[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35374-35379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16689]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO-001-0055; FRL-7005-8]


Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plan Revision for Colorado; Long-Term Strategy of State 
Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection: Craig Station 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the long-term strategy portion 
of Colorado's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Class I Visibility 
Protection, contained in section III of the document entitled 
``Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility 
Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,'' as submitted by 
the Governor with a letter dated June 7, 2001. The revision will 
incorporate into the SIP emissions reduction requirements for the Craig 
Station (a coal-fired steam generating plant located near the town of 
Craig, Colorado). EPA is approving the SIP revision, which is expected 
to remedy Craig Station's contribution to visibility impairment in the 
Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area and, therefore, make reasonable progress 
toward the Clean Air Act National visibility goal with respect to such 
contribution. On May 1, 2001, EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that proposed to approve this SIP revision and provided a 
thirty-day period for public comment. EPA received one letter of 
supportive comments regarding the proposed revision and is finalizing 
the proposal without modification.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective August 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other information are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations: Air and Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405; 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution 
Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 
80222-1530; and The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Platt, Air and Radiation Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, (303) 312-6449.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used it means the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

I. Background

    Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA),\1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491, 
establishes as a National goal the prevention of any future, and the 
remedying of any existing, anthropogenic visibility impairment in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ (referred to herein as the

[[Page 35375]]

``National goal'' or ``National visibility goal''). Section 169A called 
for EPA to, among other things, issue regulations to assure reasonable 
progress toward meeting the National visibility goal, including 
requiring each State with a mandatory Class I Federal area to revise 
its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain such emission limits, 
schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make 
reasonable progress toward meeting the National goal. CAA section 
169A(b)(2). Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J), 
similarly requires SIPs to meet the visibility protection requirements 
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code 
at 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    \2\ Mandatory class I Federal areas include international parks, 
national wilderness areas, and national memorial parks greater than 
five thousand acres in size, and national parks greater than six 
thousand acres in size, as described in section 162(a) of the Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal land manager'' (FLM), the Secretary of 
the department with authority over such lands. See section 302(i) of 
the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We promulgated regulations that required affected States to, among 
other things, (1) coordinate development of SIPs with appropriate 
Federal Land Managers (FLMs); (2) develop a program to assess and 
remedy visibility impairment from new and existing sources; and (3) 
develop a long-term (10-15 years) strategy to assure reasonable 
progress toward the National visibility goal. See 45 FR 80084, December 
2, 1980 (codified at 40 CFR 51.300-51.307). The regulations provide for 
the remedying of visibility impairment that is reasonably attributable 
to a single existing stationary facility or small group of existing 
stationary facilities. These regulations require that the SIPs provide 
for periodic review, and revision as appropriate, of the long-term 
strategy not less frequently than every three years, that the review 
process include consultation with the appropriate FLMs, and that the 
State provide a report to the public and EPA that includes an 
assessment of the State's progress toward the National visibility goal. 
See 40 CFR 51.306(c).
    On July 12, 1985 (50 FR 28544) and November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45132), 
we disapproved the SIPs of states, including Colorado, that failed to 
comply with the requirements of the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302 
(visibility general plan requirements), 51.305 (visibility monitoring), 
and 51.306 (visibility long-term strategy). We also incorporated 
corresponding Federal plans and regulations into the SIPs of these 
states pursuant to section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
    The Governor of Colorado submitted a SIP revision for visibility 
protection on December 21, 1987, which met the criteria of 40 CFR 
51.302, 51.305, and 51.306 for general plan requirements, monitoring 
strategy, and long-term strategies. We approved this SIP revision in 
the August 12, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 30428), and this revision 
replaced the Federal plans and regulations in the Colorado Visibility 
SIP.
    The Governor of Colorado submitted subsequent SIP revisions for 
visibility protection with letters dated November 18, 1992, August 23, 
1996, and August 19, 1998. These revisions were made to fulfill the 
requirements to periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the 
long-term strategy for visibility protection. We approved the first two 
long-term strategy revisions on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51376), and 
January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2305), respectively. The 1998 revisions will be 
addressed at a later date.
    After Colorado's 1992 long-term strategy review, the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) certified visibility impairment in Mt. Zirkel Wilderness 
Area (MZWA) and named the Hayden and Craig generating stations in the 
Yampa Valley of Northwest Colorado as suspected sources. The USFS is 
the FLM for MZWA. This certification was issued on July 14, 1993. 
Hayden Station was addressed in the State's 1996 long-term strategy 
review and revision (see 62 FR 2305, January 16, 1997).
    Craig Station, which is the focus of this SIP revision, is located 
40 miles upwind from MZWA. The facility consists of three units, but 
only Units 1 and 2 are subject to this action. Unit 1 is a 428 megawatt 
steam generating unit that commenced commercial operation in 1980 and 
Unit 2 is a 428 megawatt steam generating unit that commenced 
commercial operation in 1979. The existing emission control equipment 
on Units 1 and 2 consists of the following: wet scrubbers to control 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) (currently achieve 65% SO2 
removal), electro-static precipitators to control particulate 
pollution, and low nitrogen oxides ( NOX) burners to control 
NOX emissions. The 1999 emissions inventory for Craig 
Station Units 1 and 2, as reported to EPA's Acid Rain database, 
indicated that these units emitted 9,216 tons of SO2 and 
12,501 tons of NOX. Particulate emissions have been more 
difficult to estimate since continuous emissions rate data is not 
available.
    On October 9, 1996, Sierra Club, Inc. (``Sierra Club'') sued the 
owners of the Craig Station in United States District Court, alleging 
numerous violations of State and Federal opacity standards from 1991-
1996. In the Fall of 1996, the State, Craig Station owners, and EPA 
initiated a joint study to develop information on SO2 
emission reduction options and associated costs for Craig Station Units 
1 and 2. This joint study, referred to as the ``Craig Flue Gas 
Desulfurization Study (Craig FGD Study),'' was viewed as a means to 
move the parties to a negotiated resolution of Craig Station's 
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA, and if negotiations 
failed, as a possible basis for a Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) determination under State and EPA visibility regulations. The 
Craig FGD Study was completed on August 31, 1999.
    The Craig FGD Study identified several options, at reasonable 
costs, for addressing Craig Station's contribution to visibility 
impairment at MZWA. This information and the results of other technical 
analyses led us, on September 22, 1999, to call for a revision to the 
Colorado Visibility SIP to resolve the long outstanding certification 
of visibility impairment for MZWA with respect to Craig Station (see 64 
FR 54010, October 5, 1999). The State was given 12 months to revise the 
SIP accordingly.
    In October 1999, the Sierra Club, the Colorado Air Pollution 
Control Division (APCD), EPA, USFS, and the Craig Station owners 
entered into negotiations to try to reach a ``global settlement'' of 
the various issues facing the power plant. These issues included the 
Sierra Club lawsuit and the USFS certification of impairment in MZWA.
    On October 17, 2000, the Sierra Club and owners of Craig Station 
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Sierra Club lawsuit. 
Sierra Club and the Craig Station owners subsequently negotiated and 
signed a consent decree that they filed with the United States District 
Court for the District of Colorado on January 10, 2001 (Civil Action 
No. 96-N-2368) (referred to hereafter as ``Craig Consent Decree'' or 
``Consent Decree.'') The Court entered the Consent Decree on March 19, 
2001.
    The Consent Decree resolves the Sierra Club complaint regarding 
opacity violations and also requires substantial reductions in air 
pollutants that are intended to resolve Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in MZWA. The Consent Decree contemplates that its 
requirements will be incorporated into the Colorado SIP. Although we 
were not involved in the direct negotiations between Sierra Club and 
the Craig Station owners regarding the terms of the Consent Decree, 
during negotiations Sierra Club and the Craig Station owners sought, 
and we provided, our input regarding terms of

[[Page 35376]]

the settlement. In particular, in a December 20, 2000 letter, we 
commented on a final draft of the Consent Decree and gave our 
preliminary views of the settlement with respect to the SO2 
limits for Craig Station. We made clear that only through our public 
rulemaking process would we reach final judgment regarding a Visibility 
SIP revision based on the Consent Decree. This final rulemaking is the 
last step in that public rulemaking process. The Sierra Club and Craig 
Station owners also asked the State, USFS, and National Park Service to 
provide input on the Consent Decree during the negotiations of the 
final agreement.
    On May 1, 2001, we announced our proposed approval of proposed 
revisions to the long-term strategy portion of Colorado's SIP for Class 
I Visibility Protection, contained in section III of the document 
entitled ``Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility 
Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,'' dated February 
1, 2001. We based our proposed approval on a February 20, 2001 letter 
to EPA from Governor Bill Owens requesting that we ``parallel process'' 
the State's proposed revision. In that proposed rulemaking action, we 
described in detail our rationale for proposing approval. As indicated 
in that action, we based our proposed approval on our understanding 
that the State would make two minor changes to the February 1, 2001 
proposed SIP revisions before final adoption. The April 19, 2001 SIP 
revision that the State adopted and which we are approving with this 
action, includes the two minor changes we described in our proposed 
approval. The public should review the notice of proposed rulemaking 
for further background on this final rulemaking action.
    We requested public comments on the proposal (see 66 FR 21721). We 
received one letter of supportive comments regarding the proposed 
revision, and are finalizing our approval with this action.

II. Revision Submitted June 7, 2001

    With a letter dated June 7, 2001, the Governor of Colorado 
submitted the revision to the long-term strategy portion of Colorado's 
SIP for Visibility Protection that the State finally adopted on April 
19, 2001. This revision is contained in Section III of the April 19, 
2001 document entitled ``Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class 
I Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements.'' 
The revision was made to fulfill, with respect to Craig Station's 
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA, the Federal and Colorado 
requirements to revise the long-term strategy to include emission 
limitations and schedules for compliance necessary to demonstrate 
reasonable progress toward the National visibility goal.\3\ Among other 
things, the SIP revision incorporates provisions of the Craig Consent 
Decree that require the owners of Craig Station to install control 
equipment and meet stringent emission limitations for particulates 
(including opacity), NOX and SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This revision is specific to requirements for Craig Station 
and does not constitute the State's three year review of the 
components of the Long-term Strategy, as required by 40 CFR 
51.306(c). That review and report are not due from the State until 
September 2001, at which time the public will be able to review and 
comment on the State's full Long-term Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Analysis of State's Revision

1. Procedural Background
    The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation 
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing. Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that each 
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the CAA 
must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
    On April 19, 2001, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 
(AQCC), after providing adequate notice, held a public hearing to 
consider the revisions to the Long-term Strategy of the Visibility SIP 
and subsequently adopted the revisions.
2. Content of SIP Revision
    The SIP revision is contained in section III of the submittal 
entitled ``Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I 
Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,'' 
dated April 19, 2001. Only Section III contains provisions that are 
enforceable against the Craig Station owners. Part III incorporates 
relevant portions of the Craig Consent Decree into the long-term 
strategy. The remainder of the SIP revision contains provisions that 
are explanatory and analyses that are required by section 169A of the 
CAA, Federal visibility regulations (40 CFR 51.300 to 51.307), and/or 
the Colorado Visibility SIP.
    a. Section III: Enforceable Portion of the Proposed SIP Revision:
    Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements. The State incorporated 
into its Visibility SIP revision provisions of the Craig Consent Decree 
including Definitions, Emission Controls and Limitations, Continuous 
Emission Monitors, Construction Schedule, Emission Limitation 
Compliance Deadlines, and Reporting. Such provisions must be met by the 
Craig Station owners and are enforceable. The Consent Decree numbering 
scheme was retained to avoid confusion between the SIP and the Consent 
Decree, but only the Consent Decree's emission controls and 
limitations, construction schedule, and sections necessary to ensure 
enforceability of these requirements were included in the SIP. Some 
changes were made to Consent Decree language to conform to a SIP 
framework. Finally, changes were made to the force majeure provisions 
of the Consent Decree to ensure that a demonstration of reasonable 
progress could be made at this time. Provisions of particular interest 
incorporated from the Craig Consent Decree are summarized below.
    SO2 Emission Limitations--Craig Units 1 and 2 will be 
designed to meet at least a 93.7% SO2 removal rate. The 
Craig Station owners must design, construct and operate FGD upgrades 
and related equipment to reliably treat 100% of the flue gas and to 
meet the following emissions limitations:

--No more than 0.160 lbs SO2 per million Btu heat input on a 
30 boiler operating day rolling average basis;
--No more than 0.130 lbs SO2 per million Btu heat input on a 
90 boiler operating day rolling average basis;
--At least a 90% reduction of SO2 on a 90 boiler operating 
day rolling average basis, unless Craig Station owners show this limit 
cannot be met, in which case an alternative limit shall be established, 
not to be less than an 85% reduction of SO2 on a 30 boiler 
operating day average or 86% on a 90 boiler operating day average; \4\ 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Any changes made to the percentage reduction requirement 
will be made pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree, and 
if the ultimate percentage reduction requirement changes from 90%, 
the State has indicated that it would report the changes in its next 
long-term strategy review. We would provide an information notice on 
any such changes as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--A unit cannot operate for more than 72 consecutive hours without any 
SO2 emissions reductions; that is, it must shut down if the 
control equipment is not working at all for three days.

    Particulate Emission Limitations--The Craig Station owners must 
install and operate a Fabric Filter Dust Collector (known as a baghouse 
or FFDC) on Craig Units 1 and 2. Particulate emission limitations for 
each unit are:


[[Page 35377]]


--No more than 0.03 lbs of particulate matter per million Btu heat 
input; and
--No more than 20.0% opacity, with certain limited exceptions, as 
averaged over each separate 6-minute period within an hour as measured 
by continuous opacity monitors.

    NOX Emissions Limitations--NOX reductions are 
to be achieved through the requirement to install ``state-of-the-art'' 
low-NOX burners utilizing two-stage combustion with 
supplemental over-fire air systems. The emissions limitations on each 
of Craig Station Units 1 and 2 are:
    --No more than 0.30 lbs per million Btu heat input on a calendar 
year annual average basis.
    Compliance With Emissions Limits--All required controls must be 
designed to meet enforceable emission limits. Compliance with the 
emission limits shall be determined by continuous emission monitors. 
Compliance with the percentage reduction requirement for SO2 
shall be determined by comparing SO2 emissions from the 
stack (measured by continuous emissions monitors--``CEMs'') to 
potential SO2 emissions from coal combusted (determined 
through coal sampling and analysis).
    Construction Schedule--The final deadlines for constructing control 
equipment are as follows:
    Unit 1--Completion of construction and initiation of start-up of 
all upgrades by 12/31/03.
    Unit 2--Completion of construction and initiation of start-up of 
all upgrades by 6/30/04.
    The schedule for commencement of compliance with the emissions 
limitations is as follows:

    SO2--For Unit 1, within 180 days after completion of 
construction of the additional SO2 control equipment, or by 
June 30, 2004, whichever date is earlier, except for 90% SO2 
reduction, which must be achieved within 270 days of the above 
compliance date, but no later than March 31, 2005.
    --For Unit 2, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
the additional SO2 control equipment, or by December 31, 
2004, whichever date is earlier, except for 90% SO2 
reduction, which must be achieved within 270 days of the above 
compliance date, but no later than September 30, 2005.
Particulates
--For Unit 1, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
baghouse system, or by April 30, 2004, whichever date is earlier.
--For Unit 2, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
baghouse system, or by October 31, 2004, whichever date is earlier.
NOX
--June 30, 2004 for Unit 1 and December 31, 2004 for Unit 2.

    These construction deadlines and emission limitation compliance 
deadlines are subject to the ``force majeure'' provisions of the 
Consent Decree, which have been included in the SIP revision. A force 
majeure event refers to an excused delay in meeting construction 
deadlines or in meeting emission limitation compliance deadlines due to 
certain limited circumstances wholly beyond the control of the Craig 
Station owners.
    To help ensure that reasonable progress continues to be made, the 
State commits in the SIP revision to reopen the SIP (with public notice 
and hearing) after it is determined that a construction schedule or an 
emission limitation schedule has been, or will be, delayed by more than 
12 months as a result of a force majeure determination or 
determinations. The State will re-evaluate the SIP at that time to 
determine whether revisions are necessary to continue to demonstrate 
reasonable progress, and to ensure that the emission limitations are 
met. In addition, the SIP revision also contains a clarification that 
the force majeure provisions are not to be construed to authorize or 
create any preemption or waiver of the requirements of State or Federal 
air quality laws, or of the requirements contained in the SIP or 
Consent Decree.
    EPA believes that the language of the SIP revision should assure 
reasonable progress toward the National visibility goal. If deadlines 
extend more than twelve months, we expect the State to revise the SIP.
    b. Analysis of Reasonable Progress. Congress established as a 
National goal ``the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 
existing'' anthropogenic visibility impairment in mandatory Class I 
Federal areas. The statute does not mandate that the national 
visibility goal be achieved by a specific date but instead calls for 
``reasonable progress'' toward the goal. Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 
requires EPA to issue implementing regulations requiring visibility 
SIPs to contain such ``emission limits, schedules of compliance and 
other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward 
the National goal.''
    EPA's implementing regulations provided for an initial round of 
visibility SIP planning which included a long-term strategy to make 
reasonable progress toward the National goal. See 40 CFR 
51.302(c)(2)(i) and 51.306. Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA specifies 
factors that must be considered in determining reasonable progress 
including: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for 
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of the source. Protection 
of visibility in a mandatory Class I Federal area is the objective.
    In this unique case, the Craig Station owners have agreed in the 
context of a judicially-enforceable Consent Decree to meet emissions 
limitations that are expected to reduce Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in MZWA to below perceptible levels. The State 
has analyzed the emission reductions provided for in the Consent Decree 
in light of the statutory factors for determining reasonable progress 
and the ultimate objective of protecting visibility. The State believes 
that the measures assure reasonable progress by remedying Craig 
Station's contribution to perceptible visibility impairment in MZWA and 
has adopted a Visibility SIP revision containing these measures.
    Further, in a December 14, 2000 letter from Tom Thompson, USFS, 
Rocky Mountain Region, to Margie Perkins, APCD, the USFS concluded that 
``the proposed reductions of both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides 
will resolve all Forest Service issues relative to the Craig Station 
and our 1993 Certification of Impairment.'' Based in part on this 
letter, the State believes that the pertinent provisions of the Craig 
Consent Decree, as embodied in the SIP revision, effectively resolve 
the USFS certification of impairment in MZWA in relation to Craig 
Station.
    We have reviewed the State's SIP revision and supporting 
information in light of the statutory and regulatory requirements and 
approve it. The State adequately addressed our concerns by making the 
two minor changes to the finally adopted SIP revision that we described 
in our proposed approval (see 66 FR 21721, 21724, May 1, 2001).
    We agree with the State that the emission reduction measures at 
Craig Station required by the Consent Decree and contained in the 
Visibility SIP revision will remedy Craig Station's contribution to 
perceptible visibility impairment at MZWA, with reasonable costs, an 
expeditious compliance schedule, and no significant adverse energy or 
non-air quality environmental impacts. The State's April 19, 2001 SIP 
revision and accompanying information, available at the addresses 
listed at the beginning of this document, provides a detailed analysis 
of each of the ``reasonable progress'' considerations. For a summary of 
the State's analysis,

[[Page 35378]]

please see our notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 21721, May 1, 
2001). We agree with the State that the SIP revision will assure 
reasonable progress in remedying Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in MZWA. In particular, we note that the enhanced 
FGD control systems will lower Craig Station Units 1 and 2's combined 
SO2 emissions to a total of approximately 2,600 tons per 
year from the current level of over 9,300 tons per year. This emissions 
reduction should effectively address visibility problems in MZWA caused 
by SO2 from Craig Units 1 and 2 and lower the threshold of 
SO2 emissions from the units to below perceptible levels in 
MZWA.
    c. Six Factors Considered in Developing the Long-Term Strategy. The 
State considered the six factors contained in 40 CFR 51.306(e) when 
developing this revision to its long-term strategy. Please refer to 
EPA's May 1, 2001 notice of proposed rulemaking (66 FR 21721) for a 
discussion of these six factors.
3. Additional Requirements
    The State met the requirements for FLM consultation prior to 
adopting the SIP. The SIP also meets EPA requirements related to 
enforceability. Please refer to our May 1, 2001 notice of proposed 
rulemaking (66 FR 21721) for a discussion of these requirements.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received only one set of comments--from the Rocky Mountain 
Chapter of the Sierra Club. Several of their comments were not relevant 
to this action, and we will not respond to them here. A summary of 
their remaining comments, and EPA's responses, is provided below.
    Comment: The Sierra Club fully supports EPA's proposed approval of 
Colorado's Visibility SIP revision regarding the Craig Station. The 
Sierra Club believes that as long as the owners of the Craig Station 
comply with the requirements of the Craig Consent Decree, Craig 
Station's contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA will be 
appropriately resolved.
    Response: EPA notes the Sierra Club's support for the proposed 
action and agrees that compliance with the Consent Decree requirements 
should adequately resolve Craig Station's contribution to visibility 
impairment in MZWA.
    Comment: The Sierra Club notes that the Craig Consent Decree does 
not purport to resolve Craig Station's responsibilities under EPA's 
regional haze regulations, and no regional haze resolution should be 
accepted by EPA.
    Response: There is nothing in the State's Visibility SIP revision 
intended to resolve regional haze requirements related to Craig Station 
or any other sources, and EPA's approval of the revision is not 
intended in any way to relieve the State of its responsibilities under 
the regional haze program regarding Craig Station. We expect the State 
to submit another Visibility SIP revision to address regional haze 
requirements, and we will assess the adequacy of that submittal at that 
time through notice and comment rulemaking.

IV. Final Action

    We have reviewed the adequacy of the State's revision to the long-
term strategy portion of Colorado's SIP for Class I Visibility 
Protection, contained in section III of the April 19, 2001 document 
entitled ``Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I 
Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,'' as 
submitted by the Governor with a letter dated June 7, 2001. We are 
approving the revision, which includes the incorporation of certain 
requirements from the Craig Consent Decree.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    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 rule and other

[[Page 35379]]

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). This rule will be effective August 6, 2001.
    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 September 4, 2001. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 21, 2001.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart G--Colorado

    2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(93) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (93) On June 7, 2001, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revision 
to the long-term strategy portion of Colorado's State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) for Class I Visibility Protection. The revision was made to 
incorporate into the SIP emissions reduction requirements for the Craig 
Station (a coal-fired steam generating plant located near the town of 
Craig, Colorado). This SIP revision is expected to remedy Craig 
Station's contribution to visibility impairment in the Mt. Zirkel 
Wilderness Area.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I 
Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements, 
Section III, effective on April 19, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01-16689 Filed 7-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P