Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions, etc., for the Interference with Visibility Requirement
Posted Date: 2011-02-14T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8326-8329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3280]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1036; FRL-9266-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of 
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: ``Interference With 
Visibility'' Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado interstate 
transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted on March 
31, 2010, addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
Specifically, in this Federal Register action EPA proposes full 
approval of those portions of the Colorado March 31, 2010 submission 
that address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement prohibiting a 
State's emissions from interfering with any other State's required 
measures to protect visibility for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1036, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: dygowski.laurel@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, 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-
2007-1036. 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 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 Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, 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

[[Page 8327]]

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6144, 
dygowski.laurel@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.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background Information
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. What is the State process to submit these materials to EPA?
V. EPA's Review and Technical Information
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting 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 in 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:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Background Information

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8[dash]hour ozone 
and for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is 
being taken in response to the promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS. This action does not address the 
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5, or the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS; those standards will be addressed in later actions.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit SIPs to 
address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of 
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. 
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address, 
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 
interstate transport of certain emissions.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a State's SIP must 
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of 
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in 
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of 
the NAAQS in any other State; (2) interfere with maintenance of the 
NAAQS by any other State; (3) interfere with any other State's required 
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; or (4) 
interfere with any other State's required measures to protect 
visibility.
    On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado submitted to EPA an 
Interstate Transport SIP addressing all four elements of the interstate 
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA's concerns 
regarding the June 11, 2008 submission, the State later submitted two 
superceding interstate transport SIP revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009 
submission addressing the requirements of elements (1) and (2) of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (b) a March 31, 
2010 submission addressing the requirements of elements (3) and (4) for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and of elements (1) through (4) for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted earlier, in this rulemaking EPA 
is evaluating only the Colorado SIP revisions of the March 31, 2010 
submission that address the requirements of element (4), prohibiting 
sources in Colorado from emitting pollutants from interfering with any 
other state's measures to protect visibility, for the 1997 ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has already taken final action on elements 
(1) and (2) for ozone (see 75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029, respectively). 
EPA will be taking action on elements (1)-(3) for PM2.5 and 
element (3) for ozone in a separate action.

III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing approval of the sections of the Colorado 
Interstate Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010 that address the 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ``interference with visibility protection'' 
requirement for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 
13, 2010, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted 
interstate transport SIP revisions addressing the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted these revisions to EPA on 
March 31, 2010. In this Federal Register action EPA is proposing to 
approve the sections of the March 31, 2010 submissions that address 
element (4), ``interference with visibility protection,'' of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i).

IV. What is the State process to submit these materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses EPA's rulemaking action on SIP 
submissions by States. The CAA requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur 
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to EPA.
    The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing in December 2009 for the 
interstate transport SIP revision: ``State

[[Page 8328]]

of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of the Clean 
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) and (II)--Regarding Interstate 
Transport for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The 
AQCC adopted this revision on January 13, 2010, and the State submitted 
it to EPA on March 31, 2010.
    EPA has reviewed the submittal from the State of Colorado and has 
determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice 
and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

V. EPA's Review and Technical Information

    The interstate transport provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 
also referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provisions, require that each 
SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that adversely 
affect any other State's air quality through interstate transport of 
air pollutants. As discussed in the Background Information section of 
this notice, a SIP must contain provisions that satisfy the four 
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action only addresses element 
(4), or the ``interference with visibility protection'' requirement, 
for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On August 15, 2006, EPA 
issued guidance (2006 Guidance) \1\ outlining the Agency's phased 
approach to visibility protection: The 1980 requirements of the 
Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) program, that 
addressed visibility impairment caused by one or a small number of 
sources, and the 1999 Regional Haze requirements addressing visibility 
impairment due to emission of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographical area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions 
to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2006 Guidance further explains that since EPA had not 
determined at that point in time that emissions from any States 
interfered with any other States' measures addressing RAVI, States 
could satisfy this portion of the ``interference with visibility 
protection'' requirement by certifying that none of their sources 
emitted pollutants interfering with other States' implementation plan 
measures to protect visibility under the 1980 regulations.\2\ The 
Colorado Interstate Transport submission of March 31, 2010 outlines the 
periodic update of the State RAVI SIP and verifies that ``no State or 
Federal Land Manager has identified Class I area impairment attributed 
to a Colorado source or identified a Colorado source that interferes 
with efforts to improve visibility.'' \3\ Consistent with EPA's 2006 
Guidance, the Colorado SIP verifies that there are no sources in the 
State that emit pollutants interfering with any other State's measures 
to protect visibility through their RAVI SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Colorado March 31, 2010 SIP submission, at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 1999 Regional Haze provisions (see 64 FR 35714) 
addressing visibility impairment due to emission of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a wide geographical area, the 2006 
Guidance indicated that States could satisfy the interference with 
visibility protection requirement through their EPA-approved Regional 
Haze (RH) SIPs. The 2006 Guidance did not prohibit States from 
satisfying element (4) by something other than an EPA-approved RH SIP. 
The State submitted a partial RH SIP to EPA on June 11, 2008, and 
revisions to the 2008 submittal on June 18, 2009. In the fall of 2010, 
the State revised its entire RH SIP and will be submitting this SIP to 
EPA in 2011. Thus, at the time the State submitted the March 13, 2010 
Interstate Transport SIP, EPA had not approved a RH SIP for Colorado.
    The State of Colorado has elected to satisfy the element (4) 
requirement of the good neighbor provisions by providing a 
demonstration in its March 13, 2010 Interstate Transport SIP submittal 
that it does not interfere with other State's measures to protect 
visibility through their RH SIP. The State provides an analysis in its 
SIP that begins with an inventory of current control measures (some 
approved only at the State level, some that are Federally enforceable, 
and some that are Federal programs) that reduce visibility impairing 
pollutants. Some examples of measures the State has relied on in making 
its demonstration that are Federally enforceable or are Federal 
programs include: (1) Regulation Number 1--Emission Controls for 
Particulates, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides; (2) parts of 
Regulation Number 3--Stationary Source Permitting and Air pollutant 
Emission Notice Requirements; and (3) Federal mobile source tailpipe 
exhaust programs. The State also included some reductions attributable 
to its RH SIP, which have not been approved by EPA.
    The State used emission inventory information and modeling provided 
by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) to quantify the 
visibility impacts from Colorado sources on Class I areas outside of 
the State. Under the RH Rule, States must establish reasonable progress 
goals which provide for an improvement in visibility for the most 
impaired, or worst days, and no degradation on the best days (see 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1)). The State analyzed its projected 2018 impacts on the 
worst days on surrounding Class I areas in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, 
New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. The modeling the 
State used for this analysis includes emission reductions for RH that 
are not Federally enforceable. For nitrates, the most impacted areas 
were Canyonlands National Park in Utah and Bandelier National Monument 
in New Mexico. Colorado's modeled contribution to nitrate extinction 
was 6.9% and 5.1%, respectively. Total nitrates from all source regions 
are projected to comprise 9.5% of the extinction in Canyonlands and 
6.6% of the extinction in Bandelier. Thus, Colorado's nitrate 
contribution to the overall extinction in 2018 is 0.3% at Bandelier 
(0.051 x 0.066) and 0.7% (0.069 x 0.095) at Canyonlands. For sulfates, 
the most impacted areas were also Canyonlands National Park and 
Bandelier National Monument. Colorado's modeled contribution to sulfate 
extinction was 2.3% and 1.2%, respectively. Total sulfates from all 
source regions are projected to comprise 15.5% of the extinction in 
Canyonlands and 14.8% of the extinction in Bandelier. Thus, Colorado's 
sulfate contribution to the overall extinction in 2018 is 0.3% (0.012 x 
0.148) at Bandelier and 0.2% (0.023 x 0.155) at Canyonlands. Colorado's 
total impact from nitrates and sulfates combined at Bandelier and at 
Canyonlands is 0.5% and 1.0% of the overall extinction, respectively. 
EPA performed additional analysis (discussed below) to assess impacts 
to reasonable progress goals in Class I areas outside of the State.
    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), the measures relied on by Colorado 
to make a demonstration that it does not interfere with other States' 
measures to protect visibility in their RH SIP have to be approved by 
EPA as part of a SIP and made Federally enforceable. As mentioned 
above, the State's demonstration relies on potential RH SIP emission 
reductions that have not been approved by EPA. EPA conducted a weight 
of evidence analysis on Canyonlands National Park, the most impacted 
Class I area to determine Colorado's impact if non-Federally 
enforceable measures were not included in the demonstration. EPA's 
weight of evidence analysis includes a recalculation of the reasonable 
progress goal to reflect the addition of non-

[[Page 8329]]

Federally enforceable measures, review of current and future year 
emission inventories, and an evaluation of the weighted emission 
potential (WEP) for sulfates and nitrates. The weighted emission 
potential information was obtained from technical work performed by the 
WRAP.\4\ (The complete weight of evidence analysis is included in the 
docket for this notice.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The WRAP technical work, including modeling, was used by all 
western States as the basis for evaluating impacts on Class I areas 
and the need for controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recalculated the reasonable progress goal to determine 
approximate changes to visibility impacts at Canyonlands due to 
emission increases. To account for measures that are not Federally 
enforceable, EPA increased the Colorado emission inventory 45,700 tons 
for sulfates and 5,200 tons for nitrates from the emission inventory 
used for Colorado in the WRAP 2018 reasonable progress modeling. To 
calculate the approximate visibility impact from this change, the 
following procedure was followed: (1) Recalculate the baseline haze 
index (2000-2004) using daily 20% worst case monitored species 
extinction from WRAP data; (2) recalculate 2018 predicted reasonable 
progress goal haze index by applying Class I area specific annual 
relative response factors (RRFs) provided by WRAP to the daily 20% 
worst case monitored for each pollutant; (3) assume that Colorado's 
relative contribution of nitrates and sulfates identified by WRAP 
tracer modeling for the 2018 base case is the same for the 2018 
reasonable progress case; (4) rescale sulfate extinction and nitrate 
extinction in step 2 to account for Colorado emissions that are not 
Federally enforceable; and (5) recalculate the reasonable progress 
goals that would be expected. This method of approximating the change 
in the haze index, given in deciviews (dv),\5\ shows that the 2018 
predicted reasonable progress goal would only increase from 10.77 dv to 
10.80 dv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A deciview is a measure of visibility impairment that 
directly relates to human perception. A higher deciview number 
indicates more perceptible visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed WEP information developed by the WRAP. The WEP 
analysis was developed as a screening tool for States to decide which 
source regions have the potential to contribute to haze formation in 
Class I areas, based on annual emissions inventories, baseline period 
back trajectories, and source to Class I area distances. The WEP 
analyses also show that Colorado has a minimal impact on visibility at 
Canyonlands.
    The RH Rule also requires States ensure no degradation of 
visibility on the best days. The WRAP modeling projects that visibility 
on the best days will not degrade in 2018 at any of the surrounding 
Class I areas. For example, modeling indicates that the visibility at 
Canyonlands on the best days is expected to improve from 3.8 dv to 3.5 
dv. Accordingly, EPA finds that Colorado does not interfere with 
another States' ability to ensure no degradation of visibility on the 
best days.
    Based on the information presented above, EPA concludes that 
Colorado does not interfere with Utah's measures to protect visibility 
at Canyonlands National Park. Since Colorado impacts Canyonlands more 
than any other out of State Class I area, Colorado's impacts on other 
Class I areas, including Bandelier, would be even less. EPA thus has 
determined that Colorado does not interfere with other States' measures 
to protect visibility in their RH SIP.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing partial approval of the March 31, 2010 Colorado 
Interstate Transport SIP revisions submission. Specifically, in this 
action EPA is proposing to approve subsections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, 
addressing the ``interference with protection of visibility'' 
requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and subsections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, 
addressing the ``interference with protection of visibility'' 
requirement for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the 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, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: February 3, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-3280 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P