[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18716-18723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9948]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CO-001-0016; FRL-5802-6]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of PM10
Implementation Plan for Denver, CO
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Governor of Colorado for the purpose of bringing about
the attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) in the Denver area. The SIP
revisions were submitted to satisfy certain Federal requirements for an
approvable moderate nonattainment area PM10 SIP for Denver and,
among other things, contain enforceable control measures. The bulk of
the revisions were submitted on March 30, 1995. Revisions to Colorado
Regulation No. 13 (oxygenated fuels), which is one of the control
measures relied on in the SIP, were adopted by the Air Quality Control
Commission
[[Page 18717]]
(AQCC) on October 19, 1995 and submitted to EPA on December 22, 1995.
EPA proposed to approve the March 30, 1995 submission on October 3,
1996. On December 6, 1996, EPA published a supplemental proposal to
approve the Denver PM10 SIP based on the October 19, 1995 version
of Regulation No. 13 rather than the prior version. This action
supersedes EPA's July 25, 1994, final limited approval of certain
control measures found in the State's June 7, 1993 Denver PM10 SIP
submittal.
DATES This action will become effective on May 19, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other information are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Air Programs,
999 18th Street, 3rd Floor, South Terrace, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466;
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South,
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530; and the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Videtich at (303) 312-6434.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Denver, Colorado area was designated nonattainment for
PM10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and
188(a) of the Act, upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.306
(specifying PM10 nonattainment designation for the Denver
metropolitan area). The air quality planning requirements for moderate
PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in Part D, Subparts 1 and 4,
of Title I of the Act. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
\2\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and
Subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the Act, including those State submittals
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more
detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title I advanced in this
action and the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action on the
Colorado moderate PM10 SIP for the Denver nonattainment area, EPA
is applying its interpretations considering the specific factual issues
presented.
Those States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas (those areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)(B)
of the Act) were required to submit, among other things, the following
plan provisions by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions were due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a new
source review (NSR) permit program for the construction and operation
of new and modified major stationary sources of PM10 by June 30,
1992 (see section 189(a)). On January 14, 1993, the State submitted
regulation revisions for the construction of new and modified major
stationary sources. On August 18, 1994, EPA partially approved the
State's NSR program for the Denver PM10 nonattainment area because
the State had not yet submitted NSR provisions for sources of PM10
precursors (i.e., NOX and SO2) in the Denver area (see 59 FR
42300). On August 25, 1994, Colorado submitted additional NSR
provisions for precursor emissions. EPA took final action on that SIP
submittal on January 21, 1997 (62 FR 2910). Thus, the State has a
fully-approved NSR permitting program in place for the Denver moderate
PM10 nonattainment area.
States were also required to submit contingency measures for
PM10 moderate nonattainment areas by November 15, 1993. The
contingency measures for the Denver PM10 nonattainment area were
initially submitted by the Governor on December 9, 1993. However, those
control measures were later incorporated into the revised March 30,
1995 PM10 SIP to help demonstrate attainment and maintenance.
Thus, the State developed new contingency measures, and on November 17,
1995, the Governor submitted those measures to EPA. EPA took direct
final rulemaking action on the contingency measures SIP submittal on
September 23, 1996 (61 FR 49682). Because no adverse comments were
received for the direct final rulemaking, the rule became effective on
December 23, 1996.
On June 7, 1993, the Governor submitted a SIP for Denver to EPA
which was intended to satisfy those elements due November 15, 1991. On
December 20, 1993, EPA proposed to conditionally approve that SIP and
also proposed to approve the SIP's control measures for their limited
purpose of strengthening the Colorado SIP (58 FR 66326). On July 25,
1994, EPA granted limited approval of the control measures for the
limited purpose of strengthening the SIP (59 FR 37698).
During review of the technical information supporting the June 1993
SIP, EPA examined information which raised concerns about the accuracy
of the SIP's attainment demonstration. The SIP's technical support
documentation suggested that the contribution from PM10
``precursors'' (i.e., NOX and SO2) in the base year winter
season may have been underestimated. Since the attainment demonstration
provided with that SIP predicted a value of 149.9 g/m3
over 24 hours, virtually any increase in precursor PM10 levels
would result in predicted violations of the 24-hour standard.
In the December 20, 1993, proposed rulemaking action, EPA requested
public comment on its proposal to grant conditional approval of the SIP
in light of the precursor issue. EPA reviewed the information submitted
during the public comment period and concluded that precursors were
underestimated by 5.4 g/m.\3\ Based upon this finding, EPA
[[Page 18718]]
delayed taking final action on the proposed conditional approval to
allow the State an opportunity to develop additional controls to offset
this increase. EPA never proceeded with the conditional approval. On
March 30, 1995, the Governor submitted a SIP revision intended to
provide controls to offset the increase in precursor emissions and
provide credible attainment and maintenance demonstrations. Based on
this SIP revision, EPA proposed approval of the PM10 SIP on
October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51631).
On July 18, 1995, and April 22, 1996, the Governor submitted
additional revisions to the SIP which establish mobile source emissions
budgets for PM10 and NOX. These budgets are used under EPA
regulations for making transportation related conformity determinations
as required by section 176(c) of the Act. EPA's transportation
conformity rule provides that these budgets establish a cap on motor
vehicle-related emissions which cannot be exceeded by the predicted
transportation system emissions in the future unless the cap is amended
by the State and approved by EPA as a SIP revision and attainment and
maintenance of the standard can be demonstrated. EPA proposed approval
of these emissions budgets on October 3, 1996 along with the Denver
PM10 SIP. However, EPA is not taking final action on the two
emissions budgets in order to more thoroughly consider comments
received during the public comment period. These emissions budgets are
not necessary to meet the Act's requirements for moderate PM10
nonattainment areas and, therefore, will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking.
EPA became aware after proposing approval of the PM10 SIP that
the version of Regulation No. 13 (oxygenated fuels) that was one of the
control measures relied on in the Denver PM10 SIP had been
replaced by the October 19, 1995 version of Regulation No. 13. The
Governor submitted this version to EPA as a SIP revision on December
22, 1995. The October 19, 1995 version eliminates the last two weeks
from the program and calls for a 3.1% program rather than a 2.7%
program. On December 6, 1996 (61 FR 64647) EPA published a supplemental
document that, among other things, proposed to approve the Denver
PM10 SIP with the October 19, 1995 version of Regulation No. 13
substituted for the prior version. EPA received no comments regarding
this aspect of the supplemental document and is proceeding with its
approval of the Denver PM10 SIP based on the October 19, 1995
version of Regulation No. 13.
EPA has already approved the October 19, 1995 version of Regulation
No. 13 as part of the Denver carbon monoxide (CO) SIP. The acting
Regional Administrator for EPA Region VIII signed a Federal Register
document approving the Denver CO SIP on January 31, 1997, but at the
time this document was prepared, that approval had not yet been
published in the Federal Register.
II. Response to Public Comments
EPA received numerous comments on its proposed approval of the
Denver PM10 SIP and the PM10 and NOX emissions budgets.
In this document, EPA is addressing only those comments submitted on
the Denver PM10 SIP. The comments received regarding the emissions
budgets will be addressed in a later rulemaking action. The comments
received on the Denver PM10 SIP and EPA's responses follow.
1. The SIP revision fails to contain control measures to limit
motor vehicle emissions from current vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or
revised projections of VMT growth and does not provide for attainment.
As EPA noted in its approval of the Denver CO SIP, the Denver
Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) produced revised estimates of
daily vehicle miles traveled in the summer and fall of 1996. In early
1996, DRCOG made some improvements to its transportation demand model
(used for transportation planning, and to produce estimates of future
VMT and speeds for air quality planning purposes) and validated the
model with actual 1995 traffic counts recorded in Denver. These
adjustments led to revised estimates of approximately 49 million miles
per day of traffic in the Denver area (the previous modeled estimate
had been approximately 45 million miles per day). The commentor
referred to these revised estimates and suggested that EPA should
disapprove the SIP on this basis, or conditionally approve the SIP and
request that the State submit additional controls.
EPA believes that the increases in VMT are not sufficient to
warrant revisions to the PM10 SIP or its disapproval. EPA believes
that it is reasonable to allow some margin of error for VMT projections
in attainment demonstrations. This is because these projections are by
their nature inexact. For CO SIPs, EPA has recognized this in the
General Preamble and other guidance (see 57 FR 13532 and Section 187
VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance, January 1992). EPA applied these
policies in its approval of the Denver CO SIP and believes it is
reasonable to extend them to the Denver PM10 SIP.
It must be emphasized that only part of the estimated VMT increase
is due to actual growth in traffic in the Denver region; the rest is
due to use of improved methodologies for traffic counting in the
region. For this reason, EPA believes it is more appropriate to
consider the impact of actual growth in VMT by examining counts based
on a consistent methodology, that is, the HPMS-based VMT Tracking
Program. In November 1996, Colorado submitted its 1996 report of 1995
actual annual VMT, as required by section 187 of the Act for CO SIPs.
This report showed that actual 1995 VMT were 4.4% greater than the CO
SIP projections and 1.3% greater than the most recent revised
projection for 1995. These exceedances are within the allowable limits
of EPA's VMT Tracking Program guidance for CO SIPs (5.0% and 3.0% for
the respective VMT projections). EPA established these tolerances in
recognition of the uncertainty inherent in attempting to measure actual
VMT in a large urban area. Since the most recent reported actual annual
VMT is within these allowable tolerances, EPA is not requiring the
State to revise either the CO or PM10 SIPs.
One other factor that should be noted is that virtually all of the
growth in the metro area has occurred not in the downtown area, where
the violations of the NAAQS have been monitored, but in outlying
portions of the metro area. Thus, EPA would expect that VMT in the
downtown area would increase at a lower rate than VMT for the metro
area as a whole. This is supported by traffic counts at locations near
downtown, which show that traffic in the central area increased at a
rate of approximately 2-3% per year between 1990 and 1995, even though
DRCOG estimates that traffic has increased approximately 4.5% per year
region wide.
2. Enforceability requirements of the Act are not satisfied for
some control measures. EPA and the State lack enforcement authority for
woodburning control measures relied on in the SIP.
The commentor indicates that although the State's woodburning
program requires that certification programs for new or replaced stoves
be enforced through local building codes, there is no provision for
enforcement by the State in the event the local government fails to
adopt the certification requirement or fails to enforce the code. In
fact, Regulation No. 4, Section II.A, prohibits the sale of wood stoves
that do not meet the
[[Page 18719]]
emission standards of 40 CFR 60.532(b)(1) or (2). There is no exemption
in the regulation for areas with local prohibitions. Thus, the State
has the ability to directly enforce the certification program for
woodburning stoves. And, because this provision will be part of the
SIP, EPA and citizens will also be able to enforce it.
For new and remodeled woodburning fireplaces, it is true that local
building codes and ordinances serve as the primary mechanism for
implementation and enforcement. However, Section VIII of Regulation No.
4 requires the local jurisdictions to implement and enforce the local
codes and ordinances. The State has the authority to enforce this
requirement for implementation and enforcement. (See 25-7-115(l)(a),
C.R.S.) Because this requirement is being approved by EPA, EPA and
citizens will also have the ability to enforce it. Also, it appears
that because these local codes and ordinances have been adopted as part
of the SIP, the State may have the ability to enforce them directly
pursuant to 25-7-128(l), C.R.S. EPA is approving them as part of the
SIP, which will enable EPA and citizens to enforce them.
For any local jurisdiction that has not adopted the relevant
provisions for fireplaces into a building code or ordinance as of
January 1, 1993, Section VII.A of Regulation No. 4 prohibits the
installation of a fireplace unless it is of a type specified in Section
VII.A. The State may enforce this requirement. Because EPA is approving
this requirement, EPA and citizens will also have the ability to
enforce it.
3. VMT reduction measures are not adopted measures and are not
enforceable.
One commentor mentioned that several programs and projects
administered by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver
were included in the SIP modeling, but were not adopted as
transportation control measures and/or made enforceable. These projects
include RTD's MAC light rail line, bus service to Denver International
Airport, and three discount/free bus pass programs. All of these
programs have been implemented, and the SIP's assumption that these
activities would continue to be implemented seems reasonable to EPA.
The MAC light rail line is a vital transportation link to downtown and
serves as the starting point for a second line proceeding down the
southwest corridor, which has been approved and is under development,
and a proposed third line in the southeast corridor, which is currently
being evaluated as part of a Major Investment Study in that corridor.
Bus service to the airport has been implemented, and there are no
current plans to discontinue it. The discount bus pass programs
mentioned in the SIP have proven quite popular, helping to ensure their
continuation. It seems more reasonable for the SIP to assume that these
RTD activities would continue than to assume they would be terminated.
States are authorized to base SIP emission inventories on
reasonable assumptions regarding the makeup of the transportation
network in future years. Most of the inputs to the transportation
modeling process represent informed assumptions, including the extent
and location of population and employment, speeds, mode choice, and
participation in trip-reduction activities. The impacts of these
assumptions by their nature are impractical to make enforceable; there
are no mechanisms through which the SIP can force population growth to
occur in one area and not another, or can force citizens to participate
in carpools or ride the bus. Likewise, assumptions about the future
transportation network are reflected in the transportation data used to
generate the inventory, but are not practical to make enforceable. Each
transportation project in the transportation plan and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) would have to be included in the SIP, and the
SIP would have to be revised each time a new plan and TIP were
generated. Also, many projects which do not reduce VMT still have a
localized benefit for air quality such as the E470 beltway, which
reduces CO in the central metro area. However, it would be
inappropriate to include a VMT- and emissions-generating project like
E470 in an SIP as a control measure.
4. Modeling. One commentor criticized the accuracy of DRCOG's
transportation modeling, and cited concerns from Environmental Defense
Fund's Michael Replogle. The commentor did not supply a copy of Mr.
Replogle's testimony and EPA does not have it in its possession. Thus,
EPA has no basis to respond to specific concerns Mr. Replogle might
have had. However, EPA believes the transportation modeling for the SIP
was adequate and consistent with EPA guidance. EPA's guidance
(Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections, EPA-450/4-91-019, July
1991) establishes minimum criteria for network modeling which DRCOG has
met. In fact, DRCOG has exceeded guidance requirements, which would
allow the use of less robust methods than network modeling. For
example, the New York City CO SIP (which EPA has also approved) was not
based on network modeling. EPA's guidance generally advises states to
use the best tools they have available. Neither EPA's inventory nor SIP
guidance is written in such a way as to advance the state of the art of
VMT modeling in areas required to prepare SIPs or to require these
areas to address every identifiable shortcoming with their particular
modeling techniques. Regarding the commentor's assertions about VMT
growth since the SIP was submitted, the reader should refer to EPA's
response, above, regarding this issue.
5. The regional network. One commentor stated that the DRCOG
regional transportation network could not be properly used for SIP
purposes because of inaccurate assumptions made within the modeling
regarding whether certain projects would or would not be built.
The commentor specifically noted that the construction of the final
segment of E470 was not included in DRCOG's long-range transportation
modeling, ostensibly because funding was not available for that
project, while several light rail projects were included in the
modeling even though funding for those projects is not certain.
However, none of these projects were intended to be completed during
the timeframe of the SIP's attainment and maintenance demonstrations
(i.e., by the end of December 1998) and are not included in the SIP
modeling. Thus, EPA's approval of the SIP is not affected in any way by
the implementation or delay of these projects.
The commentor also states that its ALTLOP--alternative list of
projects--would have produced lesser growth in PM10 than DRCOG's
list of projects. EPA notes that it cannot substitute its judgement for
the State's or DRCOG's regarding which projects or controls to
implement as long as the Act's requirements are met. The SIP
demonstrates attainment and maintenance of the PM10 standard with
the mix of projects selected by DRCOG.
6. Monitoring and air sampling. A commentor indicated that further
information would be forthcoming relating to continuity of monitoring,
siting of monitors and whether tire wear particles are properly
accounted for. EPA did not receive any further information on this
subject and so has no basis upon which to respond. It should be noted
that Colorado's State-wide SIP, which includes the Denver monitoring
network, was reviewed and approved by EPA on September 23, 1993 (see 58
FR 49434) as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58, and
the appendices to Part 50.
[[Page 18720]]
7. Conformity. One commentor makes comments under this heading that
go to the validity of the SIP. The commentor suggests that a value of
149.9 g/m3 is too close to the NAAQS of 150 g/
m3 to be considered attainment, particularly when the projections
used to effect this razor thin margin are acknowledged to have been
``low''. Regarding the 149.9 g/m3 value, EPA regulations
dictate that this value is considered attainment of the standard. See
40 CFR 50.6 and Part 50, Appendix K. By ``projections'', EPA assumes
the commentor is referring to the VMT projections relied on for the
attainment and maintenance demonstrations. As explained in response to
another comment, above, the difference between estimates of actual VMT
and projections of VMT contained in the SIP falls within a reasonable
margin of error and does not warrant a revision to or disapproval of
the SIP. The reader should refer to the comment and response, above,
for a more complete discussion of this issue.
The last sentence of the commentor's comment appears to relate to
the emissions budgets. EPA is not acting on the budgets in this action
and will defer its response until it acts on the budgets.
8. Other. One commentor endorsed EPA's proposed approval of the
Denver element of the PM10 SIP, citing air quality monitoring data
collected since 1992 that is below the current standard as evidence
that the plan is working. This comment requires no response.
III. This Action
EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by the Governor of
Colorado for the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the NAAQS
for PM10. The revisions were submitted to satisfy certain federal
requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. The bulk of
the revisions were adopted by the AQCC on October 20, 1994 with an
amendment on December 15, 1994 and were submitted by the Governor on
March 30, 1995. However, revisions to Regulation No. 13 (oxygenated
fuels) were adopted by the AQCC on October 19, 1995 and submitted to
EPA on December 22, 1995. EPA is basing its approval of the PM10
SIP on this October 19, 1995 version of Regulation No. 13 rather than
the version relied on in the March 30, 1995 submission. Also, the State
submitted a number of technical support documents to EPA after the
original June 7, 1993 PM10 SIP submittal that explain or are
relied on by the March 30, 1995 submittal and comprise part of the
basis for EPA's approval. These documents were submitted on June 8,
1993, June 10, 1993, June 25, 1993, July 19, 1993, August 5, 1993,
September 3, 1993, September 21, 1993, October 20, 1993, December 12,
1993, January 19, 1994, December 23, 1994, March 3, 1995, and November
8, 1995.
It should be noted that the March 30, 1995 submission, in addition
to including new control measures, also relies on control measures to
which EPA granted limited approval on July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37698). The
current action granting full approval to the PM10 SIP supersedes
EPA's limited approval. To avoid confusion, EPA is referencing in the
regulatory materials that are part of this document both new provisions
and provisions to which EPA gave limited approval in its July 25, 1994
action. These later provisions include portions of Regulation No. 1 and
Regulation No. 4 that, through administrative error, EPA inadvertently
failed to reference in the incorporation by reference section of the
July 1994 action. To correct this clerical error, EPA is now
incorporating all of Regulation No. 4, and all of Regulation No. 1
except Section V. As noted in EPA's action of December 3, 1986 (51 FR
43610), the sources subject to Section V of Regulation No. 1 are no
longer operating, and thus, there is no reason to act on Section V.
EPA is approving the control strategies that are relied upon in the
March 30, 1995 submission as well as the attainment and maintenance
demonstrations contained therein. EPA views the following measures as
reasonable, enforceable, and responsible for PM10 emissions
reductions in the Denver PM10 nonattainment area: (1) Colorado
Regulation No. 4 which regulates residential wood burning; (2) local
woodburning ordinances and resolutions; (3) Colorado Regulation No. 16
which establishes street sanding and sweeping requirements; (4) the
federal tailpipe standards, which provide an ongoing benefit due to
fleet turnover, and Colorado Regulations 11, 12, and 13 which were
developed by the State and approved by EPA independently from the
PM10 SIP but are included because of their particulate emission
reduction benefit; (5) Colorado Regulation No. 1, which provides
stationary source emission control regulations for particulates,
smokes, carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides 3; and (6) individual
stationary source permit revisions for Public Service Company Cherokee
facility, Purina Mills, Electron Corporation, TRIGEN--Colorado Energy
Corporation 4, Rocky Mountain Bottle Company, Conoco Refinery, and
Adolph Coors Brewery. The State's submission demonstrates attainment of
the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994, with continued maintenance of
the standard through December 31, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Carbon monoxide is not relevant to the PM10 SIP.
However, EPA is incorporating by reference Section IX of Regulation
No. 1 that relates to CO to accurately reflect the reorganization of
the regulation.
\4\ Permit changes for TRIGEN achieve PM10 SIP precursor
emission reductions to accommodate precursor emission increases at
the Rocky Mountain Bottle facility (formerly the Coors Glass Plant).
While these revisions to the emissions limits are acceptable for
meeting RACM/RACT requirements, EPA's action herein regarding these
limits does not in any manner relieve these companies of the
obligation to comply with any nonattainment NSR permitting
requirements that might apply to such changes in emissions limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed discussion of the individual source contributions
and their associated control measures (including available control
technology) can be found in the Technical Support Document accompanying
EPA's October 3, 1996 proposed approval of the Denver moderate
PM10 nonattainment area SIP (61 FR 51631). As noted elsewhere in
this action, EPA received comments on the proposed action to approve
the Denver PM10 SIP. EPA believes that the responses set forth in
this action adequately address the comments and is proceeding with the
approval as proposed.
EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the Act. EPA has
determined that this action conforms to those requirements.
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 any SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Executive Order (EO) 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
these regulatory actions from EO 12866 review.
V. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify
[[Page 18721]]
that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with
jurisdiction over populations that are less than 50,000.
SIP revision approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D,
of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval process does not impose any new requirements, EPA
certifies that this final rule would not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State actions. The CAA forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-266 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section
7410(a)(2).
VI. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that today's final approval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. These Federal actions approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and impose no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from these
actions.
VII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller of the General
Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
VIII. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 16, 1997. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 28, 1997.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart G--Colorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(82) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(82) The Governor of Colorado submitted the Denver moderate
nonattainment area PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) with a
letter dated March 30, 1995. The Governor submitted revisions to
Regulation No. 13, one of the control measures relied on in the
PM10 SIP, on December 22, 1995. These submittals as well as
support documentation submittals made on June 8, 1993, June 10, 1993,
June 25, 1993, July 19, 1993, August 5, 1993, September 3, 1993,
September 21, 1993, October 20, 1993, December 12, 1993, January 19,
1994, December 23, 1994, March 3, 1995, and November 8, 1995 satisfy
those moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements due for
the Denver PM10 nonattainment area on November 15, 1991. EPA is
approving the SIP. This approval replaces the previous limited approval
at 40 CFR 52.320(c)(61).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation No. 4, ``Regulation on the Sale of New Woodstoves
and the Use of Certain Woodburning Appliances During High Pollution
Days,'' 5 CCR 1001-6, as adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission
on June 24, 1993, effective August 30, 1993.
(B) Local woodburning ordinances and resolutions.
(1) Arvada, Colorado. Ordinance number 2451, effective November 2,
1987, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(2) Aurora, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 87-118 and 92-14, effective
May 22, 1987 and May 22, 1992, respectively, regarding woodburning
restrictions.
(3) Boulder, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 5007 and 5445, adopted
November 25, 1986 and April 21, 1992, respectively, regarding
woodburning restrictions.
(4) Broomfield, Colorado. Ordinance number 794, effective November
24, 1988, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(5) Denver, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 293 and 1018, approved May
30, 1990 and December 16, 1993, respectively, regarding woodburning
restrictions.
(6) Douglas County, Colorado. Resolution number 991-128, adopted
November 14, 1991, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(7) Englewood, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 31 and 39, passed on
July 20, 1992, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(8) Federal Heights, Colorado. Ordinance number 565, adopted
January 5, 1988, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(9) Glendale, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 2 and 14, adopted January
5, 1988 and effective on October 20, 1992, respectively, regarding
woodburning restrictions.
(10) Greenwood Village, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 17 and 9,
effective July 9, 1988 and March 25, 1992, respectively, regarding
woodburning restrictions.
[[Page 18722]]
(11) Jefferson County, Colorado. Resolution numbers CC89-873 and
CC90-617, dated December 29, 1989 and August 7, 1990, respectively,
regarding woodburning restrictions.
(12) Lafayette, Colorado. Ordinance number 24; series 1988,
effective November 15, 1988, regarding woodburning prohibitions.
(13) Lakewood, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 0-86-113 and 0-92-61,
effective December 1, 1986 and November 28, 1992, respectively,
regarding woodburning restrictions.
(14) Littleton, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 51 and 26, passed on
December 6, 1988 and August 18, 1992, respectively, regarding
woodburning restrictions.
(15) Longmont, Colorado. Ordinance number 0-89-1, adopted December
27, 1988, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(16) Mountain View, Colorado. Ordinance number 90-5, approved on
January 7, 1991, regarding woodburning restrictions.
(17) Sheridan, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 22 and 1, approved
October 25, 1988 and February 9, 1993, respectively, regarding
woodburning restrictions.
(18) Thornton, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 2120 and 2194, adopted
October 28, 1991 and September 28, 1992, respectively, regarding
woodburning restrictions.
(19) Westminster, Colorado. Ordinance numbers 1742 and 2092,
enacted on November 9, 1987 and December 28, 1992, respectively,
regarding woodburning restrictions.
(C) Regulation No. 16, ``Concerning Material Specifications for,
Use of, and Clean-up of Street Sanding Material,'' 5 CCR 1001-18, as
adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission on September 22, 1994,
effective November 30, 1994.
(D) Regulation No. 1, ``Emission Control Regulations for
Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Oxides for the State
of Colorado,'' 5 CCR 1001-3, Sections I-IV and VI-IX, and Appendices A
and B, as adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission on August 19,
1993, effective October 20, 1993; with revisions to Sections VII and
VIII, adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission on September 22,
1994, effective November 30, 1994.
(E) Public Service Company Cherokee facility SO2 emission
limitations for the power facility.
(1) Permit 86AD352(1), effective date November 13, 1986, regulates
SO2 emissions at Unit #1.
(2) Permit 86AD352-2, effective date April 30, 1992, regulates
SO2 emissions at Unit #4.
(F) Purina Mills Inc. total PM10 emissions limitations at the
animal feed manufacturing facility.
(1) Permit 93AD1008-1, effective date October 19, 1993, regulating
emissions at the finished product loadout facility.
(2) Permit 93AD1008-2, effective date October 19, 1993, regulating
emissions at the grain receiving facility.
(G) Electron Corporation total PM10 emission limitations at
the gray iron foundry.
(1) Permit 93AR1363-1, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the Table shot blaster and associated baghouse.
(2) Permit 93AR1363-2, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the five grinding booths-stand and associated baghouse.
(3) Permit 93AR1363-3, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the five grinding booths-hand and associated baghouse.
(4) Permit 93AR1363-4, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the Muller-25 sand system and associated baghouse.
(5) Permit 93AR1363-5, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the Coleman core oven-sand.
(6) Permit 93AR1363-6, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the Spinner wheelabrator and associated baghouse.
(7) Permit 93AR1363-7, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the Sand sile-core room and associated baghouse.
(8) Permit 93AR1363-8, effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions from pouring of molten iron (casting) and castings cooling.
(9) Permit 93AR1363-9 effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at three tumble blast machines and associated baghouse.
(10) Permit 93AR1363-10, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at two mullers-80A and associated baghouse.
(11) Permit 93AR1363-11, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Casting shakeout hood and associated
baghouse.
(12) Permit 93AR1363-12, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Casting-disamatic mold and associated
baghouse.
(13) Permit 93AR1363-13, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Sand silo-disamatic and associated
baghouse.
(14) Permit 93AR1363-14, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Sand silo-air set room and associated
baghouse.
(15) Permit 93AR1363-15, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at two electric induction furnaces and associated
baghouse.
(16) Permit 93AR1363-16, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at two Inducto-Therm electric induction furnaces
model #2000/4, serial nos. 40102 and 40103, and associated baghouse.
(17) Permit 93AR1363-17, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions from chemicals used in core making process.
(18) Permit 93AR1363-18, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Loop shakeout and associated baghouse.
(19) Permit 93AR1363-19, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Floor shakeout and associated baghouse.
(20) Permit 93AR1363-20, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Reclaim sand and associated baghouse.
(21) Permit 93AR1363-21 effective date January 12, 1994, regulating
emissions at the Sand heater/cooler and associated baghouse.
(22) Permit 93AR1363-22, effective date January 12, 1994,
regulating emissions at the Paint spray booth.
(H) TRIGEN-Colorado Energy Corporation permit emissions limitations
at two boilers.
(1) Permit 10JE660, effective date February 25, 1997, regulating
emissions at the #4 boiler: tangential fired cogeneration steam boiler.
(2) Permit 11JE305-1, effective date February 19, 1997, regulating
emissions at the #5 boiler: tangential fired cogeneration steam boiler.
(I) Rocky Mountain Bottle Company emission limitations on three
furnaces.
(1) Permit 92JE129-1, effective date June 29, 1995, regulating
emissions at the KTG glass melting furnaces #1, #2 and #3.
(J) Conoco Refinery allowable emission limitations from the
refinery.
(1) Permit 90AD524, effective date March 20, 1991, regulating a
Tulsa natural gas fired 20MMbtu/hour heater equipped with low-NOX
burners.
(2) Permit 90AD053, effective date March 20, 1991, regulating
process heaters H-10, H-11 and H-27 and process boilers B4, B6, and B8
all burning fuel gas only.
(3) Permit 91AD180-3, effective December 28, 1992, regulating the
three stage Claus sulfur recovery unit with tail gas recovery unit.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Regional Air Quality Council, ``Guidelines for Reducing Air
Pollution from Street Sanding'' sets voluntary guidelines for public
works departments to follow to reduce the amount of street
[[Page 18723]]
sand applied, and includes recommendations for increasing the
effectiveness of street cleaning operations.
3. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.332 Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Area Plans.
* * * * *
(f) On March 30, 1995, and November 17, 1995, the Governor of
Colorado submitted the moderate PM10 nonattainment area plan for
the Denver area. The March 30, 1995 submittal was made to satisfy those
moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements due for the
Denver PM10 nonattainment area on November 15, 1991. The November
17, 1995 submittal was also made to satisfy the PM10 contingency
measure requirements which were due for Denver on November 15, 1993.
[FR Doc. 97-9948 Filed 4-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
