[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56935-56942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035; FRL-9202-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS: ``Interference With Maintenance'' Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the ``State of Colorado
Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport Regarding the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard'' addressing the ``interference with maintenance''
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On June 18, 2009 the State
of Colorado submitted an interstate transport State Implementation Plan
(SIP) addressing the interstate transport requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP provisions
that address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement prohibiting a
state's emissions from interfering with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by any other
state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1035, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]
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-
2007-1035. 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 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6436,
[email protected].
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
III. What action is EPA proposing?
IV. What is the State process to submit these materials to EPA?
[[Page 56936]]
V. EPA's Review and Technical Information
A. EPA's Evaluation of Interference with Maintenance
B. Colorado Transport SIP
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:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
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.
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.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. Background
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone and for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being taken in
response to the promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
action does not address the requirements for the 1997 or 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. On August 15, 2006, EPA
issued its ``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'' (2006 Guidance). EPA developed the 2006 Guidance to make
recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards.
As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility in other states.
On June 18, 2009, EPA received a SIP revision from the State of
Colorado intended to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. In this
rulemaking, EPA is addressing only the requirements that pertain to
preventing sources in Colorado from emitting pollutants that will
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by other
states. In its submission, the State of Colorado indicated that its
current SIP is adequate to prevent such interference. With this
submission, the state intended to meet the recommendations of the 2006
Guidance for SIP submissions to meet the second element of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
III. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing approval of a portion of the Colorado Interstate
Transport of Air Pollution SIP addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December
30, 2008, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted
the ``State of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of
the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
Regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP). Colorado submitted this SIP revision to EPA on June 18,
2009. In this Federal Register action EPA is proposing to approve only
the language and demonstration that, in this SIP revision, address the
requirements of element (2), i.e., the prohibition of interference with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by any other state.
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 in early December 2008 a public hearing for
the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP revision, adopted it on December
30, 2008, and the State submitted it to EPA on June 18, 2009.
On November 18, 2009, the AQCC provided EPA with an exact color
duplicate of the SIP adopted by the AQCC on December 30, 2008 and
included in the June 18, 2009 submittal to EPA. In the original
submittal, AQCC provided a black and white copy. The SIP's color
duplicate, available for review as part of the Docket, makes it easier
to understand modeling results reported in several graphs that are part
of the SIP technical demonstration.
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
A. EPA's Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
The second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that a
state's SIP must prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in the state from
[[Page 56937]]
emitting pollutants that would ``interfere with maintenance'' of the
applicable NAAQS by any other state. This term is not defined in the
statute. Therefore, EPA has interpreted this term in past regulatory
actions, such as the 1998 NOX SIP Call, in which EPA took
action to eliminate emissions of NOX that significantly
contributed to nonattainment, or interfered with maintenance of, the
then applicable ozone NAAQS through interstate transport of
NOX and the resulting ozone.\1\ The NOX SIP Call
was the mechanism through which EPA evaluated whether or not the
NOX emissions from sources in certain states had such
prohibited interstate impacts, and if they had such impacts, required
the states to adopt substantive SIP revisions to eliminate the
NOX emissions, whether through participation in a regional
cap and trade program or by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA's general approach
to section 110(a)(2)(D) was upheld in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663
(D.C. Cir. 2000), cert denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA's
approach to interference with maintenance in the NOX SIP
Call was not explicitly reviewed by the court. See, North Carolina
v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 907-09 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Continued
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA again recognized that regional transport
was a serious concern throughout the eastern U.S. and therefore
developed the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to address
emissions of SO2 and NOX that exacerbate ambient
ozone and PM2.5 levels in many downwind areas through
interstate transport.\2\ Within CAIR, EPA likewise interpreted the term
``interfere with maintenance'' as part of the evaluation of whether or
not the emissions of sources in certain states had such impacts on
areas that EPA determined would either be in violation of the NAAQS, or
would be in jeopardy of violating the NAAQS, in a modeled future year
unless action were taken by upwind states to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions. Through CAIR, EPA again required states that
had such interstate impacts to adopt substantive SIP revisions to
eliminate the SO2 and NOX emissions, whether
through participation in a regional cap and trade program or by other
means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2006 Guidance addressed section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. For those
states subject to CAIR, EPA indicated that compliance with CAIR would
meet the two requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these
NAAQS. For states not within the CAIR region, EPA recommended that
states evaluate whether or not emissions from their sources would
``interfere with maintenance'' in other states, following the
conceptual approach adopted by EPA in CAIR. After recommending various
types of information that could be relevant for the technical analysis
to support the SIP submission, such as the amount of emissions and
meteorological conditions in the state, EPA further indicated that it
would be appropriate for the state to assess impacts of its emissions
on other states using considerations comparable to those used by EPA
``in evaluating significant contribution to nonattainment in the
CAIR.'' \3\ EPA did not make specific recommendations for how states
should assess ``interfere with maintenance'' separately, and discussed
the first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D) together without
explicitly differentiating between them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled, ``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,''
Aug. 15, 2006, p. 5. (``2006 Guidance''). Available for review in
EPA's September 15, 2010 docket document entitled: ``Relevant
Guidance and Supporting Documentation for the Proposed Rulemaking
Federal Register Action Docket ID EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
found that CAIR and the related CAIR federal implementation plans were
unlawful.\4\ Among other issues, the court held that EPA had not
correctly addressed the second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
CAIR. The court noted that ``EPA gave no independent significance to
the `interfere with maintenance' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind
maintenance.'' \5\ EPA's approach, the court reasoned, would leave
areas that are ``barely meeting attainment'' with ``no recourse'' to
address upwind emissions sources.\6\ The court therefore concluded that
a plain language reading of the statute requires EPA to give
independent meaning to the interfere with maintenance requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D) and that the approach used by EPA in CAIR failed
to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\5\ Id. at 909.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to affecting CAIR directly, the court's decision in the
North Carolina case indirectly affects EPA's recommendations to states
in the 2006 Guidance with respect to the interfere with maintenance
element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the agency's guidance
suggested that states use an approach comparable to that used by EPA in
CAIR. States such as Colorado developed and adopted their Interstate
Transport SIPs not long after the Court's July 2008 decision, but well
before EPA, in the Transport Rule Proposal (see below), was able to
propose a new approach for the interference with maintenance element.
Without recommendations from EPA, Colorado's SIP may not have
sufficiently differentiated between the significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance elements of the
statute, and relied in a general way on the difference between
monitored concentrations and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to evaluate
the impacts of State emissions on maintenance of the NAAQS in
neighboring states. EPA believes that it is necessary to evaluate these
state submissions for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in such a way as to
assure that the interfere with maintenance element of the statute is
given independent meaning and is appropriately evaluated using the
types of information that EPA recommended in the 2006 Guidance. To
accomplish this, EPA believes it is necessary to use an updated
approach to this issue and to supplement the technical analysis
provided by the state in order to evaluate the submissions with respect
to the interfere with maintenance element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
EPA has recently proposed a new rule to address interstate
transport pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ``Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone'' (Transport Rule Proposal), in order to address the
judicial remand of CAIR.\7\ As part of the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA
specifically reexamined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement that
emissions from sources in a state must not ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS by other states. In the proposal, EPA developed an approach to
identify areas that it predicts to be close to the level of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the future, and
therefore at risk to become or continue to be nonattainment for these
NAAQS unless emissions from sources in other states are appropriately
controlled. This approach starts by identifying those specific
geographic
[[Page 56938]]
areas for which further evaluation is appropriate, and differentiates
between areas where the concern is with interference with maintenance,
rather than with significant contribution to nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone,'' 75 FR 45210
(August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in more detail below, EPA's analysis evaluates data
from existing monitors over three overlapping three year periods (i.e.,
2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-2007), as well as air quality modeling
data, in order to determine which areas are predicted to be violating
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012, and which
areas are predicted potentially to have difficulty with maintaining
attainment as of that date. In essence, if an area's projected data for
2012 indicates that it would be violating the NAAQS based on the
average of these three overlapping periods, then this monitor location
is appropriate for comparison for purposes of the significant
contribution to nonattainment element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If,
however, an area's projected data indicate that it would be violating
the NAAQS based on the highest single period, but not over the average
of the three periods, then this monitor location is appropriate for
comparison for purposes of the interfere with maintenance element of
the statute.
By this method, EPA has identified those areas with monitors that
are appropriate ``maintenance sites'' or maintenance ``receptors'' for
evaluating whether the emissions from sources in another state could
interfere with maintenance in that particular area. EPA then uses other
analytical tools to examine the potential impacts of emissions from
upwind states on these maintenance receptors in downwind states. EPA
believes that this new approach for identifying those areas that are
predicted to have maintenance problems is appropriate to evaluate the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission of a state for the interfere
with maintenance element.\8\ EPA's 2006 Guidance did not provide this
specific recommendation to states, but in light of the court's decision
on CAIR, EPA will itself follow this approach in acting upon the
Colorado submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ To begin this analysis, EPA first identifies all monitors
projected to be in nonattainment or, based on historic variability
in air quality, projected to have maintenance problems in 2012.
These maintenance receptors are close to the level of the 1997 ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS such that minor variations in weather or
emissions could result in violations of the NAAQS in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the 2006 Guidance, EPA does not believe that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submissions from all states necessarily
need to follow precisely the same analytical approach as CAIR. In the
2006 Guidance, EPA stated that: ``EPA believes that the contents of the
SIP submission required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may vary depending
upon the facts and circumstances related to the specific NAAQS. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
State develops and submits a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS necessarily
affects the contents of the required submission.'' \9\ EPA also
indicated in the 2006 Guidance that it did not anticipate that sources
in states outside the geographic area covered by CAIR were
significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, in other states.\10\ As noted in the Transport Rule
Proposal, EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious
transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically
distinct. For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA believes that nonattainment and maintenance problems in the
western United States are relatively local in nature with only limited
impacts from interstate transport.\11\ In the Transport Rule Proposal,
EPA did not calculate interstate ozone or PM2.5
contributions to or from western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 2006 Guidance at 4.
\10\ Id. at 5.
\11\ See, Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP
submissions for states not evaluated in the Transport Rule Proposal may
be evaluated using a ``weight of the evidence'' approach that takes
into account available relevant information, such as that recommended
by EPA in the 2006 Guidance for states outside the area affected by
CAIR. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the amount
of emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS in question, the
meteorological conditions in the area, the distance from the state to
the nearest monitors in other states that are appropriate receptors, or
such other information as may be probative to consider whether sources
in the state may interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states. These submissions can rely on modeling when
acceptable modeling technical analyses are available, but EPA does not
believe that modeling is necessarily required if other available
information is sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree of
interstate transport in a given situation.
B. Colorado Transport SIP
To meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, the State of Colorado developed and submitted to
EPA on June 18, 2009 an Interstate Transport SIP that focused primarily
on the ``significant contribution to nonattainment'' requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and, as noted earlier, addressed only in a
limited way the interference with maintenance requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On June 3, 2010, EPA approved the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP provision that require that emissions from a
state's sources do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. To demonstrate that
emissions from Colorado do not interfere with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in neighboring states, the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP uses results from Colorado's 2009 ``8-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan'' for the DMA/NFR nonattainment area, and a report from
the Western States Air Resource (WESTAR) Council to underscore that:
(a) Local anthropogenic ozone contribution to high ozone concentrations
in Denver is only about 25%; and (b) on days of highest ozone
concentrations (reflecting a design value of 84.9 ppb) in the DMA/NFR
area, the projected design values decrease to 63 ppb or less for all
downwind Colorado counties east of an imaginary north-south line
approximately 70 miles east from Denver.\12\ EPA does not agree with
the State of Colorado Interstate Transport SIP's assessment that these
results demonstrate that ``the magnitude of ozone transport from
Colorado to other states is too low to * * * interfere with maintenance
by any other state with respect to the 0.08 ppm NAAQS'' as the sole
basis for evaluating the state's interference.\13\ The limited
contribution of local emissions to nonattainment in the DMA/NFR and the
quick drop in ozone levels in the easternmost Colorado counties, in and
by themselves do not exclude a potential for interference with
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from Colorado emissions to
downwind maintenance areas. Rather, as a reflection of emission levels,
the relatively (to the 1997 8-hour ozone
[[Page 56939]]
NAAQS) moderate ozone concentrations in eastern Colorado and in
neighboring states somewhat reduce the probability that State emissions
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by these states.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Colorado Interstate Transport SIP, December 12, 2009,
Figure 5 at 15. Note that the modeling analysis domain for the DMA/
NFR attainment plan was limited to the State's territory, and that
the 70 mile distance represents the approximate distance from Denver
to the western border of Morgan County, Colorado.
\13\ Id. at 17.
\14\ Similar evidence is provided by the substantial gap between
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the design values at monitors in
adjacent downwind states such as Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming. Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is evaluating the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP taking into
account the methodologies and analysis results developed in the
Transport Rule Proposal in response to the judicial remand of CAIR. As
noted previously, the Transport Rule Proposal includes a new approach
to determine whether emissions from a state interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by
other states. In this action, EPA is using a comparable approach to
that of the Transport Rule Proposal in order to determine if emissions
from Colorado sources interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by other states.
To evaluate ambient impacts from upwind states to maintenance
receptors, the Transport Rule Proposal evaluates, through air quality
modeling of each state's emissions, the contribution from individual
states to downwind maintenance receptors. States that contribute
pollutant concentrations below the significance threshold for
interference with maintenance, proposed at one percent of the NAAQS,
are excluded from further analysis.\15\ For the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard state contributions of 0.8 ppb and higher are considered above
the threshold, while ozone contribution less than 0.8 ppb are below the
threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Transport Rule Proposal, EPA projected future concentrations
of ozone at monitors to identify areas that are expected to be out of
attainment with NAAQS or to have difficulty maintaining compliance with
the NAAQS in 2012. To determine the states that may cause interference
at the maintenance receptors, the Transport Rule Proposal models the
states' ozone contribution to these maintenance receptors. Because the
Transport Rule Proposal does not model the contribution of emissions
from Colorado (and other western states not fully inside the Transport
Rule Proposal's modeling domain) to 8-hour ozone maintenance receptors
in other states, our assessment relies on a weight of evidence approach
that considers relevant information (such as identification of
maintenance receptors and estimates of ozone contributions) from the
Transport Rule Proposal pertaining to states within its modeling
domain, and additional material such as geographical and meteorological
factors, modeling analysis results from other studies, back trajectory
analyses, and AQS monitoring data. While conclusions reached for each
of the factors considered in the following analysis are not in and by
themselves determinative, consideration of these factors together
provides a reliable qualitative conclusion that emissions from Colorado
are not likely to interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at monitors in other states.
Our analysis begins by assessing Colorado's contribution to the
closest maintenance receptors for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The
Transport Rule Proposal identifies within its modeling domain
(consisting of 37 states east of the Rocky Mountains, and the District
of Columbia) 16 maintenance receptors, among which the eight closest to
Colorado are eight receptors in the Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) and
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The remaining eight maintenance-only sites are in a handful
of East Coast states: Connecticut, Georgia, New York and
Pennsylvania. See Table IV C-12, Transport Rule Proposal, at 45252-
253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the three DFW area maintenance receptors are in Dallas
County (Hinton Street and Dallas Executive Airport sites), and the
third is in Tarrant County (Keller site).\17\ These monitors are at
least 500 miles from Colorado.\18\ Distance by itself is not an
obstacle to long range transport of ozone and/or its precursors.
NOX, the primary ozone precursor that is the object of the
Transport Rule Proposal, may be transported for long distances, and
contribute significantly to high ozone concentrations in other states.
However, with increasing distance there are greater opportunities for
ozone or NOX dispersion and/or removal from the atmosphere
due to the effect of winds or chemical sink processes. As a result, one
may conclude that the approximately 500 miles from Colorado sources of
X emissions to the DFW area maintenance receptors reduces,
but does not exclude, the possibility that the Colorado emissions
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS at these receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The 500 mile estimate represents the approximate distance
between Lamar, in the southeastern corner of Colorado, and Dallas,
Texas. The monitors' Site ID Numbers are: Hinton, 48-113-0069;
Executive Airport, 48-113-0087; and Keller, 48-439-2003. See id. For
monitors' site names, see online TCQE web page at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/site_info.pl.
\18\ This distance underestimates the average distance covered
by emissions from Colorado sources for at least two reasons: (a)
Most Colorado sources are further north and/or west from the DFW
area than Lamar; (b) 500 miles represents the distance along a
straight pathway from Lamar to Dallas, Texas, as compared to the
pathways full of twists and turns that often characterize the long
range transport of air parcels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because pollutant transport is linked to wind direction, we examine
how frequently air masses from Colorado pass through or end in the DFW
area that includes the maintenance receptors identified above. The
State of Texas' 2007 attainment demonstration for the DFW area points
out, without quantifying contributions, how heavily the area's ozone
concentrations are affected by substantial transport from other areas.
Average ozone background levels for DFW (reflecting concentrations
contributed to the area by emissions from sources within Texas but
outside the nonattainment area, and from sources outside Texas) are
estimated to range between 44 and 61 ppb, with peak averages between 64
and 68 ppb on days when 8-hour ozone concentrations exceed the 1997
standard.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``Dallas-Fort Worth Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area:
Attainment Demonstration,'' TCEQ, May 23, 2007, p. i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate the impact of wind direction on ozone transport from
Colorado to the DFW maintenance receptors, we rely on the results of
two back trajectory studies, including a set of trajectories with end
points at the maintenance receptors in the DFW area.\20\ EPA generated
these trajectories using the HYSPLIT 4.9 online computer application,
selecting the archived Eta Data Assimilation System (EDAS)
meteorological data sets with the highest degree of resolution (40
km).\21\ Back trajectories were run for the days of the 2005-2006 years
in which ozone concentrations at these receptors exceeded the 1997 8-
hour NAAQS--i.e., monitored ozone concentrations were 85 ppb or above.
Exceedance days were identified using the Air Quality System (AQS),
EPA's repository of monitored ambient air quality data. At each
monitor, trajectories were started at 22
[[Page 56940]]
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), equivalent to 4 p.m. CST, and were
run backwards in time for 72 hours (three days). The trajectory height
at the starting point is 1500 meters above ground level. From the
individual back trajectories, ``spider web'' maps were generated for
all three monitors combined and for each monitor (Figure 1.1 and
Figures 1.1.a through 1.1.c in Appendix A of EPA's TSD).\22\ These maps
indicate that air parcel pathways from Colorado and ending at
maintenance receptors in Dallas and Tarrant Counties are rare during
the three days preceding ozone exceedances at these receptors. On only
one day, of the 35 exceedance days at maintenance receptors in 2005-
2006, did the air mass pathway go through Colorado, and even in this
one instance air parcels crossed the State along a short pathway
through its northeast corner, before continuing on their southeastward
course.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ USEPA Region 8 mapped back trajectories using software and
data files maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Air Resource Laboratory (ARL).
\21\ Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., HYSPLIT (HYbrid Single-
Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) Model (2010), available
via NOAA ARL READY Web site, http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT.php.
NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD. See also Rolph,
G.D., Real-time Environmental Applications and Display sYstem
(READY) Web site (2010), http://ready.arl.noaa.gov. NOAA Air
Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD.
\22\ See back trajectory maps in Appendix A of the EPA's TSD
supporting documentation in Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035.
\23\ EPA's TSD is available for review as part of the supporting
documentation for Docket ID N. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back trajectory analysis results included in the May 23, 2007 DFW
area Attainment Demonstration corroborate these conclusions. The
analysis, also based on the HYSPLIT model, includes all days during the
years 2001-2003, with trajectories of 48 hours (2 days) duration,
heights of 100, 500 and 1300 meters, and start times of 20, 21 and 22
UTC (2, 3, and 4 p.m. CST). The resulting density plots in Figure 3-1
of the DFW attainment demonstration clearly show that during most of
the ozone season, on high and low ozone days, air parcels from Colorado
infrequently end in or pass through the DFW area.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Dallas-Fort Worth Attainment Demonstration, May 23, 2007,
at 3-1 to 3-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because back trajectory analysis results map pathways of air
parcels that may or may not transport pollutants, they cannot be
considered determinative as to the transport of ozone and its
precursors, or of the absence of such transport, from Colorado
emissions. However, the rarity of air parcel trajectories from Colorado
to the DFW area and to its maintenance receptors strongly support the
conclusion that emissions of ozone and its precursors from Colorado are
not likely to interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS at
these receptors.
A final piece of evidence of a different type is found in a
modeling analysis developed by EPA to assist the State of New Mexico in
its assessment of ozone and PM2.5 transport from New Mexico
to other states. This modeling analysis, part of the New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP submission of July 30, 2007, relies on data
developed by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP)
that includes a 2002 third quarter CENRAP modeling dataset.\25\ It is
based on a 36 km national grid that includes Colorado, and uses the
ozone source apportionment tool (OSAT) to determine potential linkages
between state emissions and downwind states.\26\ Modeling results
indicate that at the height of the 2002 ozone season, the highest ozone
contribution from Colorado emissions to the DFW monitors (including its
maintenance receptors) averaged 0.4 ppb or less. That is well below the
contribution threshold of 0.8 ppb, used in the proposed Transport Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ``New Mexico State Interstate Transport SIP,'' submitted to
EPA July 30, 2007: Appendix D, Exhibit 9 Modeling Data and Report
for New Mexico,'' at 2.
\26\ For details on the model and on the analysis see: id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other five Texas monitors identified by the Transport Rule
Proposal as maintenance-only receptors in Texas are located in Harris
County, which lies within the HGB nonattainment area. This area is at
least 700 miles from Colorado.\27\ General considerations on the effect
of distance on ozone transport from Colorado to the DFW area, discussed
above, also apply to the potential for transport from Colorado to the
maintenance receptors in the HGB area. The greater distance (by about
one third) between Colorado and the HGB area increases the chance for
dispersion of any Colorado ozone during its transport to HGB
maintenance receptors, and increases the odds for air masses from
Colorado to pick up greater quantities of ozone and/or precursors
during their longer travel through emissions rich Texas. Again, these
considerations reduce, but do not exclude, the possibility of emissions
from Colorado interfering with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at
the HGB maintenance receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The 700-mile estimate represents the approximate distance
between Lamar, in the southeastern corner of Colorado, and Houston,
Texas. The five monitoring sites' names (ID No.) are: Aldine (48-
201-0024), Northwest Harris (48-201-0029), Lynchburg Ferry (48-201-
1015), Clinton (48-201-1035), and Seabrook Friendship Park (48-201-
1050). The approximate 850-mile distance between Denver and Houston
is intended to represent the distance to be covered by the emissions
from Colorado to the five maintenance monitors. It is to be noted
that the measured distance represents that of the straight (and
shortest) path, which does not reflect the more circuitous paths
followed by air parcels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar conclusion is suggested by the EPA back trajectories
mapped for the HGB maintenance receptors. Using the same online HYSPLIT
4.9 online computer application as for the DFW trajectories,\28\ EPA
ran back trajectories from the HGB area maintenance receptors for all
2005-2006 ozone exceedances days. The pathways of air parcels ending
at, or passing through, these monitors when ozone concentrations
reached levels of 85 ppb or higher are shown in Figure 2.1 of Appendix
A in EPA's supporting documentation. At each monitor, trajectories
started at 22 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), equivalent to 4 p.m.
CST, and ran backwards in time for 72 hours (three days), at 1500
meters above ground level.\29\ Results show that air parcel pathways
passing 1500 meters above the HGB maintenance receptors at 4 p.m. on
exceedance days rarely came from Colorado. Figure 3 of the back
trajectories report shows that only in one out of 53 exceedance days at
the maintenance receptors did the air parcel's pathway go through
Colorado. Even in this one instance, the pathway crossed Colorado for a
very short distance through the State's northeast corner, before
continuing on its southeastward course.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See note 24 above.
\29\ See Table 1, EPA's ``Back Trajectories Analysis
Documentation,'' Table 1.
\30\ The trajectory's path that ended at the Northwest Harris
receptor on August 31, 2006, is almost the same as the one that on
June 15, 2005 ended at the Keller receptor in Tarrant. This is
likely to be a coincidence, or an indication about the pathways of
air masses that go through eastern Colorado before ending in eastern
Texas (DFW and HGB areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back trajectory analysis results from a 2009 report, ``Effects of
Meteorology on Pollutant Trends'' report, corroborate these
conclusions. The analysis uses HYSPLIT with EDAS meteorological
datasets to plot 72-hour back trajectories centered in Houston, at 300
meters height and for various times of the day. Trajectories are
plotted for all days with available data between May 1 and October 31,
2000-2007. A clustering algorithm built into HYSPLIT is used to group
individual back trajectories into several classes based on shape and
direction.\31\ Due to the greater number of days plotted, the six
clusters of trajectories shown in Figures 6-17 to 6-22 include a much
larger number of air parcel pathways than EPA's back
[[Page 56941]]
trajectory analysis referenced above, but still show similar results
concerning trajectories from Colorado. Air parcels from Colorado to the
Houston area are rare, as shown by the few trajectories from Colorado
in cluster 3 (Figure 6-19) as compared with the total sample of 1416
trajectories included in the six clusters. Figure 6-15 summarizes
effectively the overall scarcity of wind pathways from Colorado, and
from the west/lower northwest sector in general, to the HGB area. It
shows the mean centerlines for the six identified clusters, and at
their closest point to Colorado's borders the mean centerline (number
3) is still at an estimated distance of approximately 200 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Dave Sullivan, ``Effects of Meteorology on Pollutant
Trends,'' March 16, 2009, at 27-34. This report is available as one
of the documents in EPA's TSD documentation, and may also be
reviewed online at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/am/contracts/reports/da/5820586245FY0801-20090316-ut-met_effects_on_pollutant_trends.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, back trajectories map pathways of air parcels that may or
may not transport pollutants, and they cannot be considered
determinative as to the transport of ozone and its precursors. However,
the infrequency of air parcels trajectories from Colorado to the HGB
area in general, and to its maintenance receptors in particular,
strongly support the conclusion that ozone precursors' emissions and
ozone from Colorado are not likely to interfere with maintenance of the
1997 ozone NAAQS at these receptors.
The EPA modeling analysis referenced earlier (concerning
contribution from Colorado sources to the DFW area) includes
information on the contribution of the State emissions to the HGB area
as well. The 2002 modeled contribution from Colorado ozone emissions to
the HGB area is estimated at 0.3 ppb or less. This fraction of the
significant contribution threshold of 0.8 ppb, set in EPA's Transport
Rule Proposal of August 2, 2010, strengthens our assessment that
Colorado emissions are unlikely to interfere with maintenance of the
1997 ozone NAAQS at the HGB maintenance receptors.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ New Mexico State Interstate Transport SIP, 2007, Appendix
D, at 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, eight of the 16 maintenance receptors
identified within the modeling by the Transport Rule Proposal analysis
are in a handful of East Coast states: Connecticut, Georgia, New York
and Pennsylvania.\33\ The westernmost states ``linked'' by the
Transport Rule Proposal to the eight maintenance receptors in these
states include Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. None of the
13 states west of these contributing states and east of Colorado (such
as North and South Dakota and Nebraska) was found to contribute
significantly to the maintenance receptors in the east.\34\ In
addition, among the 13 non-contributing states closer than Colorado to
the maintenance receptors in the east, there are states such as
Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana that in
2005 had NOX emissions up to twice as high as Colorado's.
Because the analysis for the Transport Rule Proposal found that these
states with substantially larger NOX emissions than
Colorado, and closer than Colorado to the maintenance receptors in the
east, do not to contribute significantly to maintenance receptors in
Connecticut, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania, it is logical to
conclude that it is quite unlikely for Colorado emissions to interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at these same
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Table IV C-12, Transport Rule, at 196-197.
\34\ In addition to North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, the
13 states include: Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Louisiana. Table IV-C-
21, Transport Rule Proposal, at 45269-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assist in the evaluation of whether states' emissions interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in western states, EPA has developed,
independent of the Transport Rule Proposal, a modeling analysis
identifying monitors at risk for maintenance of the NAAQS within a
modeling domain that includes the western states.\35\ The analysis
presented in the memo, ``Documentation of Future Year Ozone and Annual
PM2.5 Design Values for Western States'' (Western States
Design Values), uses model results from the Transport Rule modeling
Continental U.S. 36 km grid, which is coarser than the 12 km grid used
in the Transport Rule, but does not necessarily yield less reliable
results.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ A memorandum in the docket for this action provides the
information EPA used in order to identify monitors that are
receptors for evaluation of interference with maintenance for
certain states in the western United States. See, Memorandum from
Brian Timin of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Air Quality Modeling Group entitled ``Documentation of Future Year
Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Western States''
``Memorandum to Docket EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035,'' EPA, August 23,
2010.
\36\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's modeling analysis of western states to determine the monitors
that are at risk for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
identifies only four such maintenance receptors, and all four are in
California, in Mercer, Placer, Riverside, and Sacramento Counties.
Distance and topography are not favorable to ozone transport from
Denver, which is approximately 750 miles east of the monitors in Placer
and Sacramento Counties, and 850 miles northeast to a Riverside County
monitor. In the absence of significant northwesterly regional transport
winds, mountain ranges between Denver and the California maintenance
receptors, such as the Rocky Mountains, the Wasatch and the Sierra
Nevada, present large obstacles to ozone transport from Colorado to
California. Thus, geography and topography reduce the likelihood of
transport from Colorado to California's maintenance receptors.
Prevailing wind orientation in fact strongly supports the
conclusion that Colorado's emissions are unlikely to interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in California. West of
the Continental Divide the prevailing winds generally move from south-
westerly, westerly, or north-westerly directions, as indicated by the
typical movement of weather systems. To further evaluate the direction
of regional transport winds affecting the California maintenance
receptors, we have plotted back trajectories starting at each
maintenance receptor on high ozone days. High ozone days include the
top one-third of the exceedance days (for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS)
registered at each monitor in 2005 and 2006. As shown by the
trajectories mapped for all four maintenance receptors in Figure 3.1,
Appendix A of EPA's supporting documentation, on high ozone days air
parcels converge on the Mercer, Placer, Sacramento and Riverside
monitors from the northwest, south and southeast, but there are no
pathways from the east/northeast directions reaching even as far as the
eastern Nevada border, let alone Colorado.
For a large number of receptors in western states, EPA's modeling
analysis could not calculate 2012 projected design values because these
receptors did not have at least 5 days with base year concentrations
equal to or greater than 70 ppb, as required by EPA's modeling
guidance. However, the observed maximum design values at these sites in
the 2003-2007 period were generally well below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The highest (non-California \37\) site had a maximum design value of 77
ppb. Additionally, the 2012 modeling results at western monitors (where
a future year design value could be estimated, shows a
[[Page 56942]]
downward trend in ozone. There are no areas in the West where ozone is
predicted to be higher in 2012 (without CAIR) compared to 2005. On
these bases it is plausible to conclude that it is highly unlikely, but
not impossible, for these monitors to be at risk for maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ We are excluding the California monitors from this portion
of our analysis because above we have already demonstrated that
Colorado's emissions are unlikely to interfere with maintenance at
the modeled California maintenance monitors in the northern, central
and southern sections of the state. The factors we considered--
distance, topography, and wind orientation--apply equally to the un-
modeled monitors and make it plausible to conclude that the same
demonstration is true for Colorado emissions' impact on California
non-modeled monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the variety of data and the weight of evidence
analysis presented in this section support the position of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP (adopted into the State SIP on December 30,
2008 and submitted to EPA June 18, 2009) that emissions from Colorado
do not interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by any
other state, consistent with the requirements of element (2) of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
VI. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado SIP to meet the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. Specifically, in this action EPA is proposing to
approve only the language and demonstration that address the
requirements of element (2): Prohibition of interference with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by any other state. EPA
approved in a June 3, 2010 final action the language and demonstration
addressing element (1): Prohibition of significant contribution to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
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: September 9, 2010.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-23294 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P