[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86128-86129]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-373-000]

Yellow Pine Solar Interconnect, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Yellow Pine Solar Interconnect, LLC's filing includes a request for
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 26, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended

access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27232 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47443-47451]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19807]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0285; FRL-9276-8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard,
and Approval of Related Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving
revisions to Colorado's State Implementation Plan (SIP). On June 18,
2009, Colorado submitted proposed SIP revisions intended to ensure
attainment of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in the Denver Metro Area/North Front Range (DMA/NFR)
nonattainment area by November 20, 2010. The June 18, 2009 submittal
consisted of an ozone attainment plan, which included emission
inventories, a modeled attainment demonstration using photochemical
grid modeling, a weight of evidence analysis, and 2010 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for transportation conformity. The submittal also
included revisions to Colorado Regulation Numbers 3 and 7 and to
Colorado's Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation. On October 7,
2010, Colorado submitted revised photochemical modeling results to us
for the DMA/NFR ozone SIP. The revised modeling corrected the latitude/
longitude locations of certain point sources but still projected
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the attainment
demonstration, the rest of the ozone attainment plan, with limited
exceptions, and the revisions to Colorado Regulation Number 3, parts A
and B. EPA is approving portions of the revisions to Colorado
Regulation Number 7 and disapproving other portions. EPA is not acting
on Colorado Regulation Number 3, part C, and Colorado's Ambient Air
Quality Standards Regulation as Colorado withdrew these submissions on
September 10, 2010. EPA is taking these actions pursuant to section 110
and part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective September 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0285. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Jackson, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, 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 words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

    (v) The initials OAP mean or refer to Colorado's 8-Hour Ozone
Attainment Plan, which Colorado submitted on June 18, 2009.

Table of Contents

I . Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (62 FR 38855). Ozone is formed from the
photochemical reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOX) with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Under EPA regulations (40 CFR part
50, Appendix I), the 1997 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ambient ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.
Forty CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that the third
decimal place of the computed 3-year average be rounded, with values
equal to or greater than 0.005 rounding up. Thus, under our
regulations, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm
is the smallest value that is considered to be greater than 0.08 ppm
and a violation of the standard.
    On April 30, 2004, we designated areas as attaining or not
attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As part of that rule, we
deferred the effective date of nonattainment designations for multiple
areas of the country, including the DMA/NFR area. These areas, which
were called Early Action Compact (EAC) areas, agreed to follow a
program to achieve early reductions of emissions in order to attain the
1997 8-hour standard no later than December 31, 2007 (69 FR 23857).
Because the DMA/NFR area violated the 1997 8-hour standard based on air
quality data from 2005-2007, the nonattainment designation for the area
became effective on November 20, 2007. The DMA/NFR nonattainment area
includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and
Jefferson Counties, and portions of Larimer and Weld Counties (40 CFR
81.306).
    Our regulations addressing EAC areas that failed to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007 required that Colorado
submit an attainment demonstration SIP for the 1997 8-hour standard (40
CFR 81.300(e)(3)(ii)(D)). Colorado submitted its attainment
demonstration SIP for the DMA/NFR area on June 18, 2009 as part of a
larger SIP submission. This submittal consisted of the following parts:
     8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP), which includes
monitoring information, emission inventories, a modeled attainment
demonstration using photochemical grid modeling, a weight of evidence
analysis, and 2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
transportation conformity.
     Revisions to Regulation Number 3, Parts A, B, and C.
     Revisions to Regulation Number 7.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As we indicated in our proposed rulemaking (75 FR 42353), we
are treating provisions in Regulation No. 7 that Colorado designated
as ``State Only'' as not having been submitted to us for approval,
and we are not acting on those provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revisions to Colorado's Ambient Air Quality Standards
Regulation.
    On July 21, 2010 (75 FR 42346), we published our proposed action
regarding Colorado's revisions. We proposed to approve Colorado's 2010
attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the motor
vehicle emissions budgets contained in the OAP, and all other aspects
of the OAP except the last paragraph on page IV-1 and the first
paragraph on page IV-2, the words ``federally enforceable'' in the
second to last paragraph on page V-6, and the reference to Attachment A
in the Table of Contents and on page IV-3.
    We proposed to approve the revisions to Colorado Regulation Number
3, parts A and B. We proposed to disapprove the revisions to Colorado
Regulation Number 3, part C.
    We proposed to approve the following portions of the revisions to
Colorado Regulation Number 7:
     Revisions to Sections I through XI, except for Colorado's
repeal of Section II.D.
     Revisions to Sections XIII through XVI.
    We proposed to disapprove the following portions of the revisions
to Colorado Regulation Number 7:
     Colorado's proposed repeal of Section II.D.
     Revisions to Section XII.
    We proposed to disapprove the revisions to Colorado's Ambient Air
Quality Standards Regulation.
    In our proposed action, we fully explained the bases for our
proposed approvals and disapprovals. See 75 FR 42351 (July 21, 2010).
We received one letter commenting on our proposed rule.
    On September 10, 2010, Colorado withdrew from our consideration the
proposed revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part C, and Colorado's
Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation. Consequently, we are not
taking final action on the proposed disapproval of Regulation Number 3,
Part C, and Colorado's Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation.
    In September 2010, Colorado discovered that its 2008 photochemical
grid modeling for the OAP contained inaccurate coordinates for some
point sources. Colorado re-ran the model with the correct coordinates
and submitted the revised modeling results to us in October 2010.
    On December 17, 2010 (75 FR 78950), we published a notice in the
Federal Register in which we announced the availability of Colorado's
revised modeling and provided an opportunity for public comment through
January 18, 2011, including comment on how the revised modeling might
affect our determinations in our July 21, 2010 proposed rulemaking. As
we explained in our December 17, 2010 notice, the revised modeling
predicted design values for 2010 that remained below the 85.0 ppb ozone
NAAQS; for the SIP's 2010 base case, the maximum projected design
values were found at the Rocky Flats North and Fort Collins West
monitoring sites--84.7 ppb ozone at both locations. This is 0.2 ppb
lower than Colorado's 2008 modeling projected using incorrect point
source locations. We concluded that the revised modeling supported the
conclusions that we proposed in July 2010 regarding the 2008 modeling.
See 75 FR 78952. We received no comments in response to our December
17, 2010 notice.

II. Response to Comments

    We received one letter from WildEarth Guardians (WEG) commenting on
our July 2010 proposed action. In this section EPA responds to the
significant adverse comments made by WEG. We have carefully considered
the comments, and nothing in them has caused us to change our action
from what we proposed.
    Comment No. 1--WEG asserts that EPA gave Colorado a ``major break''
by deferring the nonattainment designation for the DMA/NFR area under
EPA's EAC program. Instead of having to attain in 2007, Colorado got to
defer the attainment date until 2010. According to WEG, EPA allowed the
State to delay clearing the air and avoid more stringent clean up
requirements.
    EPA Response--WEG's comments regarding our past deferral of the
nonattainment designation are not timely in the context of this
rulemaking action because EPA took final action deferring the effective
date of the nonattainment designation in 2006 (71 FR 69022 (November
29, 2006)). While WEG challenged EPA's 2006 deferral of

the nonattainment designation for the DMA/NFR area, WEG agreed to
settle that matter. One element of the settlement agreement, as
modified, calls for EPA to act on Colorado's SIP submission by February
28, 2011, and we are meeting that obligation through this action. WEG
may not challenge this action based on EPA's prior deferral of the
nonattainment designation for the DMA/NFR area; this action solely
concerns the adequacy of Colorado's SIP submission. We note, however,
that we disagree with WEG's claim that the deferral of the effective
date allowed the area to delay cleaning the air. Colorado previously
submitted SIP control measures, under EPA's regulations for EAC areas,
that achieved reductions of ozone precursors before such reductions
were required under the CAA.
    Comment No. 2--WEG indicates that it supports aspects of EPA's
proposal, including EPA's proposed disapproval of certain revisions to
Regulation Number 7.
    EPA Response--We acknowledge WEG's support for aspects of our
proposal.
    Comment No. 3--WEG asserts that EPA's proposed approval of
Colorado's attainment demonstration overlooked key modeling
information. Specifically, WEG alleges that neither the baseline
modeling nor the control strategy modeling demonstrate attainment.
WEG's assertion centers on the baseline modeling for an area west of
Fort Collins that models a violation of the NAAQS and Colorado's
statement that such a violation ``does not seem implausible.'' WEG's
position is that EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstration as it
overlooked key information, or at least failed to explain why the
modeled violations do not matter in the context of the proposed
attainment demonstration.
    EPA Response--EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization
of EPA's analysis and the commenter's interpretation of the modeling
information.
    Colorado's attainment demonstration is consistent with EPA's
modeling guidance. (See ``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007
(``2007 modeling guidance'').) The 2007 modeling guidance describes the
modeled attainment test for the 8-hour ozone standard as an exercise in
which an air quality model is used to simulate current and future air
quality. The guidance recommends that model estimates be used in a
``relative'' rather than ``absolute'' sense. Specifically, the analysis
focuses on the ratio of the model's future to current (baseline)
predictions near ambient air quality monitors. EPA refers to these
ratios as ``relative response factors.'' Future ozone concentrations
are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying the relative
response factor for locations ``near'' each monitor by the observation-
based, monitor-specific, ``baseline'' design value. The resulting
predicted future ozone concentrations are then compared to the NAAQS.
(See 2007 modeling guidance, section 2.1, page 15; section 3.0, pages
20-28; section 4.2, page 40.) Colorado followed this procedure in
demonstrating that the DMA/NFR area will attain the ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As indicated above, Colorado's October 2010 revised modeling
confirmed design values for 2010 below the NAAQS at all monitoring
sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of observed concentrations as the base value in the
attainment test reduces problems in interpreting model results. In the
relative attainment test, observed data is used to define the target
concentration. This has the effect of anchoring the future
concentrations to a ``real'' ambient value. Although good model
performance remains a prerequisite for use of a model in an attainment
demonstration, problems posed by less than ideal model performance on
individual days are reduced through the use of this procedure.
    EPA guidance also recommends an unmonitored area analysis (UAA) in
attainment demonstrations. (See 2007 modeling guidance, section 3.4,
pages 29-30.) The UAA uses a combination of model output and ambient
data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if a monitor were
placed in the given location. In general, the UAA review is intended to
ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in ozone at other
locations which could have baseline (and future) design values
exceeding the NAAQS if a monitor were deployed there. It was this
analysis in Colorado's attainment demonstration that indicated
potential future concentrations above the level of the NAAQS in the
elevated terrain areas west of Fort Collins.
    The 2007 modeling guidance indicates that NAAQS violations in the
UAA should be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, the guidance
stresses that due to the lack of observation-based, measured data, the
examination of ozone concentrations as part of the UAA is more
uncertain than the monitor-based attainment test. As a result, the
guidance recommends that the UAA be treated as a separate test from the
monitor-based attainment test. While it is expected that States will
implement additional emission controls to eliminate predicted
violations of the monitor-based test, the same requirements may not be
appropriate in unmonitored areas. The guidance recommends that it may
be appropriate to deploy additional monitors in an area where the UAA
indicates a potential future year violation. (See 2007 modeling
guidance, section 3.4.3, page 32.)
    The UAA submitted by Colorado shows potential ozone concentrations
above the NAAQS in the elevated terrain area west of Fort Collins.\3\
Historical ambient ozone monitoring data are sparse in the foothill and
mountain areas west of the Front Range. The complex terrain has a
strong influence on wind and pollutant transport patterns in the area
and contributes to uncertainty in the model predictions. We have
carefully considered the model's predicted concentrations west of the
Fort Collins West monitor (FTCW). Given the inherent uncertainty
associated with UAA and the uncertainty associated with modeling in
this specific location, we conclude that it is not appropriate to
insist on additional control measures at this time to address the
modeled ozone concentrations west of FTCW. (See 2007 modeling guidance,
section 3.4.3, page 33.) Other factors also support our decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The original 2008 modeling and the October 2010 revised
modeling both predict a value above the NAAQS in 2010 in one grid
cell west of the Fort Collins West monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, in accordance with our guidance, Colorado installed an
additional ozone monitor in the area west of FTCW to determine whether
the model-predicted ozone concentrations are, in fact, valid. The
special purpose monitor, located in Rist Canyon, began operation on May
14, 2009. The Rist Canyon monitoring station has collected data for two
ozone seasons (approximately 20 months) since it began operating. The
Rist Canyon monitoring station uses a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM)
and follows the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58,
Appendix A.
    Ozone data collected at this monitoring station is eligible for
comparison to the ozone NAAQS after the monitor has operated for more
than 24 months per 40 CFR 58.30(c). Design values, however, are based
on the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration (see 40 CFR part 50,

Appendix D). While the monitor has not operated for these periods, the
data is informative. An analysis of the data shows the fourth highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration reading is 69 ppb for
May through December of 2009 and 71 ppb for January through December
2010. This data indicates that the area west of FTCW is not currently
being exposed to ozone concentrations above the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Also, these values are lower than the fourth highest daily
maximums--73 ppb and 75 ppb--for FTCW for 2009 and 2010.
    Second, Colorado's UAA explains that the high design value of 86
ppb at FTCW was based on only two years (2006-2007) of monitoring data,
not the normal three years. (See Appendix I of Colorado's technical
support document, titled ``Final 2010 Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Modeling for the Denver 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan.'') At
the time the SIP was prepared, three full years of data were not
available because the monitor did not start operating until 2006. This
high design value drove the high 2010 projected design values at FTCW
and the unmonitored area values west of the monitor. When a third year
of monitoring data is included (2008), the 2010 projected design value
at FTCW is reduced from 86 ppb to 82 ppb. If Colorado's UAA had used
the 82 ppb design value at FTCW instead of 86 ppb, no grid cells would
have exceeded the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the UAA.
    Given that Colorado followed our 2007 modeling guidance and the
supporting evidence discussed above, Colorado properly modeled
attainment.
    Comment No. 4--WEG asserts that there is no analysis showing that
Regulation Number 7 imposes RACM/RACT as required by CAA section
172(c)(1). Regulation Number 7 does not impose RACT requirements for
all sources of ozone precursors in the DMA/NFR area and does not impose
controls for NOX. RACT cannot mean no air pollution controls
for certain sources like refineries or sources of NOX.
Regulation Number 7 is contrary to the CAA.
    EPA Response--Our longstanding interpretation of CAA section
172(c)(1) is that it only requires implementation of control measures
that contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; measures
that would not advance the attainment date need not be considered RACM/
RACT. See, e.g., 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992); 70 FR 71612,
71617, 71653-71654 (November 29, 2005). This interpretation has been
upheld by the courts. See, e.g., NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1253 (DC
Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (DC Cir. 2002);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745 (5th Cir. 2002). As we noted
in our proposed action (75 FR 42351), Colorado's modeling demonstrates
attainment in 2010 based on existing SIP-approved control measures,
including the measures in Regulation Number 7. Because the submission
demonstrates attainment by November 2010, and it is already 2011, these
SIP-approved measures represent all measures necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. At this point in time,
additional control measures, whether for VOCs or for NOX,
would not advance the attainment date and are not needed to satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1).\4\ WEG has not demonstrated that
the attainment demonstration is flawed. Additional controls on
NOX and controls in other parts of the nonattainment area
may be desirable from WEG's perspective, but WEG has not demonstrated
that such controls are necessary to demonstrate attainment as
expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As evidenced by the following language, we did evaluate this
issue in our proposed action: ``Because Colorado's modeling
demonstrates attainment in 2010 based on existing SIP-approved
measures, and it is now 2010, such SIP-approved measures represent
all measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as
practicable as per section 172 of the CAA. Additional control
measures would not advance the attainment date.'' 75 FR 42351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment No. 5--WEG asserts that the requirements in Regulation
Number 7, Sections II.C.1.c and II.C.1.d, are unenforceable because
these sections defer solely to the discretion of Division staff the
establishment of RACT limits at a later date. The proposed SIP
revisions do not specify what RACT emission limits will be for each VOC
source. In addition, Sections II.C.1.c and II.C.1.d fail to provide for
appropriate public notice and involvement in the development and
adoption of RACT requirements. EPA must ensure that facility-specific
RACT emission limits are adopted through the SIP to ensure the
enforceability of any RACT requirements and to ensure that Regulation 7
represents RACT consistent with the CAA.
    EPA Response--The State designated Sections II.C.1.c and II.C.1.d
``State Only.'' As we indicated in our proposed action, our
interpretation is that provisions designated ``State Only'' have not
been submitted to us for approval. Instead, we interpret these
provisions to have been submitted for informational purposes. See 75 FR
42353. We are not acting on Sections II.C.1.c and II.C.1.d in this
action, and, thus, we consider these comments irrelevant to our action.
Because we are not acting on Sections II.C.1.c and II.C.1.d, we are not
incorporating them by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
WEG has not indicated any way in which these state-only provisions
affect the federally enforceable aspects of Regulation Number 7. As
noted above, we have determined that the State has fully met the
applicable RACT requirement in section 172(c)(1) and thus this State-
only provision is not a necessary component of the attainment
demonstration on which we are acting through this rule.
    Comment No. 6--WEG asserts that Section II.C.2 also imposes
unenforceable RACT requirements. WEG does not agree with EPA that
Colorado's revisions to Section II.C are minor clerical changes. WEG
asserts that the new cross-reference to Regulation Numbers 3 and 7 in
Section II.C.2 is unclear.
    EPA Response--In the current EPA-approved SIP, Section II.C.2
reads, ``All new sources shall utilize controls representing Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT.)'' The State's revised language
reads, ``All new sources shall utilize controls representing RACT,
pursuant to Regulation Number 7 and Regulation Number 3, Part B,
Section III.D., upon commencement of operation.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ WEG mistakenly cites the language as referring to Regulation
Number 3, part B, Section II.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We view the language change to Section II.C.2 as a minor clarifying
change. The new reference to Regulation Number 7 is intended to
indicate that new sources need to comply with any applicable RACT
requirements specified in Regulation Number 7. As we indicated in our
proposed action, Regulation Number 7 specifies emission limits for
various industries and generic requirements.\6\ These limits and
requirements already apply to new sources (in addition to existing
sources) (see Regulation Number 7, Section I.B.1.a); the added
reference to

Regulation Number 7 simply clarifies where (i.e., in Regulation Number
7) RACT requirements are specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We note that we previously approved Regulation Number 7
requirements as meeting VOC RACT requirements for the 1-hour ozone
standard. 60 FR 28055, May 30, 1995. The revisions we approved in
that action were intended to address a variety of deficiencies that
EPA had identified in Regulation Number 7, including enforceability
concerns. In other words, the requirements were established through
the SIP revision process to ensure enforceability, and the public
had a chance to comment on our rulemaking at that time. Regulation
Number 7 contains requirements and limits for a wide range of
sources and source categories, based on the Control Techniques
Guidelines documents (CTGs) EPA had issued when Colorado adopted the
various Regulation Number 7 requirements in 1989 and 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reference to Regulation Number 3, part B, Section III.D, merely
clarifies that new sources need to comply with the permitting
requirements in Colorado's ``Construction Permit Review Requirements.''
\7\ This revision does not alter the status quo; new sources are
required to get permits under Reg. 3 irrespective of the language of
Section II.C.2 of Regulation Number 7. Additionally, Colorado has
historically used its permit process to establish VOC ``RACT'' limits
for new sources covered by Section II.C.2 for those limited cases in
which the other sections of Regulation Number 7 do not specify limits
or requirements.\8\ Thus, we continue to view the change to Section
II.C.2 as a minor clerical change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ There is currently a discrepancy between the numbering of
the SIP-approved version of Regulation Number 3 and the State-
approved version. In the SIP-approved version, Regulation Number 3,
part B, Section III.D specifies exemptions from permitting
requirements. But in the State-approved version, Section III.D
specifies construction permit review requirements. We interpret the
State's reference to Regulation Number 3, part B, Section III.D as
referring to the State-approved version of Section III.D. Colorado
previously submitted revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part B, that
contain the renumbering of the provisions of Part B, Section III; we
will be acting on those revisions separately.
    \8\ We explain below that we do not view these limits as being
necessary to satisfy RACM/RACT requirements under CAA section
172(c)(1). This is the reason we have placed the word ``RACT'' in
quotes in the text above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the revised rule specifies that the new source must comply
with RACT from commencement of operation, as opposed to some later
date. This merely reiterates the requirement that is already specified
by existing Section I.B.1.a.
    WEG's comments reflect a concern about Section II.C.2's alleged
deferral of the establishment of RACT limits to the State's permitting
process. Our view, however, is that Section II.C.2's requirements are
actually surplus to necessary RACT requirements under CAA section
172(c)(1). This is because Regulation Number 7's various source-
category-specific VOC limits and requirements apply to sources
regardless of Section II.C.2's requirements. Thus, for sources subject
to these source-category-specific limits and requirements, Section
II.C.2 does not defer the establishment of controls to the State's
permitting process. Additionally, as indicated above, we have
determined that such limits and requirements, along with other SIP
control measures, contribute to attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, thus satisfying RACM/RACT under CAA section 172(c)(1).
Accordingly, the imposition, pursuant to Section II.C.2, of VOC
controls on new sources beyond those contained in the other sections of
Regulation Number 7, while potentially beneficial, is not necessary to
satisfy RACT requirements under CAA section 172(c)(1), the State's use
of the term ``RACT'' in Section II.C.2 notwithstanding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The State's reference to ``RACT'' may be confusing, but we
think it merely reflects the State's intent to require that new
sources use reasonable controls, even if not covered by the source-
category-specific requirements in Regulation Number 7. We note that
Colorado's permitting regulations provide for public notice and
involvement so that WEG and others have the opportunity to
participate in any control technology determinations Colorado makes
in the permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment No. 7--WEG asserts that the SIP submission fails to comply
with applicable Part D, Subpart 1 and 2 requirements under the CAA. In
particular, section 172(c) requires states to enact RACM in their ozone
nonattainment SIPs, to the extent more specific RACM requirements are
not set forth under Subpart 2. Section 181 requires that marginal
nonattainment SIPs meet the requirements of sections 181 and 182 as
well as 172. It does not appear as if EPA made any assessment whether
Colorado's submission complies with Subpart 1 and 2 requirements. WEG
is particularly concerned that the SIP doesn't ensure RACT for
NOX emissions or that RACT corrections are made in areas of
the DMA/NFR nonattainment area that were not originally part of the
Denver Metro 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Instead of requiring
RACM/RACT, the proposed SIP only focuses on the less stringent
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The proposed SIP admits
that RACM is one of the core elements for an attainment plan but goes
on to say that RACT is not required to be applied.
    EPA Response--EPA's regulation placing certain areas only under the
planning provisions of CAA title I, part D, subpart 1 was vacated by
the DC Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. v
. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) on the basis that it was
unreasonable. EPA has not yet finalized a rule in which it either
places all of these areas in subpart 2 or in which it provides a
reasonable explanation for placing all or some of the areas only under
the planning provisions of subpart 1. However, unless and until EPA
takes final action classifying the DMA/NFR area under subpart 2, it
remains solely subject to the nonattainment planning provisions in
subpart 1. Thus, the RACT requirement in subpart 2 does not currently
apply to the DMA/NFR area. As explained above, because the State has
demonstrated that it has adopted all controls necessary to attain as
expeditiously as practicable (i.e., it cannot advance the attainment
date from November 2010), we have determined that the area has met the
RACM requirement in section 172 (i.e., ``subpart 1''). We note that for
purposes of section 172(c) in subpart 1, RACT is a subset of RACM. Thus
a determination that an area has met the RACM requirement of section
172(c) means that the area has also met the RACT requirement in that
section. See, e.g., NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1253 (DC Cir. 2009).
    We note that in response to the court's vacatur, EPA has proposed
to place all areas under subpart 2. If EPA finalizes that proposal as
proposed, Denver would be classified as marginal under subpart 2. See
74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009). Even if EPA were to finalize a subpart 2
classification for the DMA/NFR area, we anticipate, as outlined in our
proposal, that a SIP addressing subpart 2 requirements (including the
RACT corrections applicable to marginal areas) would not be due until
one year after a final rule classifying the DMA/NFR area under subpart
2. For these reasons, we did not evaluate the SIP submission against
subpart 2 requirements in the proposed rule, nor are we doing so for
this final rule.
    Comment No. 8--WEG asserts that Colorado must update past RACT
determinations made for the 1-hour ozone standard in light of the new
8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment designation.
    EPA Response--Per our discussion above, the only RACM/RACT
requirement that is applicable at this time is the requirement under
CAA section 172(c)(1). That requirement is met if the State has adopted
all controls necessary to attain as expeditiously as practicable and
thus, that additional controls will not advance the attainment date. As
explained above, we believe Colorado has met that requirement.
    Comment No. 9-- WEG asserts that 172(c)(1) coupled with 182(f)
requires owners and operators of sources in ozone nonattainment areas
to implement RACT requirements for sources that are subject to Control
Technology Guidelines issued by EPA and for major sources of VOC and
NOX, which are ozone precursors. Significant sources of
ozone precursors are to be controlled to a reasonable extent. The
proposed SIP does not even contain the bare minimum with regard to
RACT, implementing only limited controls to address emissions of VOCs
from oil and

gas production operations in the area and from a limited number of
other stationary sources in the Front Range. RACT for emissions of VOCs
from other industrial sources is woefully lacking. The SIP contains no
RACT requirements for industrial sources of NOX emissions
anywhere in the nonattainment area.
    EPA Response--As provided above, we have concluded that the SIP
submission satisfies applicable RACM/RACT requirements. We note,
however, that we disagree with WEG's characterization of the scope of
VOC controls as being ``limited.''
    Comment No. 10--WEG refers to legislative history to support its
views regarding VOC and NOX RACT requirements having to
apply to all nonattainment areas. WEG quotes the following language
from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ``[s]tate and
local agencies are not authorized to ignore [RACT] controls on
NOX and VOC sources for which no CTG has been issued.
Sources of the size specified in the bill must be controlled to levels
achievable through the use of measures that are technologically and
economically feasible for a class or category of sources.''
    EPA Response--The language WEG cites is from a Senate report
discussing the anticipated provisions in section 182(b) of subpart 2,
which was added by the 1990 Amendments to the CAA. Specifically, under
section 182(b)(2)(C), which applies to areas classified under subpart 2
as moderate or higher, RACT applies to all major stationary sources of
VOC that are not covered by subsections (A) and (B). Subsections (A)
and (B) address RACT for sources for which a CTG has been issued.
Section 182(f) extends the subpart 2 RACT requirements to major
stationary sources of NOX. As indicated above, we are not
evaluating the SIP submission against subpart 2 requirements because
those requirements are not currently applicable. Also as indicated
above, courts have upheld our interpretation of RACM/RACT under CAA
section 172(c)(1).
    Comment No. 11--WEG asserts that a SIP that fails to contain RACT
for major VOC and NOXcommercial sources will significantly
increase the likelihood of continued nonattainment and jeopardize
maintenance. It does not appear that EPA has assessed the adequacy of
the SIP in this light.
    EPA Response--As we have stated, the SIP demonstrates attainment of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The State is not
under a current obligation to submit a SIP that demonstrates long-term
maintenance of the ozone standard and this SIP was not submitted for
that purpose. Under Union Electric v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976), EPA's
job in reviewing a SIP is to determine whether it meets the minimum
requirements of the CAA. The SIP submission demonstrates attainment
based on enforceable measures that we previously approved into the
existing SIP. While additional controls might be desirable because they
would provide additional emission reductions beyond those needed for
attainment, we cannot disapprove the attainment demonstration SIP on
that basis.
    Comment No. 12--WEG asserts that if EPA is not assessing whether
Colorado's SIP complies with subparts 1 and 2 of the CAA, EPA must make
a finding of failure to submit for Colorado's failure to submit a
required SIP under subparts 1 and 2.
    EPA Response--Colorado submitted a SIP revision as required by 40
CFR 81.300(e)(3)(ii)(D), which requires EAC areas that failed to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007 to submit a revised
attainment demonstration SIP. As explained above, EPA has assessed the
Colorado SIP under the attainment demonstration and RACM/RACT
requirements of section 172(c) in subpart 1. Also, as explained above,
Denver is not currently classified under subpart 2 and thus, at this
time, no SIP revision is required under subpart 2. Thus, there is no
basis at this time for evaluating the SIP under the provisions of
subpart 2 or for making a finding of failure to submit a SIP revision
under subpart 2.
    Comment No. 13--WEG asserts that EPA's proposed approval fails to
comply with section 110(l) of the CAA. The SIP submission does not
demonstrate that it will not interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which
are currently applicable. Thus, EPA cannot approve the revision. It is
contrary to section 110(l) for EPA to assume that its duties are
limited to protecting the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) provides
that a State must submit a SIP for a new NAAQS within three years of
promulgation. Where a statutory duty applies within that three year
period, the State and EPA are compelled to meet that requirement given
that it falls within the three year window provided by section
110(a)(1). WEG also asserts that the revision would significantly
interfere with nonattainment of the NAAQS in downwind states.
    EPA Response--We disagree that our approval does not comply with
CAA section 110(l) or that section 110(l) requires disapproval of
Colorado's attainment demonstration or other aspects of the SIP
submission we are approving. CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA
``shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress * * *, or any other applicable requirement
of'' the CAA. Contrary to WEG's assertion, we do not assume our duties
under section 110(l) are limited to protecting the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS--we simply do not agree that our approval will interfere with
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or any other requirement of the CAA.
Through our action, no SIP-approved control measures for ozone
precursors are being relaxed; in fact, we are approving changes to
Regulation Number 3 that will strengthen the SIP and disapproving
revisions to Regulation Number 7 that would weaken the SIP. WEG has not
explained how Colorado's attainment demonstration and the other parts
of the SIP we're approving would interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    At this time, no areas are designated nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and no attainment demonstration SIPs are due for that
NAAQS. EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full
attainment or maintenance demonstration for all NAAQS before any
changes to a SIP may be approved. See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2006); see also e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3,
2005), 70 FR 28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and final rules, upheld in
Kentucky Resources, which discuss EPA's interpretation of section
110(l)). EPA has concluded that preservation of the status quo air
quality prior to the time new attainment or maintenance demonstrations
are due will prevent interference with CAA requirements, including the
States' obligations to develop timely demonstrations. Thus, areas do
not have to produce a complete attainment demonstration to make any
revisions to the SIP, provided the status quo air quality is preserved.
    As noted above, as a result of today's action, the SIP will be
strengthened and air quality maintained. This conclusion is sufficient
to satisfy the requirements of section 110(l) with respect to the 2008
ozone standard. We have not and are not required to evaluate whether
the current attainment demonstration also demonstrates attainment for
the 2008 ozone standard or the SIP contains measures to attain that
standard. The CAA and our regulations designate specific time frames
for areas to submit SIPs and demonstrate attainment following a
nonattainment designation for a new standard. See, e.g., CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 172(b). Since this

action will not interfere with status quo air quality, and thus with
Colorado's ability to develop a SIP to attain the 2008 ozone standard,
it is appropriate under the CAA to approve this action and allow
Colorado to address the 2008 ozone standard according to the statutory
framework.
    We do not understand WEG's comment about the deadline under CAA
section 110(a)(1). It appears WEG may be asserting that the State had
to submit a 110(a)(1) SIP for the 2008 standard at the same time it
submitted its SIP for the 1997 standard simply because the deadline for
the SIP for the 1997 standard fell within the three-year period
specified by section 110(a)(1) for submission of a SIP for the 2008
standard. WEG cites no legal or policy support for this theory, and it
is not supported by section 110(a)(1), section 110(l), or any other
provision of the CAA. To the extent WEG is claiming that our approval
action will interfere with the SIP required by CAA section 110(a)(1),
we disagree. Section 110(a)(1) SIPs are merely infrastructure SIPs, not
complete attainment demonstration SIPs, and, as noted by WEG, these
infrastructure SIPs are not due until three years after designation.
Approval of the 1997 ozone attainment demonstration will in no way
interfere with the State's obligation or ability to submit an
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 standard.
    WEG provides no support for its assertion that the revision would
significantly interfere with nonattainment of the NAAQS in downwind
states. We are not required to respond to unsupported assertions. In
any event, because our action will not result in an increase in
emissions, we disagree with WEG that the revision will significantly
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS in downwind states.

III. Final Action

A. Approval

    For the reasons provided in our July 21, 2010 proposal (75 FR
42351), our December 17, 2010 notice of availability of revised
modeling (75 FR 78950), and herein, we are approving the following
elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone SIP revisions that Colorado submitted
on June 18, 2009:
    (1) Colorado's 2010 attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    (2) The MVEBs contained in the OAP, which are identified in the
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2010 NOX          2010 VOC
        Area of applicability          emissions (tons   emissions (tons
                                          per day)          per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Subarea....................              20.5              19.5
Southern Subarea....................             102.4              89.7
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total Nonattainment Area........             122.9             109.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Northern Subarea is defined in the OAP as the area denoted by the
ozone nonattainment area north of the Boulder County northern boundary
and extended through southern Weld County to the Morgan County line.
The Southern Subarea is defined in the OAP as the area denoted by the
ozone nonattainment area south of the Boulder County northern boundary
and extended through southern Weld County to the Morgan County line.
Both subareas are further identified in Figure 2: ``8-hour Ozone
Emission Budget Subareas'' at page VI-6 in the OAP.
    In addition to approving the MVEBs, we are also approving the
process described in the OAP for use of the Total Nonattainment Area
MVEBs and the subarea MVEBs. Per the OAP, the initial conformity
determination must use the Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs. After the initial conformity determination,
the Denver Regional Council of Governments and North Front Range
Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council may switch from using
the Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs to using the subarea MVEBs for
determining conformity. To switch to use of the subarea MVEBs (or to
subsequently switch back to use of the Total Nonattainment Area MVEBs),
the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the North Front Range
Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council must use the process
described in the OAP at pages VI-4 and VI-5.
    (3) All other aspects of the OAP except the last paragraph on page
IV-1 and the first paragraph on page IV-2, the words ``federally
enforceable'' in the second to last paragraph on page V-6, and the
reference to Attachment A in the Table of Contents and on page IV-3.
    (4) The revisions to Parts A and B of Colorado Regulation Number 3.
    (5) The revisions to Sections I through XI and XIII through XVI of
Colorado Regulation Number 7, except for the repeal of Section II.D.
    Regarding part B of Regulation Number 3, as we noted in our July
21, 2010 proposal, there is a discrepancy between the numbering of the
submitted revisions and the EPA-approved SIP. Colorado added new
Sections II.D.1.k, l, m, and n to Part B to specify the four types of
emissions points that will continue to be exempt from minor source
construction permitting requirements. However, in the current EPA-
approved SIP, Section III.D.1 of part B lists the types of emissions
points that are exempt from minor source construction permitting
requirements.\10\ These emissions points are listed in Sections
III.D.1.a through j. For purposes of this action, we are interpreting
Colorado's proposed revisions to Part B, in the form of Sections
II.D.1.k through n, as being an addition to Section III.D.1, and
following immediately after Section III.D.1.j of part B of the EPA-
approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Colorado previously submitted revisions to part B that
contain changes to the numbering of part B provisions; we will be
acting on those revisions separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Disapproval

    For the reasons provided in our July 21, 2010 proposal, we are
disapproving the following elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone SIP
revisions that Colorado submitted on June 18, 2009:
    (1) In the OAP: the last paragraph on page IV-1 and the first
paragraph on page IV-2, the words ``federally enforceable'' in the
second to last paragraph on page V-6, and the reference to Attachment A
in the Table of Contents and on page IV-3.
    (2) The repeal of Section II.D of Colorado Regulation Number 7.
    (3) The revisions to Section XII of Colorado Regulation Number 7.
    Our disapproval of these provisions does not trigger sanctions or a
FIP obligation because our disapproval does not leave a deficiency in
the SIP. The effect of our disapproval is to excise proposed SIP
revisions that would

weaken the SIP and potentially undermine the attainment demonstration.
The provisions we are approving today and provisions that will remain
in the SIP as a result of our action today fully support the attainment
demonstration and meet all applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act. Thus, our action does not trigger sanctions or a FIP
obligation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See our July 21, 2010 proposal for further discussion on
this issue (75 FR 42351).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law as meeting
Federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does
not meet Federal requirements; this action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 4, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(72)(i)(G) and
(c)(117) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (72) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) 1001-5, Colorado Regulation No. 3, Air Contaminant Emissions
Notices, Part A, Concerning General Provisions Applicable to Reporting
and Permitting, Sections II.D.1.m, II.D.1.ee, II.D.1.uu, II.D.1.ddd,
and II.D.1.eeee, previously approved in paragraph (c)(72)(i)(D) of this
section, were repealed by the State of Colorado effective January 30,
2009 and are removed without replacement.
* * * * *
    (117) On June 18, 2009, the State of Colorado submitted an 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment Plan for the Denver Metro Area/North Front Range area
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 81.300(e)(3)(ii)(D) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. On the same date, the State of Colorado also
submitted revisions to portions of Part A, ``Concerning General
Provisions Applicable to Reporting and Permitting,'' and Part B,
``Concerning Construction Permits,'' of Colorado's Regulation No. 3,
``Air Contaminant Emissions Notices,'' and to Sections I through XVI of
Colorado's Regulation No. 7, ``Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors
(Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides).'' EPA is
approving the Ozone Attainment Plan except for the last paragraph on
page IV-1 and the first paragraph on page IV-2, the words ``federally
enforceable'' in the second to last paragraph on page V-6, and the
reference to Attachment A in the Table of Contents and on page IV-3.
EPA is disapproving the excepted language from the Ozone Attainment
Plan. EPA is approving the revisions to portions of Parts A and B of
Colorado's Regulation No. 3. For purposes of this action, Colorado
Regulation No. 3, Part B, Sections II.D.1.k, l, m, and n, as
incorporated below, should be considered an addition to and as
immediately following Colorado Regulation Number 3, Part B, Sections
III.D.1.a through j, as previously approved by EPA. EPA is approving
the revisions to Sections I through XI and

XIII through XVI of Colorado's Regulation No. 7, except for Colorado's
repeal of section II.D. EPA is disapproving Colorado's repeal of
Section II.D and Colorado's revisions to Section XII of Regulation No.
7. EPA is not acting on the provisions in Regulation No. 7 that are
designated ``State Only.''
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) 5 CCR 1001-5, Colorado Regulation No. 3, ``Air Contaminant
Emissions Notices,'' Part A, ``Concerning General Provisions Applicable
to Reporting and Permitting,'' Sections II.D.1.m, II.D.1.ee, II.D.1.uu,
II.D.1.ccc, II.D.1.ddd, II.D.1.uuu, and II.D.1.eeee, effective January
30, 2009.
    (B) 5 CCR 1001-5, Colorado Regulation No. 3, ``Air Contaminant
Emissions Notices,'' Part B, ``Concerning Construction Permits,''
Sections II.D.1.k, l, m, and n, effective January 30, 2009.
    (C) Letter dated November 18, 2009 from the Office of the Colorado
Attorney General, signed by Jerry Goad, to Candy Herring, Office of the
Colorado Secretary of State, regarding clerical errors in Regulation
No. 7, and those portions of 5 CCR 1001-9, Colorado Regulation No. 7,
``Control of Ozone Via Ozone Precursors (Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides),'' Section II.C.1 that accompanied such
letter, except for the following: the parenthetical phrase ``(State
Only: Located in any Ozone Nonattainment Area or Attainment Maintenance
Area)'' at II.C.1; Section II.C.1.a.(v); Section II.C.1.c; and Section
II.C.1.d.
    (D) 5 CCR 1001-9, Colorado Regulation No. 7, ``Control of Ozone Via
Ozone Precursors (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds and Nitrogen
Oxides),'' Sections I through XI and XIII through XVI, effective
January 30, 2009, except for the following: Section I.A.1.b; Section
I.B.1.b; Section I.B.2.b; Section I.B.2.d; Section II.A.12; Section
II.C.1; and the repeal of Section II.D.

0
3. Section 52.350 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.350  Control strategy: ozone.

* * * * *
    (c) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS entitled ``Denver Metro Area & North Front
Range 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan,'' excluding the last paragraph on
page IV-1, the first paragraph on page IV-2, the words ``federally
enforceable'' in the second to last paragraph on page V-6, and the
reference to Attachment A in the Table of Contents and on page IV-3, as
adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 12,
2008, and submitted by the Governor to EPA on June 18, 2009.

[FR Doc. 2011-19807 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80887-80888]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0117]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Approval of Reinstated
Renewal for Information Request: Commercial Driver's License (CDL)
Skills Testing Delays Annual Survey

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
renewal.

DATES: Please send your comments by January 13, 2021. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Britton, Office of Analysis,
Research, and Technology/Research Division, Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor,
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office
hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Commercial Driver's License (CDL)
Skills Testing Delays Annual Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0065.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a renewal that was discontinued
at the Agency's request.
    Respondents: State CDL Coordinators (one from each of the 50
States, and one from Washington, DC)
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51
    Estimated Time per Response: 2.3 hours (137.5 minutes).
    Expiration Date: To be determined.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The annual burden is estimated to be
no more than 2.3 hours (137.5 minutes) per respondent, which equates to
116.9 hours over the universe of 51 respondents. This estimate contains
a maximum of 2 hours to gather information from State information
systems, and an estimated maximum of 17.5 minutes to respond to the
survey. While States that already track and report similar information
may need much less than 2 hours to gather information, discussions with
subject matter experts led to an agreement that 2 hours was a
reasonable maximum time limit to use to estimate the maximum annual
burden expected.
    The estimated time for survey completion was calculated using
Versta Research's methodology for calculating an estimate of survey
length, where each question is given a number of points based on the
estimated burden required to respond to the question (for example,
simple multiple choice questions are 1 point, whereas short answer
questions are 3 points per expected short phrase). The total number of
points for all questions is then divided by eight (the number of simple
questions a user can respond to online in 1 minute) to determine the
estimate required length for finishing the survey.

Background

    Section 5506 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(``FAST Act''). requires FMCSA to produce a study on CDL skills test
delays on an annual basis. The requirements of the study are to submit
an annual report describing:
    ``(A) the average wait time from the date an applicant requests to
take a skills test to the date the applicant has the opportunity to
complete such test;
    (B) the average wait time from the date an applicant, upon failure
of a skills test, requests a retest to the date the applicant has the
opportunity to complete such retest;
    (C) the actual number of qualified commercial driver's license
examiners available to test applicants; and
    (D) the number of testing sites available through the State
department of motor vehicles and whether this number has increased or
decreased from the previous year.''
    The annual report is also required to describe ``specific steps the
Administrator is taking to address skills testing delays in States that
have average skills test or retest wait times of more than 7 days.''
    If this information collection does not occur, FMCSA will not be
able to continue to conduct the study on CDL skills test delays. This
data collection aims to continue to create longitudinal data where
currently there is none. If the information collection occurs on a
less-than-annual basis, FMCSA will not be able to make observations on
yearly trends or analyze differences between States.
    For the initial 2017 survey FMCSA met with several stakeholders,
including the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the
Commercial Vehicle Training Association, and State Driver Licensing
Agencies to ensure the information being collected was not already
collected elsewhere and was not available to FMCSA. FMCSA conducted
extensive background research to ensure the study was not duplicative.
A previous study, done by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in
2015, asked for similar information but did not produce specific enough
data to be used in this study.
    The survey will continue to be sent out via email, with the option
for online completion using SurveyMonkey[supreg] or Qualtrics. Each
State can continue to respond via email or the online survey tool
depending on which method is more convenient for the respondent. The
welcome letter will continue to indicate that FMCSA prefers responses
via the online survey tool.
    The information collected will continue to be published annually in
a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.

Prior Publication

    FMCSA published a notice in the Federal Register (85 FR 35496) with
a 60-day public comment period to

announce this proposed information collection on June 10, 2020. The
agency received four total comments, three unique comments and one
duplicated comment, in response to this notice.
    The three comments received in response to the 60-day notice were
from the following persons and organizations:
    1. National School Transportation Association (NSTA)
    2. Texas Trucking Association (TXTA)
    3. Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA)
    The comment from NSTA was posted twice, but was the same comment.
NSTA was supportive of the information collection request and felt that
it was necessary and important information to collect, not only due to
FAST Act requirements but also in light of the ongoing COVID-19
situation, which has impacted SDLAs and their operating statuses, as
well as many other aspects of the transportation sector. NSTA made
several recommendations regarding issuances of CDLs for school bus
drivers and inspections for school bus drivers that are outside the
scope of this information collection request. These comments have been
passed on to the appropriate parties in FMCSA, but did not result in
any changes to the proposed information collection contained in this
request.
    Similarly, TXTA made several comments regarding the actual
licensing procedures and policies within Texas, which are outside the
scope of this information collection. These comments have been passed
on to the appropriate parties in FMCSA, but did not result in any
changes to the proposed information collection contained in this
request.
    CVTA was supportive of the information collection request itself
but made several suggestions for improvement. First, CVTA suggested
that FMCSA require States to respond to the survey. Furthermore, CVTA
felt that FMCSA's analysis of the collected data was lacking and
expressed concern with the definition of delays and wait times used by
FMCSA in the original analysis. CVTA noted in their comment that they
felt this was a failure of FMCSA to meet the requirements of the FAST
Act statute. FMCSA does not have the authority to compel States to
respond to the survey and re-asserts that responses to the survey must
be voluntary. The prior survey received at least partial responses from
the majority of States. FMCSA successfully delivered the 2017 report to
Congress, which the Agency understood to fulfill the intent behind
Section 5506 of the FAST Act. FMCSA did not make any changes to the
proposed information collection as a result of this comment, which
largely focused on the reporting out of results from the information
collection as opposed to the collection of information itself.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

Tom Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2020-27376 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P