Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21721

1The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in

the U.S. Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2Mandatory class I Federal areas include

international parks, national wilderness areas, and

national memorial parks greater than five thousand

acres in size, and national parks greater than six

thousand acres in size, as described in section

162(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Each

mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility

of a ‘‘Federal land manager’’ (FLM), the Secretary

of the department with authority over such lands.

See section 302(i) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).

dimensional barcode with a digital

signature and other required data fields.

Existing regulations on classes of mail

that apply to metered mail now apply to

mail bearing IBI. In particular, mailers

can use IBI and receive qualifying

discounts for presorted mail.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and

procedure, Postal Service.

Although exempt from the notice and

comment requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553(b), (c)) regarding proposed

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the

Postal Service invites public comments

on the following proposed amendments

to the Domestic Mail Manual,

incorporated by reference in the Code of

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR part

111.

PART 111—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 111 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101,

401, 403, 404, 3001–3011, 3201–3219, 3403–

3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

2. Revise the following section of the

Domestic Mail Manual as set forth

below:

P Postage and Payment Methods

P000 Basic Information

P030 Postage Meters and Meter

Stamps

1.0 Basic Information

* * * * *

1.4 Classes of Mail

Postage may be paid by printing

postage meter stamps (including

letterpress, digital meter stamps, and

information-based indicia) on any class

of mail except Periodicals. Informationbased indicia (IBI) include humanreadable information and a USPSapproved two-dimensional barcode with

a digital signature and other required

data fields. Metered mail (including

mail bearing IBI) is entitled to all

privileges and subject to all conditions

applying to the various classes of mail.

Appropriate amendments to 39 CFR

part 111 to reflect these changes will be

published if the proposal is adopted.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 01–10862 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO–001–0055; FRL–6972–1]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Air Quality

Implementation Plan Revision for

Colorado; Long-Term Strategy of State

Implementation Plan for Class I

Visibility Protection: Craig Station

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a proposed revision to the long-term

strategy portion of Colorado’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Class I

Visibility Protection, contained in

section III of the document entitled

‘‘Colorado’s State Implementation Plan

for Class I Visibility Protection: Craig

Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,’’ as

submitted by the Governor with a letter

dated February 20, 2001. The proposed

revision will incorporate into the SIP

emissions reduction requirements for

the Craig Station (a coal-fired steam

generating plant located near the town

of Craig, Colorado). EPA proposes to

approve the proposed SIP revision,

which is expected to remedy Craig

Station’s contribution to visibility

impairment in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness

Area and, therefore, make reasonable

progress toward the Clean Air Act

National visibility goal with respect to

such contribution. EPA makes this

proposal based on its understanding

that the State will make two minor

changes to the proposed SIP revision

before final adoption, as described in

this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

May 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Richard Long, Director, Air

and Radiation Programs, 8P–AR,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2405.

Copies of the State’s submittal and

other information are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: Air and

Radiation Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado

80202–2405; and Colorado Department

of Public Health and Environment, Air

Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry

Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado

80222–1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Platt, Air and Radiation Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, (303) 312–6449.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used it means

the Environmental Protection Agency.

I. Background

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act

(CAA),1 42 U.S.C. 7491, establishes as a

National goal the prevention of any

future, and the remedying of any

existing, anthropogenic visibility

impairment in mandatory Class I

Federal areas 2 (referred to herein as the

‘‘National goal’’ or ‘‘National visibility

goal’’). Section 169A called for EPA to,

among other things, issue regulations to

assure reasonable progress toward

meeting the National visibility goal,

including requiring each State with a

mandatory Class I Federal area to revise

its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to

contain such emission limits, schedules

of compliance and other measures as

may be necessary to make reasonable

progress toward meeting the National

goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2). Section

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)(J), similarly requires SIPs to

meet the visibility protection

requirements of the CAA.

We promulgated regulations that

required affected States to, among other

things, (1) coordinate development of

SIPs with appropriate Federal Land

Managers (FLMs); (2) develop a program

to assess and remedy visibility

impairment from new and existing

sources; and (3) develop a long-term

(10–15 years) strategy to assure

reasonable progress toward the National

visibility goal. See 45 FR 80084,

December 2, 1980 (codified at 40 CFR

51.300–307). The regulations provide

for the remedying of visibility

impairment that is reasonably

attributable to a single existing

stationary facility or small group of

existing stationary facilities. These

regulations require that the SIPs provide

for periodic review, and revision as

appropriate, of the long-term strategy

not less frequently than every three

years, that the review process include

consultation with the appropriate FLMs,

21722 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

3This proposed revision is specific to

requirements for Craig Station and does not

constitute the State’s three year review of the

components of the Long-term Strategy, as required

by 40 CFR 51.306(c). That review and report are not

due from the State until September 2001, at which

time the public will be able to review and comment

on the State’s full Long-term Strategy.

and that the State provide a report to the

public and EPA that includes an

assessment of the State’s progress

toward the National visibility goal. See

40 CFR 51.306(c).

On July 12, 1985 (50 FR 28544) and

November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45132), we

disapproved the SIPs of states,

including Colorado, that failed to

comply with the requirements of the

provisions of 40 CFR 51.302 (visibility

general plan requirements), 51.305

(visibility monitoring), and 51.306

(visibility long-term strategy). We also

incorporated corresponding Federal

plans and regulations into the SIPs of

these states pursuant to section 110(c)(1)

of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).

The Governor of Colorado submitted

a SIP revision for visibility protection

on December 21, 1987, which met the

criteria of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, and

51.306 for general plan requirements,

monitoring strategy, and long-term

strategies. We approved this SIP

revision in an August 12, 1988 Federal

Register document (53 FR 30428), and

this revision replaced the Federal plans

and regulations in the Colorado

Visibility SIP.

The Governor of Colorado submitted

subsequent SIP revisions for visibility

protection with letters dated November

18, 1992, August 23, 1996, and August

19, 1998. These revisions were made to

fulfill the requirements to periodically

review and, as appropriate, revise the

long-term strategy for visibility

protection. We approved the first two

long-term strategy revisions on October

11, 1994 (59 FR 51376), and January 16,

1997 (62 FR 2305), respectively. The

1998 revisions will be addressed at a

later date.

After Colorado’s 1992 long-term

strategy review, the U.S. Forest Service

(USFS) certified visibility impairment in

Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area (MZWA)

and named the Hayden and Craig

generating stations in the Yampa Valley

of Northwest Colorado as suspected

sources. The USFS is the FLM for

MZWA. This certification was issued on

July 14, 1993. Hayden Station was

addressed in the State’s 1996 long-term

strategy review and revision (see 62 FR

2305, January 16, 1997).

Craig Station, which is the focus of

this SIP revision, is located 40 miles

upwind from MZWA. The facility

consists of three units, but only Units 1

and 2 are subject to this action. Unit 1

is a 428 megawatt steam generating unit

that commenced commercial operation

in 1980 and Unit 2 is a 428 megawatt

steam generating unit that commenced

commercial operation in 1979. The

existing emission control equipment on

Units 1 and 2 consists of the following:

wet scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide

(SO2) (currently achieve 65% SO2

removal), electro-static precipitators to

control particulate pollution, and low

nitrogen oxides (NOX) burners to control

NOX emissions. The 1999 emissions

inventory for Craig Station Units 1 and

2, as reported to EPA’s Acid Rain

database, indicated that these units

emitted 9,216 tons of SO2 and 12,501

tons of NOX. Particulate emissions have

been more difficult to estimate since

continuous emissions rate data is not

available.

On October 9, 1996, Sierra Club, Inc.

(‘‘Sierra Club’’) sued the owners of the

Craig Station in United States District

Court, alleging numerous violations of

State and Federal opacity standards

from 1991–1996. In the Fall of 1996, the

State, Craig Station owners, and EPA

initiated a joint study to develop

information on SO2 emission reduction

options and associated costs for Craig

Station Units 1 and 2. This joint study,

referred to as the ‘‘Craig Flue Gas

Desulfurization Study (Craig FGD

Study),’’ was viewed as a means to

move the parties to a negotiated

resolution of Craig Station’s

contribution to visibility impairment in

MZWA, and if negotiations failed, as a

possible basis for a Best Available

Retrofit Technology (BART)

determination under State and EPA

visibility regulations. The Craig FGD

Study was completed on August 31,

1999.

The Craig FGD Study identified

several options, at reasonable costs, for

addressing Craig Station’s contribution

to visibility impairment at MZWA. This

information and the results of other

technical analyses led us, on September

22, 1999, to call for a revision to the

Colorado Visibility SIP to resolve the

long outstanding certification of

visibility impairment for MZWA with

respect to Craig Station (see 64 FR

54010, October 5, 1999). The State was

given 12 months to revise the SIP

accordingly.

In October 1999, the Sierra Club, the

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division

(APCD), EPA, USFS, and the Craig

Station owners entered into negotiations

to try to reach a ‘‘global settlement’’ of

the various issues facing the power

plant. These issues included the Sierra

Club lawsuit and the USFS certification

of impairment in MZWA.

On October 17, 2000, the Sierra Club

and owners of Craig Station reached an

agreement in principle to resolve the

Sierra Club lawsuit. Sierra Club and the

Craig Station owners subsequently

negotiated and signed a consent decree

that they filed with the United States

District Court for the District of

Colorado on January 10, 2001 (Civil

Action No. 96–N–2368) (referred to

hereafter as ‘‘Craig Consent Decree’’ or

‘‘Consent Decree.’’)

The Consent Decree resolves the

Sierra Club complaint regarding opacity

violations and also requires substantial

reductions in air pollutants that are

intended to resolve Craig Station’s

contribution to visibility impairment in

MZWA. The Consent Decree

contemplates that its requirements will

be incorporated into the Colorado SIP.

Although we were not involved in the

direct negotiations between Sierra Club

and the Craig Station owners regarding

the terms of the Consent Decree, during

negotiations Sierra Club and the Craig

Station owners sought, and we

provided, our input regarding terms of

the settlement. In particular, in a

December 20, 2000 letter, we

commented on a final draft of the

Consent Decree and gave our

preliminary views of the settlement

with respect to the SO2 limits for Craig

Station. We made clear that only

through our public rulemaking process

would we reach final judgment

regarding a Visibility SIP revision based

on the Consent Decree. This proposed

rulemaking is the first step in that

public rulemaking process. The Sierra

Club and Craig Station owners also

asked the State, USFS, and National

Park Service to provide input on the

Consent Decree during the negotiations

of the final agreement.

II. Colorado’s February 1, 2001,

Proposed Revision

With a letter dated February 20, 2001,

the Governor of Colorado submitted a

proposed revision to the long-term

strategy portion of Colorado’s SIP for

Visibility Protection, entitled ‘‘Revision

of Colorado’s State Implementation Plan

for Class I Visibility Protection: Craig

Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements.’’

The proposed revision is being made to

fulfill, with respect to Craig Station’s

contribution to visibility impairment in

MZWA, the Federal and Colorado

requirements to revise the long-term

strategy to include emission limitations

and schedules for compliance necessary

to demonstrate reasonable progress

toward the National visibility goal.3

Among other things, the proposed SIP

revision incorporates provisions of the

Craig Consent Decree that require the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21723

4Any changes made to the percentage reduction

requirement will be made pursuant to the

requirements of the Consent Decree, and if the

ultimate percentage reduction requirement changes

from 90%, the State has indicated that it would

report the changes in its next long-term strategy

review. We would provide an information notice on

any such changes as well.

owners of Craig Station to install control

equipment and meet stringent emission

limitations for particulates (including

opacity), NOX and SO2.

A. Analysis of State’s Proposed Revision

1. Procedural Background

The CAA requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. Section 110(l) of the CAA

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the CAA must be adopted

by such State after reasonable notice

and public hearing.

On January 11, 2001, the Colorado Air

Pollution Control Division requested

that the Colorado Air Quality Control

Commission (AQCC), after providing

adequate notice, hold a public hearing

on April 19, 2001 to consider the

proposed revision to the Long-term

Strategy of the Visibility SIP. This

request was granted. In a February 20,

2001 letter to EPA from Governor Bill

Owens, the State requested that we

‘‘parallel process’’ the proposed

revision.

Parallel processing allows us to

propose rulemaking on a proposed SIP

revision at the same time the State is

soliciting public comment on the

proposed SIP revision. If the Colorado

Air Quality Control Commission

(AQCC) adopts the proposed SIP

revision without significant changes

(except for the two minor changes we

believe are necessary, as described

below), and the Governor submits the

final revision to us for approval, we will

consider any comments received and

proceed with a final rulemaking action.

However, should the State substantially

change the proposed SIP revision before

submitting the final version to us, we

will re-propose and again solicit public

comment on the State amended SIP

revision before we take final rulemaking

action. For further information

regarding parallel processing, please see

40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section

2.3.1.

We have reviewed the proposed SIP

revision incorporating requirements for

Craig Units 1 and 2 to determine

adequacy should the State’s proposal be

finalized. We believe the State’s

proposed revision would adequately

address Craig Station’s contribution to

visibility impairment in MZWA, thereby

resolving the USFS’s certification of

impairment and making reasonable

progress toward the National visibility

goal. In addition, should the State’s

proposed revision be finalized and

submitted to EPA, with the two minor

changes described below in section

II.A.2.b., Analysis of Reasonable

Progress, it will adequately satisfy EPA’s

September 22, 1999, Visibility SIP Call.

2. Content of Proposed SIP Revision

The proposed SIP revision is

contained in section III of the submittal

entitled ‘‘Revision of Colorado’s State

Implementation Plan for Class I

Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units

1 and 2 Requirements,’’ dated February

1, 2001. Only section III contains

provisions that are enforceable against

the Craig Station owners. Part III

incorporates relevant portions of the

Craig Consent Decree into the long-term

strategy. The remainder of the proposed

SIP revision contains provisions that are

explanatory and analyses that are

required by section 169A of the CAA,

Federal visibility regulations (40 CFR

51.300 to 51.307), and/or the Colorado

Visibility SIP.

a. Section III: Enforceable Portion of the

Proposed SIP Revision: Craig Station

Units 1 and 2 Requirements

The State incorporated into its

proposed Visibility SIP revision

provisions of the Craig Consent Decree

including Definitions, Emission

Controls and Limitations, Continuous

Emission Monitors, Construction

Schedule, Emission Limitation

Compliance Deadlines, and Reporting.

Such provisions must be met by the

Craig Station owners and are

enforceable. The Consent Decree

numbering scheme was retained to

avoid confusion between the SIP and

the Consent Decree, but only the

Consent Decree’s emission controls and

limitations, construction schedule, and

sections necessary to ensure

enforceability of these requirements

were included in the proposed SIP.

Some changes were made to Consent

Decree language to conform to a SIP

framework. Finally, changes were made

to the force majeure provisions of the

Consent Decree to ensure that a

demonstration of reasonable progress

could be made at this time. Provisions

of particular interest incorporated from

the Craig Consent Decree are

summarized below.

SO2 Emission Limitations—Craig

Units 1 and 2 will be designed to meet

at least a 93.7% SO2 removal rate. The

Craig Station owners must design,

construct and operate FGD upgrades

and related equipment to reliably treat

100% of the flue gas and to meet the

following emissions limitations:

—No more than 0.160 lbs SO2 per

million Btu heat input on a 30 boiler

operating day rolling average basis;

—No more than 0.130 lbs SO2 per

million Btu heat input on a 90 boiler

operating day rolling average basis;

—At least a 90% reduction of SO2 on

a 90 boiler operating day rolling average

basis, unless Craig Station owners show

this limit cannot be met, in which case

an alternative limit shall be established,

not to be less than an 85% reduction of

SO2 on a 30 boiler operating day average

or 86% on a 90 boiler operating day

average 4; and

—A unit cannot operate for more than

72 consecutive hours without any SO2

emissions reductions; that is, it must

shut down if the control equipment is

not working at all for three days.

Particulate Emission Limitations—

The Craig Station owners must install

and operate a Fabric Filter Dust

Collector (known as a baghouse or

FFDC) on Craig Units 1 and 2.

Particulate emission limitations for each

unit are:

—No more than 0.03 lbs of particulate

matter per million Btu heat input; and

—No more than 20.0% opacity, with

certain limited exceptions, as averaged

over each separate 6-minute period

within an hour as measured by

continuous opacity monitors.

NOX Emissions Limitations—NOX

reductions are to be achieved through

the requirement to install ‘‘state-of-theart’’ low-NOX burners utilizing twostage combustion with supplemental

over-fire air systems. The emissions

limitations on each of Craig Station

Units 1 and 2 are:

—No more than 0.30 lbs per million

Btu heat input on a calendar year

annual average basis.

Compliance with Emissions Limits—

All required controls must be designed

to meet enforceable emission limits.

Compliance with the emission limits

shall be determined by continuous

emission monitors. Compliance with the

percentage reduction requirement for

SO2 shall be determined by comparing

SO2 emissions from the stack (measured

by continuous emissions monitors—

‘‘CEMs’’) to potential SO2 emissions

from coal combusted (determined

through coal sampling and analysis).

Construction Schedule—The final

deadlines for constructing control

equipment are as follows: Unit 1—

21724 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Completion of construction and

initiation of start-up of all upgrades by

12/31/03. Unit 2—Completion of

construction and initiation of start-up of

all upgrades by 6/30/04.

The schedule for commencement of

compliance with the emissions

limitations is as follows:

SO2

—For Unit 1, within 180 days after

completion of construction of the

additional SO2 control equipment, or by

June 30, 2004, whichever date is earlier,

except for 90% SO2 reduction, which

must be achieved within 270 days of the

above compliance date, but no later than

March 31, 2005.

—For Unit 2, within 180 days after

completion of construction of the

additional SO2 control equipment, or by

December 31, 2004, whichever date is

earlier, except for 90% SO2 reduction,

which must be achieved within 270

days of the above compliance date, but

no later than September 30, 2005.

Particulates

—For Unit 1, within 180 days after

completion of construction of baghouse

system, or by April 30, 2004, whichever

date is earlier.

—For Unit 2, within 180 days after

completion of construction of baghouse

system, or by October 31, 2004,

whichever date is earlier.

NOX

—June 30, 2004 for Unit 1 and

December 31, 2004 for Unit 2.

These construction deadlines and

emission limitation compliance

deadlines are subject to the ‘‘force

majeure’’ provisions of the Consent

Decree, which have been included in

the proposed SIP revision. A force

majeure event refers to an excused delay

in meeting construction deadlines or in

meeting emission limitation compliance

deadlines due to certain limited

circumstances wholly beyond the

control of the Craig Station owners.

To help ensure that reasonable

progress continues to be made, the State

commits in the proposed SIP revision to

reopen the SIP (with public notice and

hearing) after it is determined that a

construction schedule or an emission

limitation schedule has been, or will be,

delayed by more than 12 months as a

result of a force majeure determination

or determinations. The State will reevaluate the SIP at that time to

determine whether revisions are

necessary to continue to demonstrate

reasonable progress, and to ensure that

the emission limitations are met. In

addition, the proposed SIP revision also

contains a clarification that the force

majeure provisions are not to be

construed to authorize or create any

preemption or waiver of the

requirements of State or Federal air

quality laws, or of the requirements

contained in the SIP or Consent Decree.

EPA believes that the language of the

proposed SIP revision should assure

reasonable progress toward the National

visibility goal. If deadlines extend more

than twelve months, we expect the State

to revise the SIP.

b. Analysis of Reasonable Progress

Congress established as a National

goal ‘‘the prevention of any future, and

the remedying of any existing’’

anthropogenic visibility impairment in

mandatory Class I Federal areas. The

statute does not mandate that the

national visibility goal be achieved by a

specific date but instead calls for

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the goal.

Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires

EPA to issue implementing regulations

requiring visibility SIPs to contain such

‘‘emission limits, schedules of

compliance and other measures as may

be necessary to make reasonable

progress toward the National goal.’’

EPA’s implementing regulations

provided for an initial round of

visibility SIP planning which included

a long-term strategy to make reasonable

progress toward the National goal. See

40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(i) and 51.306.

Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA specifies

factors that must be considered in

determining reasonable progress

including: (1) the costs of compliance;

(2) the time necessary for compliance;

(3) the energy and non-air quality

environmental impacts of compliance;

and (4) the remaining useful life of the

source. Protection of visibility in a

mandatory Class I Federal area is the

objective.

In this unique case, the Craig Station

owners have agreed in the context of a

judicially-enforceable Consent Decree to

meet emissions limitations that are

expected to reduce Craig Station’s

contribution to visibility impairment in

MZWA to below perceptible levels. The

State has analyzed the emission

reductions provided for in the Consent

Decree in light of the statutory factors

for determining reasonable progress and

the ultimate objective of protecting

visibility. The State has proposed that

the measures assure reasonable progress

by remedying Craig Station’s

contribution to perceptible visibility

impairment in MZWA and has proposed

a Visibility SIP revision containing

these measures.

Further, in a December 14, 2000 letter

from Tom Thompson, USFS, Rocky

Mountain Region, to Margie Perkins,

APCD, the USFS concluded that ‘‘the

proposed reductions of both sulfur

dioxide and nitrogen oxides will resolve

all Forest Service issues relative to the

Craig Station and our 1993 Certification

of Impairment.’’ Based in part on this

letter, the State has proposed that the

pertinent provisions of the Craig

Consent Decree, as embodied in the

proposed SIP revision, effectively

resolve the USFS certification of

impairment in MZWA in relation to

Craig Station.

We have reviewed the State’s

proposed SIP revision and supporting

information in light of the statutory and

regulatory requirements and propose to

approve it based on the understanding

that the State will make two minor

changes. First, in section III, Enforceable

Portion of the SIP Revision: Craig

Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements, the

following language should be added to

section II.2.(m) (definition of ‘‘Craig

Owners’’) to ensure that successor

owners are covered by the SIP revision:

‘‘and successor owners of Craig

Station.’’ Second, also in section III, the

following language should be removed

from section IX.26., to clarify that

reporting requirements continue

indefinitely after the Consent Decree is

terminated: ‘‘and continuing until the

Decree is terminated.’’ We believe these

changes are necessary to ensure

enforceability of the SIP revision and

consistency with the Hayden SIP

revision. Our proposed approval is

based on our anticipation that these

changes will be made in the final SIP

revision adopted by the AQCC.

We believe the State has reasonably

proposed that the emission reduction

measures at Craig Station required by

the Consent Decree and contained in the

proposed Visibility SIP revision will

remedy Craig Station’s contribution to

perceptible visibility impairment at

MZWA, with reasonable costs, an

expeditious compliance schedule, and

no significant adverse energy or non-air

quality environmental impacts. The

State’s February 1, 2001 proposed SIP

revision and accompanying information,

available at the addresses listed at the

beginning of this document, provides a

detailed analysis of each of the

‘‘reasonable progress’’ considerations.

We have reviewed these ‘‘reasonable

progress’’ considerations and a

summary of the State’s analysis follows.

(i) Factor (1) Cost of Compliance

By signing the Consent Decree, the

Craig Station owners have demonstrated

their willingness to bear the cost to

upgrade Craig Station Units 1 and 2.

Therefore, this factor is not particularly

relevant to this action. However, the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21725

5 ‘‘Project Summary: Retrofit Costs for SO2 and

NOX Control Options at 200 Coal-Fired Plants,’’

EPA/600/S7–90–021, March 1991.

6EPA notes that should this proposed approval

be finalized, the time period between SIP approval

and operation of control equipment would be even

shorter.

State proposes that the costs are

reasonable given that the cost of the

combined Craig Units 1 and 2 SO2

removal upgrades (approximately $27.5

million total or $4.49 million/year and

$659/ton of SO2 removed—in January

1998 dollars) at the facility are within

the range of retrofit costs at other

facilities. It should be noted that

included in these cost estimates are

credits that represent a portion of the

control costs that the Craig Station

owners will be able to recoup by the

sale of marketable allowances of SO2

received under the allowance trading

program of the Clean Air Act’s Acid

Rain Program (approximately $100/ton).

The State also compared costs with

the results of an EPA modelling study 5

which estimated the retrofit costs for

SO2 control at 200 coal-fired electric

utilities (630 boilers). This study

indicated that the 50th percentile cost

(in 1998 dollars) was more than the

estimated cost of the Craig Units 1 and

2 upgrade.

The State believes that estimated costs

for SO2 emission reductions at Craig

Station Units 1 and 2 appear to be lower

or similar to estimates for other projects

and therefore, that the cost of these SO2

emission reductions is reasonable. For a

more detailed discussion of the cost of

compliance, please refer to the proposed

SIP revision.

(ii) Factor (2) Time Necessary for

Compliance

The time necessary for compliance is

reasonable. Under the terms of the Craig

Consent Decree, approximately three to

four years will elapse between the filing

of the Decree and operation of the

control equipment on Units 1 and 2,

respectively.6 By comparison, if the

State went through a complete

regulatory process with the Craig

Station to make a reasonable attribution

decision and BART determination, the

State estimates that the time until

installation of controls could be 51⁄2

years. We note that the Hayden Consent

Decree allowed approximately 31⁄2 years

time between the filing of the Consent

Decree and operation of the required

control equipment. See 62 FR 2305

(January 16, 1997).

(iii) Factor (3) Energy and Non-Air

Quality Environmental Impacts of

Compliance

Any negative impacts are minimal, as

discussed below.

(a) Energy Impacts. It will be

necessary to divert additional power

(estimated at 1.5 MW/unit) to in-house

use to operate the upgrade equipment,

resulting in a percent decrease in plant

output of 0.2%. By comparison, the

retrofit at Hayden Station resulted in a

decrease in plant output of 1.1%. See 62

FR 2305 (January 16, 1997).

(b) Water Impacts. An increase in

water consumption will be needed to

support the SO2 upgrades. However, it

is uncertain at this time how large this

increase will be. It is possible that the

increase can be met entirely through

increased internal efficiencies in water

use at the facility. If not, then Craig

Station will need to increase its

consumptive use of existing water rights

in the Yampa River. Craig Station is a

‘‘zero discharge facility’’ and does not

have a river water discharge. Overall,

the State believes that the upgrades to

current control equipment should have

only a minimal impact on water usage

at Craig Station.

(c) Solid Waste Impacts. Craig

Station’s solid waste will increase,

although no major changes to current

disposal methods will be required.

However, the increase in scrubber waste

solids due to the increase in SO2

removal may require the acquisition of

two new transport trucks for landfill

disposal of the wastes.

(d) Other Environmental Benefits. In a

December 14, 2000 letter from Tom

Thompson, USFS, Rocky Mountain

Region (i.e., the Federal land manager

for Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area), to

Margie Perkins, APCD, the USFS

indicated that it believes the proposed

reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions

required under the Consent Decree will

‘‘significantly benefit’’ the aquatic

ecosystems in MZWA. The State

concurs that the emission reductions

should reduce acid accumulations in

the snowpack.

Overall, the State believes that any

energy and non-air quality related

impacts that will result from this

proposed revision are acceptable.

(iv) Factor (4) Remaining Useful Life of

Source

The owners of the Craig Station

assume that Craig Station Units 1 and 2

have a remaining useful life of 20 years.

In its technical judgment, the State

believes 20 years is an accurate estimate

and therefore, the upgrade required in

this proposed SIP revision is reasonable.

(v) Visibility Benefits

Any contribution to visibility

impairment in MZWA caused or

contributed to by the Craig Station Units

1 and 2 come from their SO2 emissions

converted to sulfate haze in the

atmosphere. The enhanced FGD control

systems will lower Craig Station Units

1 and 2’s combined SO2 emissions to a

total of approximately 2,600 tons per

year from the current level of over 9,300

tons per year. In the State’s technical

judgment, this will effectively address

visibility problems in MZWA caused by

SO2 from Craig Units 1 and 2 and will

lower the threshold of SO2 emissions

from the units to below perceptible

levels in MZWA. We believe these

conclusions are reasonable. It should be

noted that the State recognizes that

regional haze from outside Colorado and

emissions from other Colorado sources

could also be contributing to visibility

impairment at MZWA.

(vi) Reasonable Progress and BART

The State believes that its proposed

SIP revision assures reasonable progress

toward meeting the National visibility

goal as it relates to Craig Station and

MZWA. First, the proposed SIP

revisions embody emission reductions

of visibility impairing pollutants at

Craig Station Units 1 and 2 at a

reasonable cost, within the same

timeframe or earlier than similar

reductions would likely occur through

reasonable attribution and BART

determinations. Second, the emission

limitations for Craig Station Units 1 and

2 for SO2, particulate, and NOX reached

through a negotiation process are

similar to or more stringent than those

imposed on some units subject to

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) regulations (e.g., Craig Station

Unit 3 and Rawhide Energy Station).

Third, although there have been no

BART determinations made nationally

under the mandatory Class I Federal

visibility protection program since 1977,

there have been several ‘‘BART-like’’

decisions made in settlement of FLM

certifications of impairment that have

resulted in SO2 limitations that are

similar or less stringent than those in

the Craig Consent Decree.

The State believes that the Craig

Consent Decree, as embodied in the

proposed SIP revision, expeditiously

remedies Craig Station’s contribution to

visibility impairment in MZWA, at a

reasonable cost and without undue nonair environmental or energy impacts.

Although a formal BART analysis has

not been performed for Craig Station

Units 1 and 2, the State also expects that

the Consent Decree’s 90% control

21726 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

requirement on a 90-day rolling average

for SO2 would be at least as good as

BART had such an analysis been

performed.

Finally, as noted above, the USFS has

concluded that the emissions reductions

reflected in this proposed SIP revision

should effectively address concerns of

visibility impairment in MZWA

associated with Craig Station.

In our opinion, the State’s belief is

reasonable that the proposed SIP

revision will assure reasonable progress

in remedying Craig Station’s

contribution to visibility impairment in

MZWA. However, as described above,

we believe that two minor changes to

the proposed SIP revision are necessary.

c. Six Factors Considered in Developing

the Long-Term Strategy

The State considered the six factors

contained in 40 CFR 51.306(e) when

developing this proposed revision to its

long-term strategy. These six factors are

as follows: (1) Eemission reductions due

to ongoing air pollution control

programs; (2) additional emission

limitations and schedules for

compliance; (3) measures to mitigate the

impacts of construction activities; (4)

source retirement and replacement

schedules; (5) smoke management

techniques for agricultural and forestry

management purposes including such

plans as currently exist within the State

for these purposes; and (6)

enforceability of emission limitations

and control measures. Because this

long-term strategy SIP revision is

focused entirely on the Craig Station

Units 1 and 2 requirements that resulted

from a negotiated settlement, the State

concluded that factors (1), (4), and (5)

are not applicable. These factors will be

considered when the State conducts its

next full long-term strategy review

process in September 2001. For a

detailed discussion of the remaining

factors as they relate to Craig Station

Units 1 and 2, please refer to Colorado’s

proposed long-term strategy revision,

which is available at the addresses

listed in the beginning of this document.

3. Additional Requirements

a. FLM Consultation

As required under State and Federal

regulations (Colorado Air Quality

Control Commission Regulation No. 3,

section XV.F.; 40 CFR 51.306(c)), the

State prepared and distributed a FLM

Comment Draft of its long-term strategy

review/revision to the USFS and the

National Park Service. These agencies

are the FLMs of all of Colorado’s Class

I areas.

b. SIP Enforceability

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). Our

criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a

September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541).

The specific emissions limitations

contained in this February 1, 2001

proposed revision to the SIP are

addressed above in section II.A.2.a.,

‘‘Section III: Enforceable Portion of the

SIP Revision: Craig Station

Requirements.’’ By adopting emission

limitations for Craig Station into the

Visibility SIP, the limitations will

become enforceable by the State. C.R.S.

25–7–115. Enforceability of emission

limitations will be ensured by the

inclusion in this proposed SIP revision

of Consent Decree sections VI.,

Continuous Emission Monitors (for SO2

and opacity), and IX., Reporting, to

ensure determination of compliance

through reliable and valid

measurements and to ensure accurate

and adequate data reporting. As

described above, we believe that two

minor changes to the proposed SIP

revision are needed to ensure

enforceability. Should EPA finalize this

proposed approval of the proposed SIP

revision, the emission limitations will

be federally enforceable.

Consistent with section 110(a)(2)(A)

of the CAA, the State of Colorado has a

program that will ensure that the

measures contained in the SIP are

adequately enforced. The Colorado

APCD has the authority to implement

and enforce all control measures

adopted by the AQCC. C.R.S. 25–7–111.

In addition, Colorado statute provides

that the APCD shall enforce against any

‘‘person’’ who violates the emission

control regulations of the AQCC, the

requirements of the SIP, or the

requirements of any permit. C.R.S. 25–

7–115. Civil penalties of up to $15,000

per day per violation are provided for in

the State statute for any person in

violation of these requirements (C.R.S.

25–7–122), and criminal penalties are

also provided for in the State statute.

C.R.S. 25–7–122.1.

Thus, we believe that the control

measures contained in the proposed

revision to Colorado’s State

Implementation Plan for Class I

Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units

1 and 2 Requirements, will be

enforceable and that the APCD has

adequate enforcement capabilities to

ensure compliance with those control

measures.

III. Proposed Action

We have reviewed the adequacy of the

State’s proposed revision to the longterm strategy portion of Colorado’s SIP

for Class I Visibility Protection,

contained in section III of the document

entitled ‘‘Revision of Colorado’s State

Implementation Plan for Class I

Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units

1 and 2 Requirements,’’ as submitted by

the Governor with a letter dated

February 20, 2001. We are proposing to

approve the proposed revision, which

includes the incorporation of certain

requirements from the Craig Consent

Decree, provided that the State makes

two minor changes to the proposed SIP

revision, as described in the body of this

document.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to a SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Request for Public Comments

We are requesting comments on all

aspects of this proposal. As indicated at

the outset of this document, we will

consider any comments received by

May 31, 2001.

V. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it 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). This proposed rule also

does not have a substantial direct effect

on one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21727

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also

is not subject to Executive Order 13045

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because

it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 19, 2001.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

[FR Doc. 01–10806 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 099–0032b; FRL–6967–9]

Revisions to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan, Pinal-Gila

Counties Air Quality Control District

and Pinal County Air Quality Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the PinalGila Counties Air Quality Control

District (PGCAQCD) and Pinal County

Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD)

portions of the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions concern the recision of all of

the remaining SIP rules from the

obsolete PGCAQCD and the recision of

certain PCAQCD SIP Rules. We are

approving the recision of local rules that

no longer regulate permitting

procedures and various emission

sources under the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by May 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andrew

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted rule revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted rule revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; (415)744–1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal addresses the recisions of

defunct SIP rules from the PGCAQCD.

In the Rules and Regulations section of

this Federal Register, we are approving

the recision of these rules in a direct

final action without prior proposal

because we believe this SIP revision is

not controversial. If we receive adverse

comments, however, we will publish a

timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule and address the comments in

subsequent action based on this

proposed rule. We do not plan to open

a second comment period, so anyone

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If we do not receive adverse

comments, no further activity is

planned. For further information, please

see the direct final action.

Dated: March 20, 2001.

Mike Schulz,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–10652 Filed 4–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–931; MM Docket No. 01–91; RM–

10096]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Hugo,

CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by Alan Olson, requesting the

allotment of Channel 222A to Hugo,

Colorado, as that community’s first local

aural transmission service. Coordinates

used for this proposal are those of the

city reference at 39–08–10 NL and 103–

28–10 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 4, 2001, and reply

comments on or before June 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Alan Olson, 934

E. Vermijo Ave., Colorado Springs, CO

80903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No.

01–91, adopted April 4, 2001, and

released April 13, 2001. The full text of