Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Designated Facilities
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cf  -  Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Technical Support Document
Proposed Approval  -  Revised CAA Section 111(d) State Plan

                                 111(d) Plan
                                      for
             Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Colorado
                       (revision of April 13, 1998 plan)

Plan submitted by:
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Air Pollution Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246
March 23, 2021

In accordance with the general provisions for the adoption and submittal of state plans for designated facilities at 40 CFR part 60, the EPA has reviewed this Clean Air Act section 111(d) state plan and is proposing the plan for federal approval. The EPA has prepared this technical support document describing the conditions of the 111(d) plan submittal and presents information germane to this plan approval action.

TSD prepared by:
Gregory Lohrke
Toxics, Radiation and Modelling Branch
Air and Radiation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado  80202
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.	Introduction	3
II.	Submittal Completeness	4
III.	Submittal Approvability	5
IV.	Designated MSW Landfill Requirements for Owner/Operators	5
V. 	Conclusion	6
Appendix A  -  Completeness Determination	7
Table A1  -  111(d) State Plan Submittal Completeness	7
Appendix B  -  Approvability Determination	11
Table B1  -  111(d) State Plan Development - Standards of Performance and Compliance Schedules	11
Table B2  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  Emission Inventories, Source Surveillance and Reporting	15
Table B3  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  Demonstration of Legal Authority	18
Table B4  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  Public Notice and Hearing	20
Table B5  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf Specific Requirements	23

I.	Introduction
Q:	What is the background for this action and what is EPA proposing for approval?
A:	On March 23, 2021 the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE or the "Department") submitted a formal request for EPA approval of a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d) state plan for existing municipal solid waste landfills (MSW landfills) that commenced construction, modification or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014 ("111(d) Plan for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Colorado," or, hereafter referred to as the "state plan"). The state plan revises and will replace Colorado's initial state plan for existing MSW landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification before May 30, 1991. This initial state plan received EPA final approval on July 29, 1998 (63 FR 40371) and became effective and federally enforceable on September 28, 1998 (40 CFR §§ 62.1350 -- 1352). The state plan currently under consideration for approval addresses the EPA's August 29, 2016 final rule that promulgated new emission guidelines for existing MSW landfills (81 FR 59276 (Aug. 29, 2016)) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf (Subpart Cf). The new emission guidelines supersede the old emission guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (Subpart Cc) addressed by the initial Colorado state plan for existing MSW landfills. The EPA must review and approve formal state plan submittals for existing designated facilities under the authority of CAA section 111 and the general provisions for plan approval at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
The EPA is proposing to approve of Colorado's state plan and promulgate the plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart G for final effectiveness and federal enforceability. This document evaluates the approvability of the state plan and presents a basis for the proposed approval and promulgation.
Q:	What pollutant(s) will this action control?
A:	This action will enable implementation of the 2016 updated emission guidelines for existing MSW landfills in the state of Colorado. Implementation of the emission guidelines in Colorado will achieve, or make enforceable, reductions in emissions of landfill gas (LFG), which includes as components both nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) and methane. An explanation of the purpose of the emission guidelines and subsequent approval of related state plans is given in the Executive Summary, subsection A of the 2016 emission guidelines final rulemaking action (81 FR 59276 at 59277(Aug. 29, 2016)).
Q:	What are the expected environmental and public health benefits from controlling MSW landfill emissions?
A:	The national, final implementation of the 2016 updated emission guidelines is expected to significantly reduce emissions of LFG and its components, including methane, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). In addition to the substantial health benefits of reducing VOC and HAP, reduction of VOC and HAP should also reduce the genesis of fine particulate matter and ozone- two criteria pollutants for which VOC and HAP are precursor air pollutants. An accounting of the national costs and health and welfare benefits of full implementation of the emission guidelines is given in the Executive Summary, subsection C of the 2016 final emission guidelines rulemaking action (81 FR 59276 at 59279 (Aug. 29, 2016).
II.	Submittal Completeness
Q:	What should a state plan submittal contain to be deemed `complete' for the EPA's consideration of approvability?
A:	To be considered for EPA approval, a state plan submittal may be judged complete according to the unofficial completeness criteria found at 40 CFR § 60.27a(g). Completeness criteria have been divided into two general categories: 1) administrative criteria [§ 60.27a(g)(2)]; and 2) technical criteria [§ 60.27a(g)(3)]. NOTE- at present 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ba is under Agency review due to recently decided litigation concerning state plan submittal, review and approval deadlines; the completeness criteria listed here are, thus, used as informal, non-official guidance to ease plan processing. Additionally, Colorado developed the subject plan with consideration of these criteria while they were still in effect.
Administrative Criteria  -  in order to be deemed complete a state plan submittal may meet each of the following administrative criteria. The submittal package should include:
 a formal letter of submittal from the Governor or her designee requesting the EPA's approval of the plan or revision thereof;
 evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the state code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement (hereafter "document") in final form. That evidence must include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date;
 evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under state law to adopt and implement the plan [see 40 CFR § 60.26a];
 a copy of the actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made (such as redline/strikethrough) to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal must be a copy of the official state regulation or document signed, stamped and dated by the appropriate state official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation or document must, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. The State's electronic copy must be an exact duplicate of the hard copy. If the regulation/document provided by the State for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan is a copy of an existing publication, the State submission should, whenever possible, include a copy of the publication cover page and table of contents;
 evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the state's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption and issuance of the plan;
 evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change with procedures consistent with the requirements of §60.23a, including the date of publication of such notice;
 certification that public hearing(s) were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable and consistent with the public hearing requirements in § 60.23a;
 compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto; and
 fulfillment of such other criteria for completeness as may be specified by the Administrator under the applicable emission guidelines.
Technical criteria  -  in order to be deemed complete, a state plan must meet each of the following technical criteria. The submittal package must contain:
 a description of the plan approach and geographic scope;
 an identification of each designated facility, identification of standards of performance for the designated facilities, and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that will determine compliance by each designated facility;
 an identification of compliance schedules and/or increments of progress;
 a demonstration that the State plan submittal is projected to achieve emissions performance under the applicable emission guidelines;
 documentation of state recordkeeping and reporting requirements to determine the performance of the plan as a whole; and
 a demonstration that each emission standard is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable and enforceable.
Q:	Does the Colorado state plan submittal fulfill the completeness criteria?
A:	The Colorado state plan submittal does fulfill the completeness criteria. Evaluation of the submittal package against these completeness criteria is outlined in Appendix A, Table A1.
III.	Submittal Approvability
Q:	What general requirements must the Colorado state plan meet to receive EPA approval?
A:	After the EPA finds a state plan submittal package complete (see Section II of this document), the EPA shall evaluate the state plan for overall approvability per the general provisions for the adoption and submittal of state plans found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, specifically: the public notice and hearing provisions; the standards of performance and compliance schedule provisions; the emission inventory, source surveillance and reporting provisions; and the demonstration of State legal authority provisions.
Q:	Does the Colorado state plan submittal fulfill the general approval criteria?
A:	The Colorado state plan does fulfill the general approval criteria. Evaluation of the submittal package against the general approval criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B is outlined in Appendix B, Tables B1  -  B4.
Q:	What requirements specific to the emission guidelines for existing MSW landfills must the Colorado state plan meet to receive EPA approval?
A:	The Colorado state plan must implement the emission guidelines contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. A state may incorporate the requirements and compliance times of the emission guidelines in any way that results in state requirements and compliance times at least as stringent as the published guideline document.
Q:	Does the Colorado state plan submittal fulfill the specific approval criteria?
A:	The Colorado state plan does fulfill the specific approval requirements. Evaluation of the submittal package against the specific approval criteria found in 40 CFR part 60, Subpart Cf is outlined in Appendix B, Table B5.
IV.	Designated MSW Landfill Requirements for Owner/Operators
Q:	What specific requirements must an owner/operator of a designated facility meet under the approved plan?
A:	An owner/operator of a designated facility, as defined at 40 CFR § 60.31f, must meet the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf requirements as they have been incorporated at 5 CCR 1001-8, part A, subpart Cf and adopted in the "111(d) Plan for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Colorado" document. The incorporated requirements include applicability, emission limits, operating, testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, compliance schedules and all other relevant requirements originally required of an approvable 111(d) state plan for existing MSW landfills by the emission guidelines published in the CFR.
Q:	Must a designated existing landfill obtain a title V permit?
A:	The Department has incorporated, unchanged, 40 CFR § 60.31f. The requirement for a designated facility to obtain an operating permit under part 70 or 71 of the CFR applies only to designated facilities as defined by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf with a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters. Colorado has an approved part 70 program for issuing, implementing and enforcing title V permits. A designated facility required to obtain a title V permit under the incorporated emission guidelines requirements is subject to the title V permit requirements of Colorado.
V. 	Conclusion
Q:	Does the Colorado state plan receive EPA approval?
A:	The EPA's review of Colorado's state plan for existing MSW landfills finds the submittal consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf, and 40 CFR part 62. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the state plan and amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart G to reflect plan approval. The EPA Administrator will continue to retain authority for approval of alternative methods to determine the NMOC concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant.
Appendix A  -  Completeness Determination
Table A1  -  111(d) State Plan Submittal Completeness
Completeness Criteria
Notes
☒
(1) The State's 111(d) state plan submittal fulfills the following criteria by which the EPA may judge the submittal package administratively complete:

☒
(A) The plan submittal package includes a formal statement of submittal from the Governor or her designee requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof;
The state plan submittal states that, "Colorado's Governor has designated the [CDPHE], Air Pollution Control Division ("Division") Director as his designee for the Air Quality Program in Colorado. In that capacity, Colorado is submitting this Section 111(d) plan for Municipal Solid Waste ("MSW") landfills for approval [...]." See docket item `111(d) Plan for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Colorado'  -  hereafter referred to as the `state plan document'- Section I, p. 3. The submittal also includes a letter, dated March 22, 2021 from Jill Hunsaker Ryan, Executive Director of CDPHE submitting the state plan to the EPA as the Colorado governor's designee. See docket item `Submittal Letter to EPA_03222021'.

☒
(B) The submittal package includes a copy of the actual regulation, or incorporated plan document, including indication (such as by redline/strikeout) of the changes made to the existing State rules, regulations or incorporated plan document;
The submittal package includes a copy of the redline/strikeout version of the proposed, changes to sections of the Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR), Regulation Number 6 (5 CCR 1001-8, part A, subpart Cf). The submittal also includes a copy of the subject CCR section as effective on July 15, 2020. See docket items `Reg Lang & SBAP Adopted' and `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020'.

☒
(C) The submittal package includes evidence that the State has finalized regulatory revisions, incorporation of the plan document in the state code or body of regulations, or has issued the relevant permit, order or consent agreement in final form;
See notes to items (C)(i)-(iii) below.

☒
(i) Evidence of final adoption includes the relevant document being accompanied by the signature, stamp and date from an appropriate state official indicating that the plan is fully enforceable by the State;
The submittal package includes a copy of Colorado Secretary of State tracking verifying that the relevant rulemaking action is effective and has been published in the CCR. See docket item `SoS Authentication'. The submittal package also includes verification by the Colorado Attorney General that the relevant rulemaking action was completed without any findings of legal deficiency. See docket item `Appx05_Attorney General Opinion'.

☒
(ii) Presence within the regulatory revisions or the incorporation of the relevant document, whenever possible, of the effective date of the regulation or incorporated document; and
A copy of the relevant regulatory amendments included in the submittal package includes historical effective dates for rule revisions. The last rule revision, including regulatory provisions specific to the state plan, took effect on July 15, 2020. See docket item `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020'.

☒
(iii) The assurance that any physical and electronic copies of the finalized regulation or incorporated document submitted to the EPA are exact duplicates of one another and of the finalized regulation or incorporated document as maintained by the State.
The copy of 5 CCR 1001-8_07152020 is identical to the version of Regulation No. 6 available from the Colorado Secretary of State. Secretary of State authentication establishes that the changes necessary for the state plan were effective on July 7, 2020 and inserted into the CCR on July 30, 2020. See docket item `SoS Authentication'.

☒
(D) The submittal package includes evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under state law to adopt and implement the plan. This may consist of annotated copies of the relevant state rules and regulations;

The state plan document included in the submittal package includes a demonstration of the State's legal authority to adopt and implement the emission limits and source requirements. See state plan document, section II, pp. 4-6

☒
(E) The submittal package includes evidence that the State has followed all of the procedural requirements of the state's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption and issuance of the plan;
The Attorney General of Colorado has certified that the necessary regulations for effecting the state plan were adopted without constitutional or legal deficiency. See docket item `Appx05_Attorney General Opinion'.

☒
(F) The submittal package includes evidence that proper public notice was given and, if applicable, hearings conducted concerning the regulatory revisions or incorporated plan document as they were proposed; and
The state plan document includes a description of the public notice and hearing process. See state plan document, section X, p. 13. The submittal also includes documentation of the notice and hearing process, including copies of the hearing notice, regulations docket, Air Commission meeting agenda and meeting minutes. See docket items `Appx03_Notice of Meeting' and `Appx04_Commission Meeting Minutes'.

☒
(G) If applicable, the submittal package includes a compilation of public comments and the State's responses.
The submittal makes clear that the public hearing process was conditional upon receiving written comment. There was no request for a formal hearing nor were there any written comments received by the Air Commission on the subject rulemaking action. See state plan document, section X, p. 13.

☒
(2) The State's 111(d) state plan submittal fulfills the following criteria by which the EPA may judge the submittal package technically complete:

☒
(A) The plan submittal package includes a description of the plan's approach and its geographic scope;
The state plan document states that the approach is to adopt the emission guidelines and source requirements into the CCR with necessary language changes to make all designated facilities within Colorado subject to the emission limits and other source requirements outlined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

☒
(B) The submittal package includes a source inventory that identifies each designated facility, and for each designated facility identifies:

☒
(i) standards of performance for plan compliance;
Incorporation of the EG standards of performance. See docket item `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020' and state plan document, section VII, p. 10.

☒
(ii) monitoring requirements for plan compliance; and
Incorporation of the EG monitoring requirements. See docket items `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020' and state plan document, section IX, pp. 11-13.

☒
(iii) recordkeeping and reporting requirements for plan compliance.
Incorporation of the EG recordkeeping and reporting requirements. See docket items `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020' and state plan document, section IX, p. 11-13.

☒
(C) The submittal package includes compliance schedules or increments of progress in compliance with the relevant guideline document and general provisions;
Incorporation of the EG compliance schedules. See docket item `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020'

☒
(D) The submittal package includes a demonstration that the plan, as submitted, is projected to achieve emissions performance under the applicable guideline document;
Incorporation of the EG performance standards. See docket item `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020'

☒
(E) The submittal package includes documentation of state recordkeeping and reporting requirements to determine the performance of the plan as submitted; and
Incorporation of the EG recordkeeping and reporting requirements. See docket item `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020'

☒
(F) The submittal package includes a demonstration that each emission standard required by the plan is quantifiable, non-duplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable
Incorporation of the EG into state regulation. See docket item `5 CCR 1001-8_07152020'

Appendix B  -  Approvability Determination
Table B1  -  111(d) State Plan Development - Standards of Performance and Compliance Schedules
☒
(1) The state plan includes standards of performance and compliance schedules at least as stringent as those required of state plans by the applicable emission guidelines published in accordance with § 60.22 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Subpart Cf requires an approvable state plan set an emissions standard (standard of performance) for designated facilities in § 60.33f(a). The State has mandated that all applicable performance standards shall be followed by designated facilities as specified in § 60.33f. The State of Colorado has incorporated the performance standards in 40 CFR § 60.33f into 5 Code of Colorado Regulations (CCR) 1001-8 (`Reg. No. 6') with necessary changes to the directional language of the section. Reg. No. 6 also makes clear that designated facilities "must comply with the minimum requirements in [40 CFR part 60,] subpart Cf as provided in Colorado's 111(d) plan for Municipal Solid Landfills." The state's "111(d) Plan for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Colorado" (hereafter referred to as `the plan document') designates applicable compliance times as those found in § 60.32f (p. 8).

☒
(2) The state plan prescribes test methods and procedures for determining compliance with the standards of performance matching those specified by the applicable emission guidelines, unless:

The plan document identifies the applicable test methods and procedures for designated sources as those, "specified in [40 CFR part 60, S]ubpart Cf sections 60.35f(a)-(e)" (p. 8)

☐
(A) The state plan prescribes a test method shown to be an equivalent, alternative method as approved by the EPA Administrator.

N/A
☒
(3) The state plan applies standards of performance to all designated facilities within the State, and the State can demonstrate the enforceability of these standards by the State.
The plan document applies the Subpart Cf standards of performance, as incorporated into the CCR and referenced in the plan document itself, to "all landfills for which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before July 17, 2014" (Reg. No. 6, Subpart Cf). This includes designated facilities listed in the plan document as well as all possible as yet `undiscovered' designated facilities. The plan document states that, "Colorado will require any newly discovered, existing sources to meet the [applicable requirements outlined in Subpart Cf]" (p. 8). The state demonstrates the enforceability of the state plan requirements in Section II of the state plan document (p. 4). The state has also demonstrated its ability to enforce section 111(d) plans through the approval of previous plan submittals to the EPA. See 40 CFR part 62, subpart G.

☒
(4) If applicable, where the relevant emission guidelines set forth standards of performance prescribing design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or a combination thereof, the state plan has permitted compliance by the use of alternative equipment equivalent to that prescribed, and the State is able to provide the following:

The state plan document applies the Subpart Cf prescribed specifications and requirements for gas collection and control systems (GCCS) found in §§ 60.33f(f) and 60.40f. See the plan document, p. 8.

☐
(A) A determination of the emission reductions achievable by implementation of the standards of performance as set forth by the applicable emission guidelines; and

See above note

☐
(B) A determination of equivalency between the equipment prescribed by the emission guidelines and the equipment permitted by the state plan.

See above note
☒
(5) If applicable, in cases where a compliance schedule for any designated facility extends more than 24 months from the date required for submittal of the state plan, the state plan includes the following, defined increments of progress for that designated facility:

The state plan document mandates designated facilities follow the Subpart Cf prescribed compliance timeline.

☒
(A) The submittal of a final control plan for the designated facility to the appropriate air pollution control agency;

GCCS design plan submittal is set at 1 year from the first measured exceedance of the performance standard as specified in § 60.38f(d)
.

☐
(B) The awarding of contracts for emission control systems or process modifications, or for the issuance of orders for the purchase of component parts to accomplish emission control or process modification;

N/A  -  Federal plan sets a deadline for awarding contracts at 8 months from performance standard exceedance, but Subpart Cf does not require this of state plans, and such a deadline has not been set.

☐
(C) The initiation of on-site construction or installation of emission control equipment or process change;

N/A  -  Federal plan sets a deadline for beginning construction/installation at 12 months from performance standard exceedance, but Subpart Cf does not require this of state plans, and such a deadline has not been set.

☒
(D) The completion of on-site construction or installation of emission control equipment for process change; and

The completion of installation and start up of GCCS is set at within 30 months of the first emission rate report showing exceedance of the 34 Mg/yr performance standard.

☒
(E) The facility's final compliance.

Final compliance with GCCS requirements is set at within 30 months of the first emission rate report showing exceedance of the 34 Mg/y performance standard.

NOTE: for above criteria, see the plan document, pp. 11-12.

☐
(6) If applicable, in cases where the state plan applies to any designated facility a standard of performance or compliance times less stringent than those required of state plans by the applicable emission guidelines of 40 CFR part 60, the State has provided the following:
N/A

☐
(A) A demonstration of unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age, location, or basic process design;
N/A

☐
(B) A demonstration of physical impossibility of installing necessary control equipment; or
N/A

☐
(C) A demonstration of "significant reasonableness" of a less stringent standard or final compliance time considering other factors specific to the designated facility in question.
N/A

Table B2  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  Emission Inventories, Source Surveillance and Reporting
☒
(1) The state plan includes an inventory of all designated facilities under the applicable emission guidelines. The facility inventory presents emissions data from all designated facilities within the state as follows:

The state plan document includes an inventory of all known existing MSW landfills in the State of Colorado (state plan document, Section III, pp. 6-7).

☒
(A) The inventory presents emissions data for the designated pollutants under the applicable emission guidelines;

The facilities inventory is followed by an emissions inventory presenting NMOC emission rates for the designated facilities within Colorado that exceed the design capacity threshold for GCCS installation (state plan document, Section IV, p. 9).

☒
(B) The inventory presents information related to emissions as specified in appendix D to 40 CFR part 60; and

Emission data is derived from reporting data available to EPA.

☒
(C) The inventory presents emissions data in such a manner as to show the relationship between measured or estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowable under the applicable standards of performance.

The emissions inventory correlates reported emission rates with requirement to install a GCCS and whether they are currently operating such a system.

☒
(2) The state plan identifies State rules or regulations that provide enforcement authority for the State's monitoring of each designated source's status of compliance with the applicable standards of performance, and the State's ability to release emissions data to the public:

The state identifies its enforcement authority in the state plan document, Section II. Most authorities are found under Title 25 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, Article 7. A previously approved title V program demonstrates the enforcement authority necessary for points (2)(A)-(D), below.

☒
(A) The state plan demonstrates the State's legal authority to enforce requirements that owners or operators of designated facilities maintain records and periodically report emissions information in accordance with the applicable emission guideline requirements;
See above note and state plan document Section II, subsection 3

☒
(B) The state plan demonstrates the State's legal authority to conduct periodic inspection and, when necessary, testing of designated facilities
See above note and state plan document Section II, subsection 3

☒
(C) The state plan demonstrates the ability of the State to release to the general public information obtained by the State through facility reporting, inspections and testing
See above note and state plan document Section II, subsection 5

☒
(D) The state plan demonstrates the ability of the State to obtain any other information from designated facilities relevant to the enforcement of the applicable emission guidelines.
See above notes
☒
(3) The state plan includes provisions for periodic reporting to the EPA on progress in plan enforcement. Provisions commit to annual (on a calendar year basis) reports, commencing in the first full calendar year after EPA approval of the state plan:

The incorporation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf into state code and the state plan document provide reporting requirements equally stringent to those required of states and facilities in the state plan requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. See Reg. No. 6, subpart Cf and state plan document Sections III, IV, VI and IX.

☒
(A) Provisions for progress reports include a commitment to report enforcement actions initiated against designated facilities during the reporting period;
See above note

☒
(B) A commitment, if applicable, to identify achievement of any increment of progress during the reporting period;
See above note

☒
(C) A commitment to identify any designated facility that has ceased operation during the reporting period;
See above note

☒
(D) A commitment to submit emission inventory data, equivalent in substance to data provided under paragraph (1) of this section for any designated facility newly discovered or reopened during the reporting period;
See above note

☒
(E) A commitment to submit additional data each reporting period as necessary to update the inventory information as outlined in paragraph (1) of this section, or amend the data submitted in a previous progress report; and
See above note

☒
(F) A commitment to submit copies of technical reports on all performance testing on designated facilities overseen by the State during the reporting period, complete with concurrently recorded process data.
See above note

Table B3  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  Demonstration of Legal Authority
☒
(1) The state plan or state plan revision shows that the State has legal authority to carry out the plan or plan revision:
A demonstration of Colorado's legal authority to carry out the plan is given in the state plan document (Section II). The state plan document cites the relevant state laws as being found in CRS 25-7. Additionally, demonstration of legal authority has been made and approved by EPA during previous submittals of 111(d) plans and during the approval of the state's title V program. These regulations and rules provide the legal authority required in points (1)(B)-(D), below.

☒
(A) The plan specifically identifies the state rule(s) or regulation(s) that provides the legal authority to adopt standards of performance and compliance schedules applicable to designated facilities under the relevant emission guidelines;

Section 25-7-109, CRS. See also, above note.

☒
(B) The legal authority to enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules and to seek injunctive relief;

Sections 25-7-111, 115 and 121, CRS. See also, above note

☒
(C) The legal authority to obtain information necessary to determine the compliance of any designated facility with the standard of performance and any other source requirement of the relevant emission guidelines; and

Sections 25-7-106 and 111, CRS. See also, above note

☒
(D) The legal authority to require that owners or operators of designated facilities under the relevant emission guidelines install, maintain and use emissions monitoring devices and to make periodic reports to the State.

Sections 25-7-106, 111 and 114, CRS. See also, above note
☒
(2) The state plan demonstrates that the legal authorities identified under paragraph (1) of this section are available to the State at the time of the plan's submittal to the EPA for approval
Colorado has previously demonstrated legal authority to adequately implement and enforce section 111(d) state plans with previous plan submittals and the approval of the state's Title V permitting program.

Table B4  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  Public Notice and Hearing
☒
(1) The State, prior to adoption of any plan or plan revision, has conducted one or more public hearings within the State in accordance with the following requirements:

☒
(A) The State has given public notice in each region affected by the plan at least 30 days prior to the date of the public hearing, prominently advertising the date, time and location of the public hearing;

Record of the public notice was submitted with the plan package. Public notice for the May 20, 2020 hearing was authorized on February 21, 2020. Notice gives date, time and location of the public hearing, as well as direction for access to the proposed state rule changes and how to submit comments.

☒
(B) At the time of public notice, the proposed plan or plan revision(s) was available for public inspection in at least one location in each region to which the plan will apply;

Proposed rule changes were made available on the CDPHE Air Quality Control Commission website.

☒
(C) The State has sent notification to the EPA Administrator or their representative concurrent with the public notice;

EPA Region 8, as the Administrators delegated authority for 111(d) state plan review and approval received notice of the proposed changes and made written comments. See document titled `Draft Plan Submittal_R8 Comments' in the docket for this action.

☐
(D) If applicable, the State has notified each local air pollution control agency in each region to which the plan will apply concurrent with the public notice; and

N/A

☐
(E) If applicable, the State has notified any other affected State in the region concurrent with the public notice.

N/A
☐
(2) If applicable, the State has cancelled the public hearing in accordance with the following requirements:

N/A

☐
(A) The State included in the original notice of public hearing a notification that the hearing was conditional upon receiving request for a public hearing from an individual of the public or representative of a notified agency or state; and

N/A

☐
(B) The State identified in the original notice of public hearing the method and time for announcing that the hearing has been cancelled and provided a contact phone number for the public to call to find out if the hearing has been cancelled.

N/A
☒
(3) If applicable, the State has prepared a record of each hearing for inspection by any interested party. The record contains, at minimum, a list of witnesses together with the text of each presentation or comment.

Minutes of the May 20-21 hearing session of the AQCC are included in the submittal package.
☒
(4) The State has a plan to retain, for a minimum of 2 years, the applicable records demonstrating compliance with the public hearing requirements outlined in this section.

The minutes of this public hearing will be retained by the State and be made available by EPA for a minimum of 2 years as a docket item attached to this federal rulemaking.
☒
(5) The State has prepared, as part of its 111(d) plan submittal to the EPA, documentation of the public hearing process in accordance with the following requirements:

☒
(A) The State has included in its documentation, evidence and certification that each hearing required by paragraph (1) of this section was held in compliance with the public notice requirements in paragraphs (1)(A) --  (E) or cancelled in compliance with the provisions under paragraph (2) of this section; and
Documentation of the requirements found in paragraphs (1)(A)-(E), above is provided within the state plan package, in various places. See documents, `Hearing Notice', `Memorandum of Notice', `AQCC Meeting Agenda 05202020' and `AQCC Meeting Minutes 05202020' in the docket for this rulemaking action.

☒
(B) The State has included in its documentation, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations appearing at the hearing and a brief written synopsis of each presentation or comment and each written submission.
Documentation of written comment or written abstention from comment is provided in the document, `AQCC Meeting Minutes 05202020' in the docket for this rulemaking action.

☐
(6) If the State has not fulfilled the applicable public notice and hearing requirements under paragraphs (1) --  (5) of this section, the State has received written approval from the EPA of alternative public participation procedures in accordance with 40 CFR 60.23a(h).
N/A

Table B5  -  111(d) State Plan Development  -  40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf Specific Requirements
40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf
CCR
and
State Plan Document

Is State Plan
Approvable?
Comments
Subpart Cf -
Throughout/
General
5 CCR 1001-8, Subpart Cf
and
State Plan Document, throughout
                                      ☒
General Note: Colorado has incorporated all 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf state plan requirements into the CCR. The Subpart Cf requirements are modified in such a way as to apply the requirements directly to designated facilities. The application of requirements directly to designated facilities is accomplished through both the CCR incorporation of Subpart Cf and by specific direction to facility requirements through the state plan document. Specifically, Reg. No. 6 incorporates Subpart Cf with changes to directional language found in 40 CFR § 60.33f to directly address owners and operators of designated facilities, rather than the state plan author, regarding general requirements for designated facilities. Specific requirements are given, with further explanation, in the plan document itself. The CCR directs facility owners and operators to refer directly to that document for specific requirements that will apply to their individual facility.

The EPA's review of the modified and incorporated language found that all general facility requirements had been incorporated into the CCR correctly and that the addition of the state plan document applies standards and requirements at least as stringent as those required of an approvable state plan.
§ 60.30f
Scope and delegated authorities
See above and comment*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and statement of reserved authorities of the EPA Administrator on p. 8 of the state plan document.
§ 60.31f Designated facilities
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Section III of the state plan document.
§ 60.32f Compliance times
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Section IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.33f Emission Guidelines for MSW landfill emissions
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III and VII of the state plan document.
§ 60.34f Operational standards for GCCS
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III and VII of the state plan document.
§ 60.35f Test methods and procedures
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III, V and IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.36f Compliance provisions
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III and IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.37f Monitoring of operations
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III and IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.38f Reporting guidelines
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III, VII and IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III and IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.40f Specifications for active collection systems
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Sections III and IX of the state plan document.
§ 60.41f Definitions
*
                                      ☒
* See General Note above and Reg. No. 6 incorporation of definitions for designated facilities and definitions specific to Subpart Cf requirements found in § 60.41f


Hi Sharlene,

As requested, here is the email exchange with Dr. Rauh on August 12.

Regards,

Debbie

Deborah Smegal

Health Effects Division

USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs (7509P)

703-308-0175

----- Forwarded by Deborah Smegal/DC/USEPA/US on 09/10/2008 12:15 PM -----

"Virginia A. Rauh"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 08/12/2008 04:25 PM

To

Deborah Smegal/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anna Lowit/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Fw: newer draft of chlorpyrifos epi chapter

Yes,  I think it can be mentioned, especially since the MDI findings are

consistent with Robin's findings.  It is important to note that this

suggests that exposure to one organophosphate (in this case diazinon)

may potentiate the adverse effects of another organophosphate (in this

case CPF), or vice-versa.  This is certainly one interpretation of our

findings.  Additionally, it is quite clear that the adverse impact of

CPF on birthweight and cogntive development is not due to diazinon

exposure.  Does that help?

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:

> Thank you Ginny.

>

> Can I mention this as a personal communcation (i.e., that even

> controlling for diazinon the effects were signifciant), or do you prefer

> we just keep this in our internal EPA files and amongst our folks?

>

> We really appreciate all your help.

>

> Regards,

>

> Debbie

>

> Deborah Smegal

> Health Effects Division

> USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs (7509P)

><PHONE_NUMBER>

>

>

>

>              "Virginia A.

>              Rauh"

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      To

>              du>                      Deborah Smegal/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

>                                                                      cc

>              08/12/2008 03:20<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

>              PM                                                 Subject

>                                       Re: Fw: newer draft of

>                                       chlorpyrifos epi chapter

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hi Debbie and Robin--I did some re-analyses over the past few days, just

>

> to check the effects of high diazinon exposure on 3-year development.

> With respect to the strongest effect of CPF (motor development), there

> is no significant effect of high diazinon exposure or any increase in

> the significance of the effect when CPF and Diazinon are combined.  Re:

> mental development, there is no diazinon effect, but the magnitude of

> the deficit is slightly increased when the combined CPF and diazinon

> measure is used.  This is very similar to Robin's BW finding.  So these

> analyses do not reduce the CPF effect for any of the 3-year outcomes.  I

>

> think this is important for us to know but of course this is not

> published.

> Ginny

>

>