Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28707 

additional requirements. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to the 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, this rule does not have Tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12063 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0809; FRL–9307–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

and conditionally approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

from the State of Colorado to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised NAAQS is promulgated, review 

their SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of Colorado submitted a certification of 

their infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, dated January 7, 2008 

which was determined to be complete 

on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205). 

EPA does not propose to act on the 

State’s January 7, 2008 submission to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to 

interstate transport of air pollution, for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

the State’s interstate transport SIP 

submission at 75 FR 31306, 75 FR 

71029, and 76 FR 22036. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0809, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

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

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 

0809. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

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 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 http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, ‘‘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’’ (Oct. 2, 

2007). 

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 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The 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. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What infrastructure elements are required 

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

IV. How did Colorado address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

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

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register, date, and page number); 

Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

Explain why you agree or disagree; 

Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

Provide specific examples to illustrate 

your concerns, and suggest alternatives; 

Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified. 

II. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 

FR 38856). By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) are to be submitted by states within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) 

provides basic requirements for SIPs, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling, to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. These requirements are set 

out in several ‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ 

listed in section 110(a)(2). 

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation 

upon states to make a SIP submission to 

EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and 

the contents of that submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. In 

the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued 

on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to 

the extent an existing SIP already meets 

the section 110(a)(2) requirements, 

states need only to certify that fact via 

a letter to EPA.1

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a 

final rule entitled, ‘‘Completeness 

Findings for Section 110(a) State 

Implementation Plans for the 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS’’ (73 FR 16205). In the 

rule, EPA made a finding for each state 

that it had submitted or had failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In 

particular, EPA found that Colorado had 

submitted a complete SIP to meet these 

requirements. 

III. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

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

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements include 

requirements, such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories, 

that 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)(ii): Interstate and 

international pollution. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority. 

• 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 prevention of 

significant deterioration (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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28709 

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 Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ (Sept. 20, 

1999). 

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: (i) Section 

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

permit programs (known as 

‘‘nonattainment new source review 

(NSR)’’) required under part D, and 

(ii) 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). 

This action also does not address the 

‘‘interstate transport’’ requirements of 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA approved 

portions of the State’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in separate actions (75 

FR 31306; 75 FR 71029; 76 FR 22036), 

and has proposed approval of the 

remaining portion to meet the 

requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding 

interference with measures to prevent 

significant deterioration (76 FR 21835). 

IV. How did Colorado address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

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

1. Emission limits and other control 

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

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act. 

a. Colorado’s Response to this 

requirement: Enforceable emission 

limits and control measures are detailed 

in the various Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission (AQCC) regulations 

for all sources of criteria pollutants as 

well as hazardous air pollutants, volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), smoke and 

odors. A summary of the regulations is 

found below under section 110(a)(2)(C). 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA Section 

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

clarifications. First, EPA does not 

consider SIP requirements triggered by 

the nonattainment area mandates in part 

D of Title I of the CAA to be governed 

by the submission deadline of section 

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

included some SIP provisions originally 

submitted in response to part D 

requirements in its certification for the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (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 was or will be made 

separately, in an action reviewing those 

rules pursuant to the requirements of 

part D. 

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 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision which is contrary to 

the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps 

to correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of 

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 plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. 

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/ 

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

requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The provisions for 

episodic monitoring, data compilation 

and reporting, public availability of 

information, and annual network 

reviews are found in the statewide 

monitoring SIP which was approved by 

EPA on 7/9/80 (45 FR 46073) and 8/11/ 

80 (45 FR 53147). The State has since 

revised the monitoring SIP to include all 

new federal requirements. The revised 

SIP includes a commitment to operate a 

particulate monitoring network in 

accordance with EPA regulations 

(40 CFR Part 58.20 and Appendices A 

through G). The AQCC adopted 

monitoring SIP revisions on 3/18/93. 

The Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division periodically submits a Quality 

Management Plan and a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan to EPA Region 8. 

These plans cover procedures to 

monitor, analyze, and report data to an 

EPA central database. As such the State 

of Colorado has an approved monitoring 

SIP, a plan and authority for monitoring, 

and the ability to properly handle all 

related data. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s air 

monitoring programs and data systems 

meet the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

The Colorado 2010 Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan (AMNP) was approved by 

EPA Region 8 on August 26, 2010. 

3. Program for enforcement of control 

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

SIPs to include a program to provide for 

the enforcement of the measures 

described in subparagraph (A), and 

regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source 

within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that NAAQS are 

achieved, including a permit program as 

required in parts C and D. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado has an approved 

SIP regulating the construction and 

modification of stationary sources as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved (Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission Regulation 3), including a 

permit program as required in Parts C 

and D of the federal CAA. Colorado has 

an approved SIP which provides for the 

enforcement of the control measures 

required by CAA Section llO (a)(2)(C). 

Many of the Colorado AQCC 

Regulations address in some manner the 

programs for enforcement of control 

measures. Some of these AQCC 

regulations and other relevant ColoradoVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:57 May 17, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

specific programs that are in the SIP are 

described below: 

• Regulation 1, ‘‘Particulates, Smokes, 

Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur 

Dioxides’’—Regulation 1 sets forth 

emissions limitations, equipment 

requirements, and work practices 

(abatement and control measures) 

intended to control the emissions of 

particulates, smoke and sulfur oxides 

from new and existing stationary 

sources. Control measures specified in 

this regulation are designed to limit 

emissions into the atmosphere and 

thereby minimize the ambient 

concentrations of particulates and sulfur 

dioxides. 

• Regulation 3, ‘‘Air Pollution 

Emission Notices—Permits’’— 

Regulation 3 provides for a procedural 

permitting program and requires air 

pollution sources to file Air Pollution 

Emissions Notices (APENs). The 

regulation also requires that new or 

modified sources of air pollution with 

certain exemptions-obtain 

preconstruction permits. 

• Regulation 4, ‘‘Woodburning 

Controls’’—Regulation 4 requires new 

stove and fireplace inserts meet the 

federal certification requirements in 

specified areas of Colorado. 

• Regulation 7, ‘‘Volatile Organic 

Compounds Control’’—Regulation 7 

controls the emissions of volatile 

organic compounds, primarily in the 

Denver-metro area. It sets standards and 

mandates controls for specific types of 

volatile organic compound sources. 

• Regulation 10, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity’’—Regulation 10 defines the 

criteria the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission uses to evaluate the 

consistency between state air quality 

standards/objectives, and transportation 

planning and major construction 

activities across the State, as defined in 

state implementation plans. 

• Regulation 11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Inspection’’—Regulation 11 requires 

automobile emission inspection and 

maintenance programs to be 

implemented in specified areas of the 

State for gasoline-powered on-road 

vehicles. These programs apply to 

businesses, industry, and the general 

public. In addition, the State’s 

Automobile Inspection and 

Readjustment (AIR) program’s purpose 

is to reduce motor vehicle-related 

pollution through the inspection and 

emissions-related repair of automobiles. 

The program, as defined in Regulation 

11, works in specific areas of the State 

and requires motor vehicles to meet 

emission standards through periodic 

maintenance and/or repair. 

• Regulation 13, ‘‘Oxygenated 

Fuels’’—Regulation 13 addresses the 

issue of motor vehicle related pollution 

and requires the use of oxygenated fuels 

in gasoline-powered motor vehicles in 

Colorado’s Automobile Inspection and 

Readjustment program. 

• Regulation 16, ‘‘Street Sanding and 

Sweeping’’—Regulation 16 sets 

specification standards for street 

sanding material and street sweeping 

practices in the Automobile Inspection 

and Readjustment program area and 

Denver-metro particulate attainment/ 

maintenance area. 

b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the 

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

State is required to have SIP-approved 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD), nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR), and minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. As explained above, in this 

action EPA is not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the Act. Also, in 

this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any state rules 

with regard to NSR Reform 

requirements. EPA will act on SIP 

submittals that are made for purposes of 

addressing NSR Reform through a 

separate rulemaking process. In this 

action, 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). 

Colorado has a SIP-approved PSD 

program that meets the general 

requirements of part C of the Act (51 FR 

31125). Below, EPA considers 

requirements for the PSD program 

specific to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but 

first considers the effects of recent rules 

regulating greenhouse gases on 

Colorado’s PSD program. 

Greenhouse Gas Regulation 

EPA notes a potential inconsistency 

between Colorado’s January 7, 2008 

infrastructure SIP certification and 

EPA’s recently promulgated rule, 

‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans’’ 

(‘‘PSD SIP Narrowing Rule’’), 75 FR 

82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). In the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its 

previous approval of Colorado’s PSD 

program to the extent that it applied 

PSD permitting to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below thresholds set in EPA’s 

June 3, 2010 ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse 

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

75 FR 31514. EPA withdrew its 

approval on the basis that the State 

lacked sufficient resources to issue PSD 

permits to such sources at the statutory 

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

SIP Narrowing Rule, the portion of 

Colorado’s PSD SIP from which EPA 

withdrew its approval had the status of 

having been submitted to EPA but not 

yet acted upon. In its January 7, 2008 

certification, Colorado relied on its PSD 

program as approved at that date— 

which was before December 30, 2010, 

the effective date of the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule—to satisfy the 

requirements of infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C). Given EPA’s basis for the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA proposes 

approval of the Colorado infrastructure 

SIP for infrastructure element (C) if 

either the State clarifies (or modifies) its 

certification to make clear that the State 

relies only on the portion of the PSD 

program that remains approved after the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule issued on 

December 30, 2010, and for which the 

State has sufficient resources to 

implement, or the State acts to 

withdraw from EPA consideration the 

remaining portion of its PSD program 

submission that would have applied 

PSD permitting to GHG sources below 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In the 

alternative, if Colorado does not take 

either action, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the infrastructure SIP to the 

extent it incorporates that portion of the 

previously-approved PSD program from 

which EPA withdrew its approval in the 

PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is the 

portion which would have applied PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions increases from GHG-emitting 

sources below the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. Such disapproval, if 

finalized, would not result in a need for 

Colorado to resubmit a SIP revision, 

sanctions, or a federal implementation 

plan (FIP). 

Regulation of Ozone Precursors 

In order for the State’s SIP-approved 

PSD program to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, the program must 

properly regulate ozone precursors. On 

November 29, 2005, EPA promulgated 

the phase 2 implementation rule for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS (Phase 2 Rule), 

which includes requirements for PSD 

programs to treat nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

as a precursor for ozone (72 FR 71612). 

On August 1, 2007, the State submitted 

to EPA revisions to AQCC Regulation 

No. 3, Part D (PSD) which incorporate 

EPA’s Phase 2 Rule. On April 19, 2011, 

EPA proposed approval of the portions 

of the August 1, 2007 revisions which 

adopt language treating NOX as a 

precursor for ozone (76 FR 21835). We 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28711 

3Colorado has since renumbered AQCC 

Regulation Number 3, Part B. 

anticipate finalizing the approval of the 

portions in the April 19, 2011 proposal 

that satisfy the requirements of the 

Phase 2 Rule before finalizing approval 

of Colorado’s infrastructure SIP. 

Contingent on that approval, Colorado’s 

PSD program meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Minor New Source Review 

The State has a SIP-approved minor 

NSR program, adopted under section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, which regulates 

emissions of ozone and its precursors. 

On April 30, 1981, EPA approved the 

State’s minor NSR program for 

incorporation into the SIP, and there 

was at the time no objection to the 

provisions of this program (46 FR 

24180). Since then, the State and EPA 

have relied on the approved minor NSR 

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. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Colorado’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect 

to the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the State’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. A 

number of states may have minor NSR 

provisions that are contrary to the 

existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

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

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and it may be time to revisit 

the regulatory requirements for this 

program to give the states an 

appropriate level of flexibility to design 

a program that meets their particular air 

quality concerns, while assuring 

reasonable consistency across the 

country in protecting the NAAQS with 

respect to new and modified minor 

sources. 

4. Interstate transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting, 

consistent with the provisions of this 

title, any source or other type of 

emissions activity within the state from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will (I) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state, with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard, 

or (II) interfere with measures required 

to be included in the applicable 

implementation plan for any other state 

under part C to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality or to protect 

visibility. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: An Interstate Transport 

SIP revision was approved by the AQCC 

on February 15, 2007 that demonstrates 

pollutants from Colorado, including 

ozone and PM2.5, do not contribute to a 

NAAQS problem in neighboring states. 

The SIP revision utilized both 

monitoring data and modeling to show 

that neither ozone nor particulate matter 

originating in Colorado contributes to 

NAAQS problems outside of Colorado. 

The SIP revision will be forwarded to 

EPA after review and approval from the 

Colorado Legislature and the Governor’s 

Office. 

Specific issues of interstate transport 

are addressed within Colorado 

Regulation 3, ‘‘Air Pollution Emission 

Notices.’’ Regulation 3, Part B, Section 

IV.C.4 requires the Colorado Air 

Pollution Control Division to notify any 

state that may be affected by emissions 

from that source or from a modification 

to that source as related to the 

prevention of significant deterioration. 

Colorado also has a regulation requiring 

installation of Best Achievable Retrofit 

Technology (BART) on stationary 

sources if visibility impairment in any 

Class I Area is reasonably attributed to 

such stationary source (Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission Regulation 

3, Part B.XI.D). 

The AQCC has a directive regarding 

interstate transport of pollutants that 

prohibits Colorado sources from causing 

a violation of the NAAQS in a 

neighboring state with reciprocal 

provisions as found in the AQCC 

Common Provisions, Part 2, Section A 

(5CCR 1001–2). 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado did not 

submit its interstate transport SIP to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with the January 7, 2008 

Infrastructure SIP. Colorado has since 

submitted an interstate transport SIP 

and revisions to EPA for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA approved portions of the 

State’s 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate 

transport SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in separate actions (75 FR 

31306; 75 FR 71029; 76 FR 22036), and 

has proposed approval of the remaining 

portion to meet the requirement of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with measures to prevent significant 

deterioration (76 FR 21835). EPA is 

taking no action relevant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposal. 

5. Interstate and international 

transport provisions: Section 

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

shall contain adequate provisions 

insuring compliance with applicable 

requirements of sections 126 and 115 

(relating to interstate and international 

pollution abatement). 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado did not 

specifically address this requirement, 

but rather addressed 110(a)(2)(D) as a 

whole. See Colorado’s response to 

requirement 110(a)(2)(D)(i), in particular 

the State’s citation of Regulation 3, Part 

B, Section IV.C.4. 

b. EPA Analysis: 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 regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

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

Section 115 similarly pertains to 

international transport of air pollution. 

Colorado meets the requirement of 

section 126(a) through AQCC Regulation 

No. 3 Part B, Section IV.C.4. This 

provision requires notification to states 

whose lands may be affected by the 

construction or modification of a 

stationary source. In addition to 

satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), the provision meets the 

requirements of section 126(a). Final 

approval of the AQCC Regulation No. 3 

Part B, Section IV.C.4 became effective 

February 20, 1997 (62 FR 2910).3

Colorado has no pending obligations 

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

therefore, Colorado’s SIP currently 

meets the requirements of those 

sections. The SIP therefore meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

6. Adequate resources and authority: 

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

provide (i) 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), (ii) requires that the 

state comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under section 

128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, 

where the state has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any SIP provision, the state has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such SIP provision. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: 

Personnel, Funding, and Authority 

There are no state or federal 

provisions prohibiting the 

implementation of any provision of the 

Colorado SIP. In general, Colorado 

provides the necessary assurances that 

funding, personnel, and authority exist 

and that the State of Colorado has 

responsibility for implementing local 

provisions. All of the regulatory 

provisions in the SIP were adopted by 

the AQCC pursuant to authority 

delegated to it by statute. The AQCC’s 

general authority to adopt the rules and 

regulations necessary to implement the 

SIP is set out in the Colorado Air 

Pollution Prevention and Control Act 

Section 25–7–105 of the Colorado 

Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). The general 

authority for the Air Pollution Control 

Division to administer and enforce the 

program is set out at 25–7–111, C.R.S. 

Additional authority to regulate air 

pollution and implement provisions in 

the SIP is set out elsewhere in the 

Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and 

Control Act, Article 7 of Title 25. In 

addition, the AQCC and the Division 

have the authority delegated to them in 

Sections 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, C.R.S. 

(concerning motor vehicle emissions) 

and 42–4–414 (concerning emissions 

from diesel-powered vehicles). 

The AQCC’s authority includes the 

authority to regulate particulate 

emissions, regardless of size (C.R.S. 

Section 25–7–109 (2)(b)). 

The Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division has staff and an annual budget 

to operate its six programs (Stationary 

Sources, Mobile Sources, Indoor Air, 

Technical Services, Planning and 

Policy, Administrative Services). The 

Division employs 154 people and has a 

budget of $16.5 million for fiscal year 

2006–2007. 

Of the total budget, 21 percent was 

derived from federal grants, 38 percent 

from mobile source fees, and 41 percent 

from stationary source fees. 

State Boards 

Section 128 of the CAA indicates 

Colorado’s SIP must contain 

requirements that anybody that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA must have a majority of 

members who represent the public 

interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders. 

The Commission’s Air Quality 

Commission Procedural Rules section 

1.11.0 state that ‘‘The Commission shall 

have at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under this article 

or under the federal act. The members 

of the Commission shall disclose any 

potential conflicts of interest that arise 

during their terms of membership to the 

other Commissioners in a public 

meeting of the Commission.’’ 

Relationships With Other Agencies 

Responsible for Carrying Out State 

Activities 

The Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division contracts with local 

governments in two distinct ways: 

1. Colorado grants monies to local 

health departments to endow them as 

agents of the State to provide 

inspections of some local stationary 

sources, asbestos abatement jobs, and 

CFC sources. Some local health 

departments also operate gaseous and 

particulate monitors under contract for 

the state. These efforts must comply 

with federal and state regulations. 

2. Colorado grants monies to local 

governments to help pay for their 

support of SIP elements via public and 

private partnerships, education and 

informational campaigns. Most of these 

agencies create their own work plan that 

consists of programs they feel will help 

enhance air quality in their 

communities in accordance with general 

SIP directives. 

Colorado has adopted specific 

regulations for local attainment/ 

maintenance areas to assure these areas 

meet requirements of the SIP. These 

regulations include The Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission SIPspecific regulations, 5 CCR 1001–20. 

These regulations provide the necessary 

authority for the Colorado Air Pollution 

Control Division to adequately enforce 

the provisions of the SIP elements in 

local attainment/maintenance areas. 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The State 

cites the Colorado Revised Statutes, 

specifically Air Pollution Prevention 

and Control Act Sections 25–7–105, 25– 

7–111, 42–4–301 to 42–4–316, 42–4–414 

and Article 7 of Title 25 to demonstrate 

that the APCD and AQCC have adequate 

authority to carry out Colorado’s SIP 

obligations with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and revise its SIP as 

necessary. 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. Finally, 

section IV of Colorado’s Common 

Provisions contains requirements for 

members of the AQCC to disclose 

potential conflicts of interest. 

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) period 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. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado AQCC 

Regulations 1, 3, and 6 address the issue 

of stationary source monitoring. 

Colorado Regulation 1 sets forth 

emission limitations, equipment 

requirements and work practices 

(abatement and control measures) 

intended to control the emissions of 

particulates, smoke, and sulfur dioxides 

from new and existing stationary 

sources. Colorado Regulation 3 requires 

stationary sources to report their 

emissions on a regular basis through 

APENs. This air pollutant inventory 

program is described in the Colorado 

Pollution Prevention and Control Act 

Section 25–7–114.1 (C.R.S.) and in 

Colorado Regulation 3, Part I.VIII that 

allows for monitoring and record 

keeping of air pollutants. Colorado 

Regulation 6 sets standards for 

performance of new stationary sources 

in the state and establishes monitoring 

system requirements. 

The Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division may require owners and 

operators of stationary air pollution 

sources to install, maintain, and use 

instrumentation to monitor and record 

emission data as a basis for periodic 

reports to the Division under the 

Colorado AQCC Common Provisions. 

b. EPA Analysis: The regulations cited 

by Colorado, including APEN reporting 

requirements and requirements in 

Regulation No. 8. I.VIII, meet the 

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

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

8. Emergency powers: Section 

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

for authority to address activities 

causing imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health, 

including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The SIP includes 

contingency plans to implement 

emergency powers similar to Section 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28713 

303 of the CAA. Such contingency 

plans, called Denver Emergency Episode 

Plans, address ozone, particulate matter, 

and carbon monoxide. The Colorado 

Pollution Prevention and Control Act 

Sections 25–7–112 and 25–7–113, 

which have various sections similar to 

42 U.S.C. 7603, generally describe 

Colorado’s authority regarding 

Emergency Episodes. For example, 25– 

7–112 (2) provides the Colorado Air 

Pollution Control Division with 

authority to implement the Emergency 

Plan through the Governor of Colorado 

issuing an order in regard to emergency 

power. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act Sections 

25–7–112 and 25–7–113 provide APCD 

with general emergency authority 

comparable to that in section 303 of the 

Act. In addition, 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) 

for the 1997 ozone 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 

110(a)(3)(C), whenever the 

Administrator finds on the basis of 

information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under this Act. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The State of Colorado has 

the ability and authority to address and 

revise the SIP due to changes in the 

NAAQS or due to findings of 

inadequacies. 

The Colorado AQCC has the authority 

and the duty to adopt and revise a State 

Implementation Plan as necessary to 

comply with the federal requirements. 

Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and 

Control Act Section 25–7–105(1)(a)(I) 

(C.R.S.) directs the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission to promulgate rules 

and regulations as related to a 

comprehensive SIP which will assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS and which will prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

the State of Colorado. 

Colorado Air Pollution Prevention 

and Control Act Section 25–7–109 

(C.R.S.) also gives the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission the 

authority to promulgate emission 

control regulations. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s statutory 

provision at Colorado Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Act Section 25– 

7–105(1)(a)(I) gives the AQCC sufficient 

authority to meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(H). 

10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 

Revision under Part D: Section 

110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP 

revision for an area designated as a 

nonattainment area must meet the 

applicable requirements of Part D of this 

subchapter (relating to nonattainment 

areas). 

a. EPA analysis for Section 

110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the specific 

nonattainment area plan requirements 

of Section 110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the 

timing requirement of section 172, not 

the timing requirement of section 

110(a)(1). This element is therefore not 

applicable to this action. EPA will take 

action on part D attainment plans 

through a separate process. 

11. Consultation with government 

officials, public notification, PSD and 

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

requires that each SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of section 121 

of this title (relating to consultation), 

section 127 of this title (relating to 

public notification), and part C of this 

subchapter (relating to prevention of 

significant deterioration of air quality 

and visibility protection). 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Engineering and 

meteorological consultation is provided 

by the State to local agencies. The State 

assists local agencies in planning air 

management programs for their 

respective areas. Colorado holds public 

meetings and hearings on all SIP 

revisions in accordance with the AQCC 

Procedural Rules. Public comment is 

solicited and accepted at Colorado 

AQCC meetings and hearings. 

Colorado’s Transportation Conformity 

Rule, Regulation 10, specifies 

consultation procedures for SIP 

revisions in Section IV.F. 

Also, as part of the State of Colorado’s 

Visibility SIP, the Colorado Air 

Pollution Control Division consults with 

the Federal Land Managers as necessary 

and required. 

b. EPA Analysis: The State has 

demonstrated that it has the authority 

and rules in place to provide a process 

of consultation with general purpose 

local governments, designated 

organizations of elected officials of local 

governments and any Federal Land 

Manager having authority over federal 

land to which the SIP applies, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 121. Furthermore, EPA 

previously approved Colorado’s SIP 

submission to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 127 (45 FR 53147, Aug. 11, 

1980). 

Colorado’s SIP regulations for its PSD 

program were federally-approved and 

made part of the SIP on September 2, 

1986 (51 FR 31125). EPA has further 

evaluated the State’s SIP-approved PSD 

program in this proposed action in 

section IV.3, element 110(a)(2)(C). 

Finally, with regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the act. In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

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

becomes effective. In conclusion, the 

Colorado SIP meets the requirements of 

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

NAAQS. 

12. Air quality and modeling/data: 

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

SIP provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a 

NAAQS, and (ii) the submission, upon 

request, of data related to such air 

quality modeling to the Administrator. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado has the authority 

and resources to model for criteria 

pollutants. Air quality modeling is done 

for SIP revisions and for transportation 

conformity. Colorado Regulation 3 (Air 

Pollution Emissions Notices, 

Construction Permits and Fees, 

Operating Permits, and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration) requires 

stationary sources to predict the effect of 

air pollutants in attainment areas. 

Regulation 3 also details the State of 

Colorado’s program regarding 

permitting as related to air quality 

modeling and data handling in 

predicting the effect of emissions of a 

pollutant with an established NAAQS. 

Regulatory requirements for Air Quality 

Related Values as related to modeling 

are described within Colorado 

Regulation 3, Part B subsection X and 

XI. A permit modification for purposes 

of the acid rain portion of a permit shall 

be governed by regulations promulgated 

under Title IV of the federal act, found 

in 40 CFR part 72 as described under 

Colorado Regulation 3, Part C, 

subsection X.K. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
28714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The Modeling, Meteorology, and 

Emission Inventory Unit within the 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division 

performs and reviews air quality impact 

analyses for a variety of programs, 

including SIP revisions, transportation 

conformity determinations, stationary 

source permitting, environmental 

impact statements, and hazardous waste 

site studies. The analyses include 

modeling, meteorological analysis, and 

emission inventory development for 

mobile sources and area stationary 

sources such as woodburning. The Unit 

also performs air quality forecasting for 

the Denver-area High Pollution Season, 

open burning, and for special air quality 

studies. Additional information 

regarding these programs and authority 

is provided below. Some of these 

programs are found in the SIP. For 

example, both Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 4 (Woodburning) and the 

Denver PM10 SIP address State air 

quality modeling programs. 

PSD and Increment Consumption: 

Colorado’s PSD program includes a 

requirement that the State periodically 

assess the adequacy of its plan to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality. This is presented in Regulation 

3, Part B, Section VII. In addition, 

Regulation 3, Part A, Section VIII 

‘‘Technical Modeling and Monitoring 

Requirements’’ states that all estimates 

of ambient concentrations required 

under Regulation 3 shall be based on the 

applicable air quality models, data 

bases, and other requirements generally 

approved by EPA and specifically 

approved by the Division. 

SIP development: Modeling is 

performed in the development and 

revision of SIPs, as needed, to ensure 

that specific areas of the state will 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS 

in light of development and increased 

population and traffic. 

Permits: The primary Colorado 

regulation for air quality permits is 

Colorado AQCC Regulation No.3. 

Certain new/modified air pollution 

sources are subject to the regulatory 

modeling requirements in Regulation 3. 

Regulation 3, Part A, subsection VIII 

describes Colorado’s technical modeling 

and monitoring requirements. Modeling 

is often required to obtain a 

construction permit. While modeling is 

not required to obtain an operating 

permit, it may be required if the 

operating permit is modified (in 

Regulation 3, Part C, subsection X– 

Minor Permit Modification Procedures). 

Operating permits may also be subject to 

modeling if the application is for a 

combined construction/operating permit 

(in Regulation 3, Part C, subsection 

III.C.12.d). 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

In particular, Colorado’s Regulation 3 

Part A.VIII requires estimates of ambient 

air concentrations be based on 

applicable air quality models approved 

by EPA. Final approval for Regulation 3 

Part A.VIII became effective February 

20, 1997 (62 FR 2910). As a result, the 

SIP provides for such air quality 

modeling as the Administrator has 

prescribed. 

13. Permitting fees: Section 

110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require the 

owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under this act, a fee 

sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: The State of Colorado 

requires the owner or operator of a 

major stationary source to pay the 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division 

any fee necessary to cover the 

reasonable costs of reviewing and acting 

upon any permit applications. The 

collection of fees is described in 

Colorado AQCC Regulation 3. 

Specifically, Regulation 3, Part A.VI 

describes how each applicant required 

to obtain a permit must pay a fee, 

including the cost of permit review and 

relevant actions. Also, stationary source 

owners or operators must pay an annual 

fee based on total emissions. The funds 

are used by the State to administer 

programs for the control of air pollution 

from stationary sources. 

b. EPA analysis: Colorado’s approved 

title V operating permit program meets 

the requirements of CAA section 

111(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Final approval of the title V operating 

permit program became effective 

October 16, 2000 (65 FR 49919). Interim 

approval of Colorado’s title V operating 

permit program became effective 

February 23, 1995 (60 FR 4563). As 

discussed in the proposed interim 

approval of the title V program (59 FR 

52123, Oct. 14, 1994), the State 

demonstrated that the fees collected 

were sufficient to administer the 

program. 

14. Consultation/participation by 

affected local entities: Section 

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

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

a. Colorado’s response to this 

requirement: Colorado AQCC 

Regulation 10, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity,’’ defines the criteria the 

Colorado AQCC uses for transportation 

conformity determination to develop 

SIP revisions in non-attainment areas. 

Colorado AQCC Regulation 3 also 

provides for consultation and 

participation by local entities. Local 

governments receive notice and have 

the opportunity to comment on and 

participate in construction permit 

review procedures and operating permit 

application procedures. 

The Colorado AQCC holds a public 

hearing before adopting any regulatory 

revisions to the SIP. Local political 

subdivisions may participate in the 

hearing. 

b. EPA Analysis: Colorado’s submittal 

meets the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve in full the following section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for 

Colorado for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: 

(A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

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

section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure 

element in full for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS in the event that Colorado takes 

one of the actions described in the 

discussion of that element. In the 

alternative, EPA proposes to disapprove 

the section 110(a)(2)(C) element to the 

extent described and to otherwise 

approve this element. EPA is taking no 

action on infrastructure elements (D)(i) 

and (I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules 28715 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999);is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 10, 2011. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12213 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 110427267–1267–01] 

RIN 0648–BB04 

Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Designation of a Nonessential 

Experimental Population for Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead Above the 

Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric 

Project in the Deschutes River Basin, 

Oregon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to 

designate the Middle Columbia River 

(MCR) steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss), recently reintroduced into the 

upper Deschutes River basin in central 

Oregon, as a nonessential experimental 

population (NEP) under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). This NEP 

designation would expire 12 years after 

the first generation of adults return to 

the NEP area. A draft environmental 

assessment (EA) has been prepared on 

this proposed action and is available for 

comment (see ADDRESSES and 

INSTRUCTIONS section below). 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

consider your comments on this 

proposed rule, they must be received no 

later than July 18, 2011. If you would 

like to request a public hearing, we must 

receive your request in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section, by July 5, 

2011. Comments on the EA must be 

received by July 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Assistant Regional Administrator, 

Hydropower Division, Northwest 

Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., 

Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

• Fax: (503) 231–2318. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. We will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

You may access a copy of the draft EA 

by one of the following: 

• Visit NMFS’ Northwest Region Web 

site at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov. 

• Call 503.736.4741 and request to 

have a CD or hard copy mailed to you. 

• Obtain a CD or hard copy by 

visiting NMFS’ Portland office at 1201 

NE Lloyd Blvd, Suite 1100, Portland, 

OR 97232. 

You may submit comments on the 

draft EA by one of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: expopEA.nwr@noaa.gov. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Hydropower Division, FERC and Water 

Diversions Branch, NMFS, 1201 NE. 

Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232. 

Please see the draft EA for additional 

information regarding commenting on 

that document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Carlon, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Blvd., Portland, OR 97232 (503–231– 

2379), or Marta Nammack, NMFS, 1315 

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910 (301–713–1401). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Context 

On March 25, 1999, NMFS listed the 

Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead 

distinct population segment (DPS) as 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531– 

1544) (64 FR 14517). The MCR 

steelhead DPS range covers 

approximately 35,000 square miles 

(90,650 sq km) of the Columbia plateau 

of eastern Oregon and eastern 

Washington. The Deschutes River in 

central Oregon is one of six major river 

basins supporting steelhead in this DPS. 

Since 1968, the Pelton Round Butte 

Hydroelectric Project (Pelton Round 

Butte) on the Deschutes River has 

blocked steelhead from accessing nearly 

200 miles (322 km) of historical 

spawning and rearing habitat. 

In this rulemaking, we are proposing 

to designate as an experimental 

population the MCR steelhead currently 

being reintroduced to the upper 

Deschutes River basin. This 

reintroduction is a requirement of the 

new hydropower license for the Pelton 

Round Butte Hydroelectric Project in 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1