ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 40 CFRPart52 [EPA-R08-0AR-2007-1033; FRLApproval and Disapproval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 1 AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). ACTION: Proposedrule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittedby the State ofColorado regarding its Regulation 1. Regulation 1provides certain emission controls for opacity, particulates, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. The revision involves the deletion ofobsolete, the adoption ofnew, and the clarification ofambiguous provisions within Regulation 1. The intended effect ofthis proposed action is to make federally enforceable the revised portions ofColorado's Regulation 1that EPA is proposing to approve and to disapprove portions ofthe regulation that EPA deems are not consistent with the Clean Air Act. This action is being taken under section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act. DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days afterpublication in the Federal Register]. ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2007­ 1033, by one ofthe following methods:
• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: komp.mark@epa.gov. 1• Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ifyou are faxing comments).
• Mail: CallieVidetich, Director, AirProgram, Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 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 ofboxed information. Instructions: Direct your commentsto Docket ID No. EPA-R08-0AR-2007-1033. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included inthe public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the commentincludes informationclaimedto be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit informationthat you considerto be CBI or otherwise protectedthrough www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 itinthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket andmade available onthe Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body ofyourcomment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA 2cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contactyou for clarification, EPA may not be able to consideryour comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free ofany defects orviruses. For additional information about EPA'spublic 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 ofthe SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. 

### Docket: All documents in the docket are listed inthe www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CEI or other informationwhose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain othermaterial, 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 inhard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129
..EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contact the individual listed inthe FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy ofthe docket. You may viewthe hard copy ofthe docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Air Program, Mail Code 8PAR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6022, komp.mark@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Table ofContents 3I. General Information II. What is the Purpose ofthis Action? III. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal IV. EPA'sEvaluation ofState's Submittal V. ConsiderationofSection 110(1) ofthe CAA VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

### Definitions Forthe purpose ofthis document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: (i) The words orinitials Act or CAA mean orreferto the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise. (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State ofColorado, unless the context indicates otherwise. (v) The words Provision orRegulation refer to Colorado's Regulation 1. (vi) The initials SOz mean orreferto sulfur dioxide, HC mean or refer to hydrocarbons and CO
mean or refer to Carbon Monoxide. (vii) The initials RACT mean orrefer to Reasonably Available Control Technology. 

### I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as IPrepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting eBl. Do not submitthis information to EPA through www.regulations.goY 4or e-mail. Clearly mark the partor all ofthe information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk orCD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside ofthe disk orCD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically withinthe disk orCD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version ofthe comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy ofthe commentthat 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 CFRpart 2. 2. Tipsfor Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, rememberto:
a. Identifythe rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subjectheading, Federal Register date and page number). b. Follow directions

- The agency may ask you to respondto specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree ordisagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or datathat you used.
e. Ifyou estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use ofprofanity or personal threats. h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

### 5II. What is the Purpose ofthis Action? EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1adopted by the State ofColorado on August 16, 2001 and submitted to EPA onJuly 31, 2002. The revisions involve the deletion ofobsolete, adoption ofnew, and clarification of ambiguousprovisions. Colorado's Regulation 1governs opacity, and particulate, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from sources. After ourreview ofthese revisions, we believe that some ofthe revisions are consistent withthe Act and should be approved while some ofthe revisions are not and should be disapproved. EPA is soliciting public comments onthe issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedureby submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the Addresses section ofthis document. III. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal On July 31, 2002, the State ofColorado submitted a formal revisionto its SIP. The July 31, 2002 revision deleted obsolete provisions in Sections ILA,6, A,7, and A,9 1 regarding, respectively, alfalfa dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam burners, and the static firing of Pershing missiles. The provisions were deleted from the regulation because these sources no longer exist inthe State. Colorado added languageto its open burning provisions (Sections H.C.2.d and C.3) to clarifythatthe open burning ofanimal parts and carcasses are not exempt from permit requirements. However, a special allowance to conduct open burning activities without apermit is provided where the State Agricultural Commission declares apublic health emergency or a

6contagious orinfectious outbreak ofdisease that imperils livestock is evident. Such activities require atelephone notice to State and local health departments priorto conducting such open burning activities. All necessary safeguards mustbe used to minimize impacts on publichealth
or welfare. The State revised the method in Section lILA.I.dfor calculating emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducting to a common stack. Emissions are to be calculated on a pound per million Britishthermal unit (lbs/mmBtu) input and mustbe based on a weighted average ofthe individual allowable limits for eachunit. The State added clarifying language in several provisions ofRegulation 1 stating that alternative performance test methods may be used with approval from the State. Italso specified that ASTM or equivalent methods approved bythe State may be used for fuel sampling from
sources subject to Regulation 1. In sections VI A.3.e.and VLB.4.g. regarding S02 emissions, the State changed the overall emission limit for petroleum and oil shale refineries from 0.3 lbs perbarrel ofoil processedper day to 0.7 lbs perbarrel ofoil processedper day. The State also added new language that modifies the method for calculating compliance with emission limits for petroleum refining and cement manufacturing. The State deleted Section VLB.5, which stipulates that new sources of S02 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories are subjectto a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best available control technology. 

### IV. EPA's Evaluation ofState's Submittal We have evaluated Colorado's July 31,2002 submittal regarding revisions to the State's Regulation 1. Wepropose to approve some ofthe revisions but also propose to disapprove other

1All references in this notice to particular section numbers are to the designated sections within Regulation 1. 7reVISIOns. Proposed Approvals We propose approval ofthe deletion ofemission limits in Sections II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 ofRegulation I for alfalfa dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam burners, and Pershing missiles because these sources no longerexist in the State and the emission limits have effectivelybecome obsolete. Forthe same reasons, we propose to approve the revision to Section III.C.2 regarding the deletion ofprocess weight emission standards for alfalfadrum dryers. We also propose to approve clarifying language in Sections II.C.2.d and II.C.3 regarding the incineration ofanimal parts to prevent the outbreak ofdisease during a public health emergency. The clarification provides for the promptnotification ofboth State and local health officials and the use ofall necessary safeguards to minimize the impact ofemissions from the burning onpublic health and welfare. Finally, we propose to approve the State'srevision to the method ofcomputing compliance with emission limits for cement manufacturing and petroleum refining (Sections VLA.3.e, VLA.3.f., VLB.4.e, and VLB.4.g(ii)). The revised method more accurately reflects the daily processed-based S02 emissions limits byusing actual hours ofoperations as an averaging time when the facility does not operate for an entire 24-hourperiod. The State also revised the method in Section IILA.I.d for calculating particulate matter emissionrates for two or more fuel burning units connected to a common opening. Previously, the method summed the allowable emissions from the fuel burning units; the revised method uses a weighted average ofthe individual allowable limits. The revised method more accurately ensures compliance with emission limits, and we, therefore, propose to approve it. 8There are several provisions within Regl,llation 1that we propose to disapprove. Our
reasons are described below. As described separatelybelow, we also propose to partially approve and partially disapprove specific portions ofSection V regarding electric arc furnace shops at iron and steel operations. Director's Discretion EPA reviewed the July 31, 2002 Regulation 1 SIP revision submittal and found several instances throughoutthe sections within Regulation 1where we believe "director's discretion" provisions provide the State with the ability to modify requirements for stationary sources. Such provisions are inconsistent with sections 11O(a) and 1100) ofthe CAAwhich provide for the review and approval ofSIP revisions by the Administrator. Section 11O(i) specifically prohibits States, except in certain limited circumstances, from taking any action to modify any requirement ofa SIP with respect to any stationary source, except through a SIP revision. Forthis submittal, we propose to disapprove the revised sections within Regulation 1that contain director's discretionprovisions. The revised sections are as follows: Sections IILA2 and III.C.3. Performance Tests EPAproposes to disapprove the revisions to these sections, which specify particulate matterperformance tests for fuel burning equipment (III.A2) and manufacturing processes (IILAC). Previously, the sections specified certain EPA-approvedmethods for performance tests. The revisions add the phrase"
...orother credible method approved by the Division to determine compliance with this subsection ofthis regulation." EPA believes these are instances ofdirector's discretion that are inconsistent with section 11O(i) ofthe CAA, because they allow the State to modify stationary source requirements ofthe SIP without a SIP revision and without corresponding requirements such as public notice and comment and EPA approval. 9Section VI.C. Fuel Sampling EPAproposes to disapprove the revision to this section. The revision allows for the use equivalenttestmethods approved by the Division in fuel sampling plans. EPAbelieves thatthis is an instance ofdirector's discretion that is inconsistentwith section 11O(i) ofthe CAA, because it allows the State to modify stationary source requirements ofthe SIP without a SIP revision and without corresponding requirements such as public notice and comment and EPA approval.. SectionVI.F. Alternative Compliance Procedures The State added SectionVI.F to Regulation 1. This sectionprovides for alternative compliance procedures to those in SectionVI. Specifically, it provides for alternative test methods, methods ofcontrol, compliance periods, emission limits, and monitoring schedules. SectionVI.F.3 states that Colorado shall obtain concurrence from EPA priorto approving an alternative test method.. However, EPA believes that Section VI.F is inconsistent with section IlO(i) ofthe CAA, as it allows the Stateto modify stationary source requirements without a SIP revision and without corresponding public notice and comment. Therefore, we propose to disapprove Sections III.A.2, III.C.3, VI.C, and VI.F. The State may retain some flexibility throughthe authorities under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(I)(iii) and the policy in EPA's White PaperNo. 2.2 These authorities allow adoption ofenabling language in a SIP to provide for use ofalternative, equally stringentrequirements in the Title V permitting process so that source specific SIP revisions are notneeded. SulfurDioxide Emission Limits

2 Under regulations in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(I)(iii) and policy expressed in EPA's March 5,1996 Guidance Memorandum, "White PaperNumber 2 for Improved Implementation ofthe Part 70 Operating Pennits Program" by LydiaN. Wegman, a State may adopt enabling language in the SIP that allows the State to apply equivalent or more
10Colorado revised Section VI (pertaining to sulfur dioxide emissionregulations) by modifying emission limits for petroleumrefineries (Section VI.B.4.e) and shale oil refineries (Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The existing SIP approved rules for these sources limit S02 emissions to 0.3 pounds perbarrel ofoil processed perday. The State has revised the daily limit to 0.7 pounds perbarrel ofoil processed per day. Section 

### 110(1) ofthe CAA provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement ofthe CAA. Therehas been no demonstration thatthe proposed relaxation ofthe S02 emission limits satisfies the requirements ofSection 

### 110(1). We believe these proposed changes pose a problem under Section 

### 110(1) because they may result in an increase in S02 emissions within the State. The relaxation ofS02 emission limits may also have an impact on the attainment status for other pollutants. Sulfurdioxide is a known precursorto the formation ofparticulate matter. As a result, the proposed changes may interfere with attainment oftheNAAQS orother applicable requirements ofthe CAA. We therefore propose to disapprove the relaxation ofthe S02 emission limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii). Colorado laterrevised Section VI pertaining to sulfurdioxide emission regulations with regardto emission limits for petroleum (Section VI.B.4.e) and refining oil produced from shale (Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The State revised the daily limit back to 0.3 pounds perbarrel ofoil processed perday. The State submitted this revision to Regulation 1viathe Governor's designee's letterdated August 8, 

### 2006. We are not acting on the August 8, 

### 2006 submittal with today's action but will act on the submittal in a separate action.
stringent limits, monitoring techniques, orrecordkeeping and reporting requirements through the Title V permitting process. 

### 11In the July 31,2002 submittal we propose to act on, the State also deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that new sources ofS02 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories
are subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best available control technology. This deletion is a relaxation ofthe SIP'srequirements. As we stated before, Section 110(1) ofthe CAA provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement ofthe CAA. There has been no demonstration that the proposed deletion will satisfy the requirements ofSection 110(1). We believe the deletion ofSection VI.B.5 poses
a problem under Section 110(1) because it may result in an increase in S02 emissions within the State and interfere with attainment ofthe NAAQS or other applicable requirements ofthe CAA
.. Therefore, we propose to disapprove the deletion ofSection VI.B.5. 

### Emission Limits for ExistingIron and Steel Operations Colorado's Regulation 1Section V provides for specific opacity and emission limits for gas-cleaning devices associated with electric arc furnace shops. Other sources ofparticulate emissions at iron and steel plants must complywith emission limits set forth inthe Smoke and Opacity section ofRegulation 1(Section II). In the revision submitted July 31, 2002, the State deleted language from Section V regarding emission limits for existing iron and steel plant operations, because operations otherthan electric arc furnaces at the single existing iron and steel plant within the State have ceased, rendering the limits obsolete. EPA proposes to approve the submittedprovisions with the following exception. For the July 31,2002 submittal, the State added in Section V.A.2 a director's discretion clause regarding the sampling methodology the source may use to determine that the mass emission rate does not exceed 0.00520 grains per dry standard cubic foot. As revised by the 12State, the source may use a credible method approved by the State. As discussed earlier in this proposal, this director's discretion provision provides the State withthe ability to modifY stationary source requirements in the SIP without going throughthe SIP revision process and without corresponding public notice and comment and EPA approval. EPAtherefore proposes to disapprove the phrase "orby other credible method approved by the Division." Locomotive Opacity Limits Although Colorado did not revise Section n.B, which sets opacity limits for locomotives, EPA is taking this opportunity to note thatthe provisions in Sectionn.B appear to be preempted. Under section 209(e)(l)(B) ofthe CAA, all state standards or otherrequirements relating to the control ofemissions from newlocomotives ornewengines used in locomotives are expressly preempted. Under section 209(e)(2), state standards or otherrequirements relating to the control ofemissions from all other locomotives orlocomotive engines are impliedly preempted, withthe following exception. EPA can authorize Californiato adopt such standards under certain circumstances; ifEPA does so, other states may adopt identical standards. Section n.B ofColorado's SIP imposes opacity limits onlocomotives. These limits would appearto be a standardrelating to control ofemissions. Therefore, under section 209(e)(1)(B), the standards would be preempted as they relate to new locomotives ornew engines used in locomotives, and, as EPAhas not authorized Californiato adopt opacity limits for other locomotives or locomotive engines, the Colorado standards would appearto be preempted as they apply to such sources. EPA's concernregarding Colorado's opacity limits should not be interpretedto mean that Colorado would be prohibitedby the Clean AirAct from regulatingthe use and operation of locomotives and locomotive engines, although any such regulation would needto be evaluated. 13As described in 40 CFRPart 89, Appendix A to Subpart A: "EPA believesthat States are notprecludedunder section 209 from regulating the use and operation ofnon-road engines, such as regulations on hours ofusage, daily mass emission limits, or sulfur limits onfuel; nor are permits regulating such operations precluded, once the engine is no longer new." 

### V. Consideration ofSection 110(1) oftheCAA Section 110(1) ofthe Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision cannotbe approved ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress toward attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any otherapplicable requirement ofthe Act. We believe that those portions ofthe revision to Colorado's Regulation 1that we propose to approve satisfy section 110(1), because those portions do not relax existing SIP requirements. Instead, the portions ofthe July 31, 2002 submittal EPA proposes to approve either increase stringency ofexisting requirements, clarify those requirements, or remove obsolete requirements. Therefore, section 110(1) is satisfied. 

### VI. Proposed Action Forthe reasons expressed above, we are proposing to approve revisions to the following provisions in Regulation 1: 1) Sections II.A.6, II.A.7, and II.A.9 regarding the deletion of emission limits for sources that no longer exist inthe State; 2) Sections II.C.2.d. and II.C.3 regarding the burning ofdiseased animal carcasses to prevent a public health emergency; 3) Section IILA.I.d involving the State's method for calculating emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducted to a common stack; 4) Section IILC.2 regarding the deletion ofprocess weight emission standards for alfalfadrum dryers; 5) Section V regarding emission standards for electric arc furnaces, exceptfor the director's discretionprovisionprovided for in Section V; 6) 14

# __ __ Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f, VI.BA.e, and VI.BA.g(ii) regarding the methods used for the averaging ofemissions over a 24 hour period. For reasons expressed above, we propose to disapprove revisions to the following provisions in Regulation 1: 1) Section III.A.2. and Section III.C.3 involving director's discretion regarding the method for conducting performance tests; 2) the director's discretion provision in Section V regarding the method used to determine compliance with electric arc furnaces' emission standard; 3) Sections VI.BA.e and VI.BA.g(ii) regarding changes in the S02 emission limits for petroleum and oil shale refining; 4) VI.B.5 regarding S02 emission limits for new
sources not falling in specified source categories; and 5) Sections VI.C. and VI.F. regarding the
use ofdirector's discretion for alternative methods to show compliance with fuel sampling plans and alternative compliance proceduresrespectively. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Underthe Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submissionthat complies with the provisions ofthe Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA'srole is to approve state choices, provided that they meetthe criteriaofthe Clean AirAct. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Forthat reason, this proposed action:
• is not a "significantregulatory action" subjectto review by the Office ofManagement and Budgetunder Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4,1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden underthe provisions ofthe Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. 3501 

### etseq.);

15



## ---------_.

... ....• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

### etseq.);
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significantregulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significantregulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subjectto requirements ofSection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistent withthe Clean AirAct; and
• does not provide EPA withthe discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health orenvironmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, underExecutive Order 12898 (59 FR7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does nothave tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,November 9,2000), because the SIP is not approvedto apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments orpreempt tribal law.

16IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 1
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.c. 7401 et seq

Dated: Carol Rushin Deputy Regional Administrator Region 8

17