[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65080-65082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26990]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIP No. CO-001-0068; FRL-7397-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the Governor of Colorado on November 5, 1999. The 
November 5, 1999 submittal exempts military training exercises at the 
United States Army Installation Fort Carson and United States Army 
Pinon Canon Maneuver Site (PCMS) from opacity limits. The intended 
effect of this action is to allow the use of smoke and obscurants for 
military training exercises when operated under applicable 
requirements. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 22, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, 
Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 
80202. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air and 
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th 
Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202. Copies of the State 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air 
Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, 
Colorado 80246-1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, EPA, Region 8, (303) 
312-6144.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or 
``our'' is used means EPA.

I. Analysis of the State Submittal

A. 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 Act provides that each implementation 
plan admitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing. Section 110(1) of the Act similarly provides that each 
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act 
must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
    EPA must also determine whether a submittal is complete and 
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1) 
and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria are set out at 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make completeness determinations 
within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is 
deemed complete by operation of law if a completeness determination is 
not made by EPA six months after receipt of submission. This submittal 
became complete by operation of law on May 5, 2000, in accordance with 
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act.
    To entertain public comment, the State of Colorado, after providing 
adequate public notice, held a public hearing on July 17, 1998, to 
address the revision to the SIP. Following the public hearing and 
public comment period, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 
adopted the revision. The revision to Regulation No. 1 was adopted on 
July 17, 1998, and the Governor of Colorado submitted the revisions to 
the SIP with a letter dated November 5, 1999.

[[Page 65081]]

B. Summary of SIP Revision

Regulation No. 1 Emission Control for Particulates, Smokes, Carbon 
Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide
    Colorado has added a new subsection D to Regulation No. 1, section 
II, which provides an exemption for U.S. military training exercises at 
the United States Army Installation Fort Carson and the United States 
Army Pinon Canon Maneuver Site (PCMS) from opacity limits. The 
emissions of fog oil and other short duration military smokes, of 
twelve minutes or less, will be exempted from the opacity limits 
specified in Regulation No. 1, section II. Regulation No. 1, section 
II.A currently mandates ``. . . no owner or operator of a source shall 
allow or cause the emission into the atmosphere of any air pollutant 
which is in excess of 20% opacity.'' The military engages in training 
which creates emissions in excess of the 20% opacity standard, thus 
this exemption is necessary for the military to carry out realistic 
obscurant training.
    The exemption is only granted if other restrictions are met, 
including the following: A three kilometer buffer zone for the entire 
perimeter of Fort Carson and PCMS is required, and no smoke generation 
will occur within this buffer zone; smoke generation will cease if 
smoke crosses or is in danger of crossing the boundary of Fort Carson 
or PCMS; and an observer will be posted to determine if training should 
be halted if there is potential for the smoke to drift across the 
boundary of Fort Carson and PCMS.
    A modeling analysis of the smoke training exercises was conducted 
in an effort to determine the ambient air impacts at locations outside 
the Ft. Carson boundary. However, the modeling study did not address a 
potential maximum emissions scenario where a larger quantity of 
emissions could be emitted at locations closer to the property 
boundary. The report also did not address the possibility that certain 
smoke generation activities may release smaller particles which would 
stay airborne longer and be more likely to impact off-site receptors. 
In addition, the period of meteorological data that was used in the 
modeling study was insufficient to characterize the most adverse 
meteorological conditions that can occur in the Ft. Carson area. 
Therefore, EPA believes the modeling results are inconclusive, and our 
proposed approval of the opacity exemption is not based on these 
results. Several monitoring studies were also conducted over a period 
of years and the results of these studies were included with this SIP 
revision. However, it is not clear whether the monitoring data was 
collected during the Army's smoke training exercises, thus these data 
were also not used as a basis for the proposed approval of Colorado's 
SIP revision.
    As stated above, the military engages by design in training that 
creates emissions in excess of the 20% opacity standard. Based on this 
fact and the restrictions that are imposed on the military's use of 
smokes by the proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to approve this SIP 
revision.

II. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions Colorado's Regulation No. 1, 
submitted on November 5, 1999. EPA is soliciting public comments on the 
issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. These 
comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested 
parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by 
submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the 
Addresses section of this document.
    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision 
cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirements of 
the Act. The Colorado SIP revisions that are the subject of this 
document do not interfere with the maintenance of the NAAQS or any 
other applicable requirement of the Act because the State of Colorado 
is requiring that an observer be placed to visibly determine whether 
the smoke is in danger of crossing the perimeter and will cease smoke 
generation if this occurs. This is protective of the NAAQS because PM10 
concentrations are clearly visible to the human eye at levels much 
lower than the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS. Therefore, section 110(l) 
requirements are satisfied.

III. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will 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). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does not 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). This action 
merely proposes to approve 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 
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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. This proposed 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.).

[[Page 65082]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: October 10, 2002.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 02-26990 Filed 10-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P