHE with the 

authority to issue ‘‘cease-and-desist 

orders. . .requiring immediate 

discontinuance of such activity or the 

discharge of such pollutant into the 

atmosphere’’ when the activity or 

discharge ‘‘constitutes a clear, present, 

and immediate danger to the 

environment or to the health of the 

public.’’ (C.R.S. Section 25–7–112(1)(a)). 

Further, ‘‘upon receipt of such order, 

such person shall immediately 

discontinue such activity or discharge.’’ 

(Id). This authority extends to 

discharges that constitute ‘‘an 

immediate danger to the welfare of the 

public because such pollutants make 

habitation of residences or the conduct 

of businesses subjected to the pollutants 

extremely unhealthy or disruptive.’’ 

(C.R.S. Section 25–7–113(1)). 

These provisions also allow the 

Division to ‘‘both issue such a ceaseand-desist order and apply for any such 

restraining order or injunction’’ (C.R.S. 

Sections 25–7–112(1)(c); 25–7–113(c)). 

Colorado law provides administrative 

authority over sources of air pollution 

discharges that cause an ‘‘immediate 

danger’’ to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Furthermore, C.R.S. 

Sections 25–7–112(2)(b) allows the 

Governor to declare a state of air 

pollution emergency and take any and 

all actions necessary to protect the 

health of the public. This authority is 

comparable to that provided to the 

Administrator in Section 303. 

States must also have adequate 

contingency plans adopted into their 

SIP to implement the air agency’s 

emergency episode authority (as 

discussed above). This can be met can 

by submitting a plan that meets the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, subpart H for the relevant NAAQS 

if the NAAQS is covered by those 

regulations. The Denver Emergency 

Episode Plan, applicable to the Denver 

metropolitan area, satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H (See 74 FR 47888). The SIP therefore 

meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G). 

Based on the above analysis, we propose 

approval of Colorado’s SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone, 2008 

Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

9. Future SIP revisions: Section 

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

for revision of such plan: (i) From time 

to time as may be necessary to take 

account of revisions of such national 

primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), 

whenever the Administrator finds on 

the basis of information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under this [Act]. 

Colorado’s statutory provision at 

Colorado APPCA Sections 25–7– 

105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient 

authority to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(H). Therefore, we propose to 

approve Colorado’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) 

requires that each SIP ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to PSD of air 

quality and visibility protection).’’ 

The State has demonstrated it has the 

authority and rules in place through its 

certifications (contained within this 

docket) to provide a process of 

consultation with general purpose local 

governments, designated organizations 

of elected officials of local governments 

and any Federal Land Manager having 

authority over federal land to which the 

SIP applies, consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 121. 

Furthermore, EPA previously addressed 

the requirements of CAA section 127 for 

the Colorado SIP and determined public 

notification requirements are 

appropriate (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 

1980). 

As discussed above, the State has a 

SIP-approved PSD program that 

incorporates by reference the federal 

program at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA has 

further evaluated Colorado’s SIP 

approved PSD program in this proposed 

action under element (C) and 

determined the State has satisfied the 

requirements of element 110(a)(2)(C), as 

noted above. Therefore, the State has 

also satisfied the requirements of 

element 110(a)(2)(J). 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there are no applicable 

visibility requirements under section 

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

becomes effective. 

Based on the above analysis, we 

propose to approve the Colorado SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 ozone, 

2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

11. Air quality and modeling/data: 

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

provide for: (i) The performance of such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a 

NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon 

request, of data related to such air 

quality modeling to the Administrator. 

Colorado’s Regulation 3 Part A.VIII 

(Technical Modeling and Monitoring 

Requirements) requires estimates of 

ambient air concentrations be based on 

applicable air quality models approved 

by EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 

Part A.VIII became effective February 

20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Additionally, 

Regulation 3 Part D, Section VI.C. 

requires the Division to transmit to the 

Administrator of the U.S. EPA a copy of 

each permit application relating to a 

major stationary source or major 

modification subject to this regulation, 

and provide notice of every action 

related to the consideration of such 

permit. 

Colorado has broad authority to 

develop and implement an air quality 

control program that includes 

conducting air quality modeling to 

predict the effect on ambient air quality 

of any emissions of any air pollutant for 

which a NAAQS has been promulgated 

and provide that modeling data to the 

EPA. This broad authority can be found 

in 25–7–102, C.R.S., which requires that 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30983 

17See Email from Robert True ‘‘Response 

Requested for Element K on CO’s iSIP’’ April 6, 

2015, available within docket. 

emission control measures be evaluated 

against economic, environmental, 

energy and other impacts, and indirectly 

authorizes modeling activities.17

Colorado also has broad authority to 

conduct modeling and submit 

supporting data to EPA to satisfy federal 

non-attainment area requirements (25– 

7–105, 25–7–205.1, 25–7–301, and 25– 

7–302, C.R.S.). In addition to statutory 

authority, all state implementation 

plans and revisions of such plans must 

be submitted to Colorado’s Legislature 

for review providing another layer of 

review and authorization for submittal 

to EPA (25–7–133(1), C.R.S.). The State 

also has the authority to submit any 

modeling data to EPA upon request 

under the Colorado Open Records Act 

(24–72–201 to 24–72–309, C.R.S.). 

As a result, the SIP provides for such 

air quality modeling as the 

Administrator has prescribed. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

Colorado SIP as meeting the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2008 ozone, 

2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

12. Permitting fees: Section 

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

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover; (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit; and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

The State of Colorado requires the 

owner or operator of a major stationary 

source to pay the Division any fee 

necessary to cover the reasonable costs 

of reviewing and acting upon any 

permit application. The collection of 

fees is described in AQCC Regulation 3, 

Part A. 

We also note that the State has an 

EPA approved title V permit program 

(60 FR 4563, Jan. 24, 1995) which 

provides for collection of permitting 

fees. Final approval of the title V 

operating permit program became 

effective October 16, 2000 (65 FR 

49919). Interim approval of Colorado’s 

title V operating permit program became 

effective February 23, 1995 (60 FR 

4563). As discussed in the proposed 

interim approval of the title V program 

(59 FR 52123, October 14, 1994), the 

State demonstrated that the fees 

collected were sufficient to administer 

the program. 

Therefore, based on the State’s 

experience in relying on the collection 

of fees as described in AQCC Regulation 

3, and the use of title V fees to 

implement and enforce PSD permits 

once they are incorporated into title V 

permits, we propose to approve the 

submissions as supplemented by the 

State for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

13. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

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

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

The statutory provisions cited in 

Colorado’s SIP submittals (contained 

within this docket) meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(M), so we propose to approve 

Colorado’s SIP as meeting these 

requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 

Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

VII. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 

and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C) with 

respect to minor NSR and PSD 

requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M). EPA is proposing to approve 

element (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 

ozone NAAQS and proposing to 

conditionally approve element (B) for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Finally, EPA 

proposes approval of D(i)(I) elements 1 

and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2

NAAQS. EPA will act separately on 

infrastructure element (D)(i)(I), 

interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: May 13, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–13123 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0304; FRL–9928–51– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Montana on March 17, 2010, August 1, 

2011, November 22, 2011, and 

September 19, 2014. The revisions are to 

the Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM) and include minor editorial and 

grammatical changes, updates to 

citations and references to federal and 

state laws and regulations, revisions to 

open burning rules, changes to the 

process for appealing air quality 

permits, and providing a process for 

revocation of air quality permits when 

owners cannot be found by mail. Also 

in this action, EPA is proposing to 

correct final rules pertaining to 

Montana’s SIP. On January 29, 2010, 

EPA took direct final action to approve 

SIP revisions as submitted by the State 

of Montana on January 16, 2009 and 

May 4, 2009. EPA subsequently 

discovered an error in our January 29, 

2010 direct final action related to 

‘‘incorporation by reference’’ (IBR) 

materials and the associated regulatory 

text numbering. EPA is proposing to 

correct this error with today’s action. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0304, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: fulton.abby@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–2010– 

0304. 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: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 ARM mean or refer to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana. 

(iii) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best 

Available Control Technology. 

(iv) The word or initials Board or BER 

mean or refer to the Montana Board of 

Environmental Review. 

(v) The initials CAMR mean or refer to the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Clear Air 

Mercury Rule. 

(vi) The initials CBI mean or refer to 

confidential business information. 

(vii) The initials CFR mean or refer to the 

United States Code of Federal Regulations. 

(viii) The initials DEQ mean or refer to the 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

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

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(x) The initials IBR mean or refer to 

Incorporate by Reference. 

(xi) The initials MCA mean or refer to the 

Montana Code Annotated. 

(xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

national ambient air quality standards. 

(xiii) The initials NESHAP mean or refer to 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants. 

(xiv) The initials NSPS mean or refer to 

New Source Performance Standards. 

(xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(xvi) The word State means or refers to the 

State of Montana. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS