[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58189]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23654]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87399; File No. SR-NYSE-2019-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Price List Related to Co-
Location Services To Offer Access to a Network Providing Connection to
the Three Equities and Options Feeds

October 24, 2019.
    On August 22, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish a network providing connection to
three equities and options feeds \3\ and amend the Exchange's price
list relating to co-location services to offer access to the network.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 10, 2019.\4\ One comment on the proposed rule
change has been received.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Securities Industry Automation Corporation disseminates
information concerning: (1) Last-sale price information in Tape A
and Tape B-listed securities pursuant to the CTA Plan, (2) quotation
information in Tape A and B-listed securities pursuant to the CQ
Plan, and (3) quotation and last-sale price information in exchange
options trading pursuant to the OPRA Plan. See Notice, infra note 4,
at footnote 8.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86865 (September 4,
2019), 84 FR 47592.
    \5\ See Letter from John M. Yetter, Vice President and Senior
Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is October 25, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments
received. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\7\ designates December 9, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No.
SR-NYSE-2019-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23654 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 113 (Thursday, June 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33749-33750]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2426-218; 14579-000; 14580-000]

California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Applications
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Applications: Amendment of License and Conduit
Exemptions.
    b. Project Nos.: 2426-218, 14579-000, & 14580-000.
    c. Date Filed: January 15, 2014.
    d. Applicant: California Department of Water Resources.
    e. Name of Projects: South SWP Hydropower Project, Alamo Powerplant
Project, and Mojave Siphon Powerplant Project.
    f. Location: The South SWP Hydropower Project is located on the
California Aqueduct in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo,
Ventura, and Kern Counties, California. The project occupies U.S. lands
administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ted Craddock, Chief, Hydropower License
Planning and Compliance Office, California Department of Water
Resources, P.O. Box 942836, Sacramento, California 94236-0001,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: 60 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance of this notice by the
Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or
recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket numbers P-2426-218, P-14579-000, and P-14580-000.
    k. Description of Request: We consider the applications filed on
January 15, 2014, as consisting of three requests: An application for
amendment of license under P-2426 and two applications for conduit
exemptions under P-14579 and P-14580. The applicant is not proposing
any changes to the project operations or facilities, and no ground
disturbing activity will occur.
    i. Amendment of License: The applicant proposes to amend the South
SWP Hydropower Project license to remove the Alamo Powerplant and
Mojave Siphon Powerplant from the project. Concurrent with the
amendment, the licensee proposes to convert the two powerplants to
conduit exemptions as described below. This would result in a decrease
of 49,400 kilowatts in the installed capacity from 1,679,100 kilowatts
to 1,629,700 kilowatts, and a decrease of approximately 270 acres in
the acreage encompassed by the project boundary.
    ii. Conduit Exemptions: The Alamo Powerplant Project would consist
of: (1) The existing Alamo Powerplant containing one existing
generating unit with an installed capacity of 17,000 kilowatts; and (2)
appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates the project would have
an average annual generation of 83.751 gigawatt-hours. The Mojave
Siphon Powerplant Project would consist of: (1) The existing Mojave
Siphon Powerplant containing three generating units with an installed
capacity of 10,800 kilowatts each, for a total installed capacity of
32,400 kilowatts; and (2) appurtenant facilities. The applicant
estimates the project would have an average annual generation of 65.678
gigawatt-hours.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number P-2426, P-14579, or P-14580 in the docket
number field to access the documents. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above and at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888
First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202)
502-8371.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license amendment.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an

issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: June 6, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13732 Filed 6-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47279-47280]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e) (1) (v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.

Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Senators Jeff Stone and Richard Roth

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
            Docket No.                 File date          requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    CP18-46-000...................       8-20-2019  Sheila McCarthy.
Exempt:
    P-14227-003...................       8-20-2019  California State
                                                     Senate.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19437 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19787-19788]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1564]

Ferndale Laboratories, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of
Nine Abbreviated New Drug Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
withdrawing approval of nine abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)
from multiple applicants. The holders of the applications notified the
Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and
requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.

DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of June 4, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The holders of the applications listed in
the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer
marketed and

have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the
process described in Sec.  314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The
applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a
hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated
application under Sec.  314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Application No.                 Drug              Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDA 040259.....................  Hydrocortisone      Ferndale
                                   Acetate Cream       Laboratories,
                                   USP, 2.5%.          Inc., 780 West
                                                       Eight Mile Rd.,
                                                       Ferndale, MI
                                                       48220.
ANDA 040457.....................  Pyridostigmine      Impax
                                   Bromide Tablets     Laboratories,
                                   USP, 60             Inc., 30831
                                   milligrams (mg).    Huntwood Ave.,
                                                       Hayward, CA
                                                       94544.
ANDA 061806.....................  Cloxapen            GlaxoSmithKline,
                                   (cloxacillin        LLC, 5 Crescent
                                   sodium) Capsules,   Dr.,
                                   Equivalent to       Philadelphia, PA
                                   (EQ) 250 mg base    19112.
                                   and EQ 500 mg
                                   base.
ANDA 065453.....................  Vancomycin          Fresenius Kabi
                                   Hydrochloride       USA, LLC, Three
                                   (HCl) Capsules      Corporate Dr.,
                                   USP, EQ 125 mg      Lake Zurich, IL
                                   base and EQ 250     60047.
                                   mg base.
ANDA 075836.....................  Calcitriol          Do.
                                   Injection, 1
                                   microgram (mcg)/
                                   milliliter (mL)
                                   and 2 mcg/mL.
ANDA 075916.....................  Rimantadine HCl     Impax
                                   Tablets USP, 100    Laboratories,
                                   mg.                 Inc.
ANDA 076731.....................  Glyburide and       Do.
                                   Metformin HCl
                                   Tablets USP, 1.25
                                   mg/250 mg, 2.5 mg/
                                   500 mg, and 5 mg/
                                   500 mg.
ANDA 076889.....................  Fluconazole in      Mylan
                                   Sodium Chloride     Laboratories,
                                   0.9% Injection,     Ltd., c/o Mylan
                                   200 mg/100 mL and   Pharmaceuticals,
                                   400 mg/200 mL.      Inc., 781
                                                       Chestnut Ridge
                                                       Rd., P.O. Box
                                                       4310, Morgantown,
                                                       WV 26504.
ANDA 088572.....................  Pediatric LTA Kit   Abbott
                                   (lidocaine HCl)     Laboratories, One
                                   Solution, 2%.       Abbott Park Rd.,
                                                       Abbott Park, IL
                                                       60064.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and
all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of June
4, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates
section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that
are in inventory on June 4, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the
inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their
expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-09534 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 28971]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12299]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-335-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on April 28, 2011, Paiute Pipeline Company
(Paiute) prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.210,
and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) for authorization to construct, operate and to abandon certain
mainline natural gas facilities along U.S. Highway 50 in Lyon County,
Nevada, as part of its 2011 Highway 50 Relocation Project, all as more
fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Paiute proposes to (1) Relocate approximately 3.5 miles of existing
10-inch and 12-inch diameter pipeline and replace it with like-diameter
pipeline, and (2) relocate approximately 3.7 miles of existing 10-inch
diameter pipeline and replace it with 20-inch diameter pipeline all in
Lyon County, Nevada. Paiute states that the purpose of the proposed
project is to relocate certain mainline pipeline facilities due to a
planned highway widening project and to enable the firm transportation
of an additional 3,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas on its system
for an existing shipper.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Edward C. McMurtrie, Vice President/General Manager, Paiute Pipeline
Company, P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197 at (702) 876-
7109.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: May 12, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12299 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27121-27127]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11338]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0346; FRL-9927-55-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
a May 11, 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the
State of Colorado that is intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or
CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This submission addresses the
requirement that Colorado's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting
air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in
other states. EPA is proposing to determine that Colorado's existing
SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in
Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state, or interfere with another state's measures to prevent
significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality or to protect
visibility. EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of Colorado's
submission that addresses the CAA requirement that SIPs contain
adequate provisions related to interstate and international pollution
abatement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0346, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 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-
2012-0346. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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
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 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate
Rule.
    (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule or ``Transport Rule.''
    (iv) The initials CDPHE mean or refer to the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment.
    (v) The words State and Colorado mean the State of Colorado,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
    (viii) The initials NNSR mean or refer to nonattainment New
Source Review.
    (ix) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to fine
particulate matter.
    (x) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xi) The initials RAVI mean or refer to Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment.
    (xii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (xiii) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support
Document.
    (xiv) The initials WRAP mean or refer to Western Regional Air
Partnership.
    (xv) The initials [mu]g/m\3\ mean or refer to micrograms per
cubic meter.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
    A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
    C. EPA Guidance
III. Colorado's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation
    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
    D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures to Prevent
Significant Deterioration
    E. Evaluation of Interference With Measures to Protect
Visibility
    F. Evaluation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. 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

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the
1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (October 17,
2006, 71 FR 61144).
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these
specific submittals as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or
revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, these
infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009. CAA section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan
submission'' must meet.
    The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(also called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit
a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air
quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies
four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants
transported across state lines. The two elements under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any
such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere
with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The
two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures
required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any
other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. In
this action, EPA is addressing all four elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP shall contain
adequate provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of
sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement). EPA

is also addressing this requirement with regard to Colorado's SIP in
this action.

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    EPA has previously addressed the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\1\ Most recently, EPA
published the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or
``Transport Rule'') to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the
eastern portion of the United States with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the
earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially
remanded.\2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued
a decision vacating CSAPR, see EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering EPA to continue
implementing CAIR in the interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the DC Circuit's ruling and upheld
EPA's approach in CSAPR. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.
Ct. 1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, EPA filed
a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the DC Circuit to toll
CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years. On October 23, 2014 the DC
Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay on CSAPR. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014),
Order at 3. CSAPR began implementation on January 1, 2015 pursuant to
the DC Circuit's directive lifting the stay. The State of Colorado was
not covered by CSAPR, and EPA made no determinations in the rule
regarding whether emissions from sources in Colorado significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    \2\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
provides recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
PM2.5 standards (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\3\ With respect to element
1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit emissions that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other
state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised
states to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions
an adequate technical analysis to support their conclusions regarding
interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions
in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the
state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest
areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality
modeling.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \4\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would
address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and
that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements
related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that
states could not rely on the CAIR rule for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. See 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to element 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to
prohibit emissions that would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
by any other state, the Guidance stated that SIP submissions must
address this independent and distinct requirement of the statute and
provide technical information appropriate to support the State's
conclusions, and suggested consideration of the same technical
information that would be appropriate for element 1 of this CAA
requirement.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to use the conceptual approach to
evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA explained in the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As such, we find that the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from Colorado may be
evaluated using a ``weight of evidence'' approach that takes into
account available relevant information, including the factors
recommended in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance.
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.
    With respect to the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
which address elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA most recently
issued an infrastructure guidance memo on September 13, 2013 that
included guidance on these two elements.\5\ For the purposes of this
action, this memo will hereon be referred to as the ``2013 I-SIP
Guidance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)''
dated September 13, 2013, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Colorado's Submittal

    On May 11, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) submitted an interstate transport SIP which
concluded that Colorado meets all of the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ In this
submission, Colorado provided a thorough technical analysis for
elements 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which concluded that
the State did not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in other states. The State based this conclusion on consideration of
factors including distance, monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in Colorado and downwind states, and modeling
conducted by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Colorado's SIP, dated May 11, 2012, is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To meet the element 3 (PSD) requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State referenced its existing PSD and
nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting programs. To meet the
element 4 (visibility) requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State
referenced and discussed its Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) program, Regional Haze SIP, and some emission
reduction programs currently in the Colorado SIP that reduce visibility
impairing pollutants.
    The State's May 11, 2012 interstate transport submission and June
4, 2010 infrastructure SIP certification for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS both overlooked the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires that each SIP shall contain adequate
provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement). The State submitted a clarification letter on March 12,
2015, which explained that

the State had inadvertently left discussion of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 infrastructure certification.\7\ The
State noted that in its four subsequent infrastructure submittals (for
the 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS), it had included the necessary demonstration that Colorado's SIP
meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State requested that
the same demonstration used in all subsequent infrastructure submittals
be applied to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 certification submitted
June 4, 2010.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Colorado's certification letter is available in the docket
for this action.
    \8\ Colorado's 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure certifications
are available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, EPA first determines whether a state's emissions
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in other states. If a state is determined not to have such contribution
or interference, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require any
changes to that state's SIP.
    Consistent with the first step of EPA's approach in the 1998
NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA
evaluated impacts of emissions from Colorado with respect to specific
monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance
problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' To evaluate these
impacts, and in the absence of relevant modeling of Colorado emissions,
EPA examined factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance such as monitoring
data, topography, and meteorology. EPA notes that no single piece of
information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total
weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state.
    Our proposed approval takes into account the information provided
in Colorado's 2012 Interstate Transport SIP. In addition, we are
supplementing the evaluation of the State's submittal with a review of
the monitors in other states that are appropriate ``nonattainment
receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors,'' consistent with EPA's
approach in the CSAPR, and additional relevant technical information to
determine whether sources in Colorado contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a detailed evaluation
and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be
accessed online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-
0346. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis.

A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping 3-
year periods (i.e., 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013) to determine
which areas are expected to be violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and which areas might have difficulty
maintaining attainment of the standard. If a monitoring site measured a
violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most
recent 3-year period (2011-2013), then that monitor location was
evaluated for purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment
(element 1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the other hand, a
monitoring site shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS during the most recent 3-year period (2011-2013) but a violation
in at least one of the previous two 3-year periods (2010-2012 or 2009-
2011), then that monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the
interfere with maintenance (element 2) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    This approach is similar to that used in the modeling done during
the development of CSAPR, but differs in that it relies on monitoring
data (rather than modeling) for the western states not included in the
CSAPR modeling domain.\9\ By this method, EPA has identified those
areas with monitors to be considered ``nonattainment receptors'' or
``maintenance receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from
sources in another state could significantly contribute to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance in, that particular
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted, the State of Colorado was not included in the
CSAPR modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious
transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically
distinct. For the 2006 24-hour 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. In CSAPR, EPA did not calculate the portion of
any downwind state's predicted PM2.5 concentrations that
would result from emissions from individual western states, such as
Colorado. Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submissions for states outside the geographic area analyzed to develop
CSAPR 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 Guidance. 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 as to whether sources in the state may contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 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. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    EPA reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential for
Colorado emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the
Western U.S.\10\ EPA first identified as ``nonattainment receptors''
all monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m3) during the years 2011-
2013.\11\ See Section III of our

TSD for more a more detailed description of EPA's methodology for
selection of nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport
from Colorado to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors
located in the eastern, midwestern and southern states covered by
CSAPR and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given the
significant distance from Colorado to the nearest such receptor (in
East St. Louis, IL) and the relatively insignificant amount of
emissions from Colorado that could potentially be transported such a
distance when compared to downwind states whose contribution was
modeled for CSAPR, emissions from Colorado sources do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this
location. These same factors also support a finding that emissions
from Colorado sources neither contribute significantly to
nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at any location further east. See TSD at
Section I.B.3.
    \11\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the Western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR and thus could be considered in this analysis. In contrast,
recent air quality data in the eastern, midwestern and southern
states are significantly impacted by reductions associated with CAIR
and because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, EPA could not
consider reductions associated with the CAIR in the base case
transport analysis for those states. See 76 FR at 48223-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because geographic distance is a relevant factor in the assessment
of potential pollution transport, EPA first reviewed information
related to potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from
Colorado to the nonattainment receptors in Utah, the only state
bordering Colorado which contains such receptors. As detailed in our
TSD, the following factors support a finding that emissions from
Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) Technical information, such
as data from monitors in the vicinity of these nonattainment receptors,
related to the nature of local emissions; (2) topographical
considerations such as intervening mountain ranges which tend to create
physical impediments for pollution transport; and (3) meteorological
considerations such as prevailing winds. While none of these factors by
itself would necessarily show non-contribution, when taken together in
a weight-of-evidence assessment they are sufficient for EPA to
determine that emissions from Colorado do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment at the Utah receptors.
    EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western states of Idaho,
Montana, California and Oregon. The following factors support a finding
that emissions from Colorado do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any of
these states: (1) The significant distance from Colorado to the
nonattainment receptors in these states; (2) technical information,
such as data from nearby monitors, related to the nature of local
emissions; and (3) the presence of intervening mountain ranges, which
tend to impede pollution transport.
    Based on our evaluation, we propose to conclude that emissions of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources in
the State of Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that
the existing SIP for the State of Colorado is adequate to satisfy the
``significant contribution'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards, and that the State of Colorado therefore does not need to
adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the
``significant contribution to nonattainment'' requirement of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    We also reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential
for Colorado emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring sites in the
Western U.S. EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors'' all
monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2009-2011 and/or
2010-2012 periods but below this standard during the 2011-2013 period.
See section III of our TSD for more information regarding EPA's
methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the
maintenance receptors in the western states are located in California,
Utah and Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the potential for transport
of Colorado emissions to the maintenance receptors located in these
states. As detailed in our TSD, the following factors support a finding
that emissions from Colorado do not interfere with maintenance of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those states: (1) Technical
information, such as data from monitors near maintenance receptors,
related to the nature of local emissions, and (2) the significant
distance between Colorado and these maintenance receptors.
    Based on this evaluation, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources
in the State of Colorado do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that the
existing SIP for the State of Colorado is adequate to satisfy the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of Colorado therefore does not
need to adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

D. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Prevent Significant
Deterioration

    With regard to the PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD permitting
program in the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants and
that satisfies the requirements of EPA's PSD implementation
rule(s).\12\ On September 23, 2013, EPA approved CAA section 110(a)(2)
elements (C) and (J) for Colorado's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD requirements for all
regulated pollutants (78 FR 58186). As discussed in detail in the
proposed rulemaking for that final action, the concurrent approval of
PSD-related revisions which incorporated the requirements of the 2008
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and certain requirements of
the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule to the Colorado SIP action
ensured that Colorado's SIP-approved PSD program meets current
structural requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 2013 I-SIP Guidance.
    \13\ The proposed rulemaking was published May 23, 2013 (78 FR
30830). As described in that proposed rulemaking, EPA did not
approve certain portions of the State's incorporation of the 2010
PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were
ultimately removed from EPA's PSD regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the 2013 I-SIP Guidance, in-state sources not subject
to PSD for any one or more of the pollutants subject to regulation
under the CAA because they are in a nonattainment area for a NAAQS
related to those particular pollutants may also have the potential to
interfere with PSD in an attainment or unclassifiable area of another
state. One way a state may satisfy element 3 with respect to these
sources is by citing an air agency's EPA-approved nonattainment NSR
provisions addressing any pollutants for which the state has designated
nonattainment areas. Colorado has a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR
program which ensures regulation of major sources and major
modifications in nonattainment areas.\14\ As Colorado's SIP meets
structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants, and
contains a fully approved nonattainment NSR program, EPA is proposing
to approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the applicable
requirements of element 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section V, which was
most recently approved by EPA in a final rulemaking dated February
13, 2014 (79 FR 8632).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirement for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must
address the potential for

interference with visibility protection caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
PM2.5 is among the pollutants which could interfere with
visibility protection.\15\ An approved regional haze SIP that fully
meets the regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility protection as it ensures
that emissions from the state will not interfere with measures required
to be included in other state SIPs to protect visibility. In the
absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can still make a
demonstration that satisfies the visibility requirement section of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR
51.166(b)(i)(b).
    \16\ See 2013 I-SIP Guidance. EPA also approved the visibility
requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in a final rulemaking published
April 20, 2011 (76 FR 22036) by a demonstration provided by the
State that did not rely on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado submitted a regional haze SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA
approved Colorado's regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012 (77 FR
76871). In early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA) filed separate petitions for
reconsideration of certain aspects of EPA's approval of the Colorado's
regional haze SIP.\17\ After these petitions were filed, a settlement
agreement was entered into concerning the Craig Generating Station by
the petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Association, Inc., and filed with the court on July 10, 2014.\18\ In
accordance with the settlement agreement, EPA requested and the court
granted a voluntary remand to EPA of the portions of EPA's December
2012 regional haze SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 1. Because
of this remand, and because the additional controls at the Craig
facility will be implemented through a revision to the Colorado
regional haze SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA cannot rely on
this approval as automatically satisfying element 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on February 25,
2013, and NPCA filed its petition on March 1, 2013.
    \18\ This settlement agreement is included in the docket for
this action; see also Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636
(Aug. 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does, however, consider aspects of our approval of Colorado's
regional haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Specifically, EPA found that Colorado met its 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)
requirements to include in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary
to: (1) Obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goals for any other state's Class I area to which
Colorado causes or contributes to visibility impairment; and (2) ensure
it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through a regional planning
process. Colorado participated in a regional planning process with
Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In the regional planning
process, Colorado analyzed the WRAP modeling and determined that
emissions from the State do not significantly impact other states'
class I areas.\19\ Colorado accepted and incorporated the WRAP-
developed visibility modeling into its regional haze SIP, and the SIP
included the controls assumed in the modeling. For these reasons, EPA
determined that Colorado had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule
requirements for consultation and had included controls in the SIP
sufficient to address the relevant requirements related to impacts on
Class I areas in other states. Therefore, we are proposing to approve
the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of element 4 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado regional haze
SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Evaluation of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements

    As stated above, Colorado's May 11, 2012 interstate transport
submission and June 4, 2010 infrastructure SIP certification for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS both overlooked the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State submitted a clarification
letter on March 12, 2015, which explained that the State had
inadvertently left discussion of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 infrastructure certification, and referenced the
four subsequent infrastructure submittals (for the 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone,
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS) that included a
demonstration that Colorado's SIP meets the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State requested that the same demonstration used
in all subsequent infrastructure submittals be applied to the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 certification submitted June 4, 2010.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP contain
adequate provisions ensuring compliance with applicable requirements of
CAA sections 126 and 115. Section 126(a) requires notification to
affected, nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources.
Sections 126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the
Administrator regarding sources violating the ``interstate transport''
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 pertains to
international transport of air pollution.
    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado's SIP-approved PSD
program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the
emissions of sources subject to PSD.\20\ This suffices to meet the
notice requirement of section 126(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or
115(b); therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those
sections. In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the requirements of
element 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve all four interstate transport elements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Colorado's May 11, 2012 submission.
This proposed approval is based on EPA's finding that emissions from
Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state and that the existing Colorado SIP is, therefore, adequate
to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of
Colorado's submission, based on our finding that the State's existing
SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of this element for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve 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 CAA; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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: April 29, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-11338 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P