Comment on FR Doc # E7-00018

The State of Colorado appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency?s (?EPA?s?) proposed revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan (?SIP?). In the State of Colorado, the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) is responsible for implementation of air quality regulatory programs designed to protect public health and the environment. Colorado is particularly concerned about EPA?s proposed methods that seek to unilaterally remove a provision of the Nevada SIP without the State?s request or consent. Colorado has no comment about the particular substantive SIP provision at issue, but is very concerned in general about the method, or process, that EPA is pursuing to amend the Nevada SIP in this instance. On December 18, 2006, EPA issued a proposed revision to the Nevada SIP disapproving Nevada?s longstanding ?excess emissions? provision known as Article 2.5.4 (hereinafter ?excess emissions provision?, 71 Fed. Reg. 75690 Dec. 18, 2006). This Federal Register notice identifies that EPA had previously approved this provision into the Nevada SIP in 1972, and again in 1978, and that the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection did not request revision, or removal, of Article 2.5.4. Yet, EPA proposes to unilaterally eliminate the article using Section 110(k) (6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizing the Agency to correct ?errors? made in prior SIP approvals. EPA's proposed rule claims that because Nevada's previously- adopted and approved SIP provision is not consistent with an EPA 1999 guidance document, EPA's 1972 (and 1978) approvals were ?in error?. Again, Colorado has no comment on the particular substantive SIP provision described above. As explained further in other filings in this docket, e.g., from the State of Nevada and other states, EPA does not have the authority under Section 110(k)(6) to unilaterally eliminate a substantive provision of the Nevada SIP. Rather, if EPA considers a SIP provision to be ?substantially inadequate to attain or maintain? air quality standards, EPA must proceed pursuant to its ?SIP call? authority in accordance with Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. The State of Colorado concurs with these positions. Finally, EPA?s use of Section 110(k)(6) in this manner confounds the federal/state partnership intended by Congress under the CAA. For these reasons, Colorado requests that EPA retract the proposed rule, and if EPA seeks to take further action on the substantive issue that it do so using the appropriate CAA authorities and processes. Sincerely, Paul R. Tourangeau, Director Air Pollution Control Division cc: Leo Drozdoff, Administrator, NDEP, 901 South Stewart St, Suite 4001, Carson City, NV 89701 Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, USEPA Region 9, AIR-1, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105 Doug Lempke, Technical Secretary, Colorado Air Quality Control Commission