[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 88 (Thursday, May 8, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19447-19459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-07937]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0622; FRL-12746-01-R8]
Air Plan Approval; Colorado; Serious Attainment Plan Contingency
Measures for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve state implementation plan (SIP) submittals under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that address contingency measures requirements for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the Denver
Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR) ozone nonattainment area. The
requirements at issue relate to the area's previous Serious
nonattainment classification. The EPA is proposing to find that the
State has met the applicable CAA requirements for Serious area
contingency measures and is proposing approval of the contingency
measures SIP submittals, except that we are not taking action on one of
the two identified contingency measures included in the submittals. In
addition, the EPA is proposing to approve regulatory revisions that
Colorado adopted to implement the submitted motor vehicle coating
contingency measure. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2024-0622 to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be
[[Page 19448]]
edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov. Please email or call the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Lang, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-AQ-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6709, email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
II. Background
A. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
B. The EPA's November 7, 2023 Final Rule
III. Contingency Measures Requirements
IV. Summary of State's SIP Submittals
A. Revisions to Regulation 7, Parts A and C and Reorganization
Into Regulation 25, Parts A and B
B. 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan
1. One Year's Worth of Progress
2. Contingency Measures Infeasibility Justification
3. Adopted Contingency Measures
V. Procedural Requirements
VI. The EPA's Evaluation of Colorado's SIP Submittals
A. Revisions to Regulation 7, Parts A and C and Reorganization
Into Regulation 25, Parts A and B
B. 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan
1. One Year's Worth of Progress
2. Contingency Measures Infeasibility Justification
3. Adopted Contingency Measures
4. Conclusion
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
IX. Incorporation by Reference
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado SIP revisions for three
submittals related to the Serious area contingency measures requirement
for the DMNFR area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These submittals also
address certain organizational revisions affecting the submitted
regulations, including the relocation of existing portions of
Colorado's Regulation Number 7 (``Reg. 7'') into new standalone
regulations and renumbering of existing regulatory provisions. On June
26, 2023, Colorado submitted SIP revisions to address certain Moderate
and Severe nonattainment requirements for the 2015 and 2008 ozone
NAAQS, respectively, which included revisions to Reg. 7.\1\ Of
relevance to this proposed rulemaking, the June 26, 2023 SIP submittal
identifies motor vehicle coatings emission control requirements as a
contingency measure for the Moderate ozone nonattainment area plan for
the DMNFR area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but as described below, this
measure was not triggered by a failure to attain with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS Moderate nonattainment plan requirements in the DMNFR
area. The State is now repurposing the requirement as a contingency
measure for the Serious ozone nonattainment area plan requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ June 2023 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 7, ``Submittal
Letter to EPA_Ozone SIP.'' The letter is dated June 22, 2023, but
the SIP was submitted to EPA on June 26, 2023.The June 2023 SIP
Submittal was deemed complete on September 7, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2024, Colorado submitted SIP revisions to the existing
approved Reg. 7 to separate out certain components of Reg. 7 and create
Regulation Number 24 (``Reg. 24''), Regulation Number 25 (``Reg. 25''),
and Regulation Number 26 (``Reg. 26'') as new standalone
regulations.\2\ On April 2, 2025, Colorado submitted SIP revisions to
address the contingency measures requirement for Serious ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which includes associated
revisions to Reg. 25.\3\ The EPA had finalized a disapproval of a prior
Colorado SIP submittal with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious
area contingency measures requirement in November 2023.\4\ In this
rulemaking, we are proposing action only on the portions of the June
26, 2023, May 23, 2024, and April 2, 2025 submittals related to
contingency measures, including associated revisions to Reg. 7, parts A
and C as well as Reg. 25, parts A and B. The relevant portions of these
submittals implement motor vehicle coatings emission control
requirements, including provisions that function as a contingency
measure for the Serious nonattainment classification of the DMNFR area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ May 2024 SIP Submittal, ``Submittal Letter to EPA_Regs 7,
24, 25, 26_signed.'' The letter is dated May 21, 2024, but the SIP
was submitted to EPA on May 23, 2024. The May 2024 SIP Submittal was
deemed complete by operation of law on November 23, 2024.
\3\ April 2025 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 2, ``Signed
Submittal Letter to EPA.''
\4\ Final Rule, Air Plan Approval and Disapproval; Colorado;
Serious Attainment Plan Elements and Related Revisions for the 2008
8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/North Front Range
Nonattainment Area; 88 FR 76676 (Nov. 7, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the EPA is also proposing to approve the June
26, 2023 revisions to Reg. 7, Part A that define new and existing
sources and the applicability of requirements based on the
nonattainment area in which they are located; revisions to Reg. 7, Part
C, section I.P. regarding motor vehicle coating requirements that
include provisions for those requirements to function as a contingency
measure; and revisions to Reg. 7, Part C, section I.A. that update
reference dates to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In addition,
the EPA is proposing to approve the May 23, 2024 revisions reorganizing
Reg. 7, parts A and C into Reg. 25, parts A and B as well as the April
2, 2025 revisions to Reg. 25, parts A and B concerning motor vehicle
coating provisions. The remaining revisions from the June 26, 2023, May
23, 2024 and April 2, 2025 submittals not described above, and not
identified in table 3 of this preamble, will be addressed by the EPA in
future rulemakings.
If the EPA finalizes this rulemaking as proposed, Colorado will
have corrected the deficiency identified in the EPA's November 7, 2023
disapproval with respect to the Serious area contingency measures
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Consistent with
[[Page 19449]]
applicable sanctions regulations,\5\ in this issue of the Federal
Register the EPA is concurrently making an interim final determination
to defer application of CAA section 179 sanctions associated with the
November 7, 2023 action. The deferral is based on this proposal to
approve SIP revisions from Colorado to resolve the contingency measures
requirement deficiency that was the basis for the November 7, 2023
disapproval. If the EPA does not finalize this approval as proposed and
instead disapproves or proposes to disapprove these SIP revisions, then
the offset sanction under CAA section 179(b)(2) for permitting of new
or modified sources would apply in the DMNFR area on the later of: (1)
the date the EPA issues such a proposed or final disapproval; or (2)
June 7, 2025 (i.e., 18 months from the effective date of the finding
that started the original sanctions clock).\6\ Subsequently, highway
sanctions under section 179(b)(1) would apply in the DMNFR area six
months after the date the offset sanction applies.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(i).
\6\ See id. In this case, the finding that started the original
sanctions clock was the disapproval issued on November 7, 2023,
which was effective on December 7, 2023.
\7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for our proposed action is discussed in more detail
below. Technical information that the EPA is relying on is contained in
the docket, available at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No.
EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0622.
II. Background
A. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (based on
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration,
averaged over 3 years).\8\ The 2008 ozone NAAQS retains the same
general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but
is set at a more protective level. Specifically, the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is met when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less
than or equal to 0.075 ppm.\9\ Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA
designated any area as nonattainment that was violating the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years (2008-2010) of air
monitoring data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Final rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The EPA has since further
strengthened the ozone NAAQS, but the 2008 8-hour standard remains
in effect. See Final Rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone, 80 FR 65292 (Oct. 26, 2015).
\9\ 40 CFR 50.15(b).
\10\ Final rule, Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of
their ambient ozone levels, as determined using the area's design
value. The design value is the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration at a
monitoring site.\11\ In our July 20, 2012 action, the EPA designated
the DMNFR area as nonattainment and classified the area as
Marginal.\12\ The DMNFR area did not attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by the applicable Marginal area attainment deadline, and accordingly
was reclassified as Moderate.\13\ After not attaining the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for subsequent attainment dates, the area was reclassified to
Serious, and then to Severe nonattainment status.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.
\12\ Final rule, Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012)
at 30110. The nonattainment area includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, and portions of
Larimer and Weld Counties. See 40 CFR 81.306.
\13\ Final rule, Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment
Date, Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of
Several Areas for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).
\14\ Final rule, Finding of Failure to Attain and
Reclassification of Denver Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard, 84 FR 70897 (Dec. 26, 2019); Final rule,
Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Extensions of
the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Areas Classified as
Serious for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
87 FR 60926 (Oct. 7, 2022); see 40 CFR 81.306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The EPA's November 7, 2023 Final Rule
Although the DMNFR area is currently classified as Severe
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the present action pertains
only to the contingency measures requirement for the prior Serious
nonattainment classification. Among the requirements for Serious ozone
nonattainment area plans, states must submit SIP provisions that
constitute contingency measures that would go into effect and result in
additional emission reductions in the event that the EPA determines the
area fails to attain the applicable standard by the attainment date (in
this case, the 2008 ozone NAAQS), make Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) toward attainment, or meet any applicable RFP milestone. As
described above, the EPA disapproved a Colorado SIP submittal intended
to meet the Serious area contingency measures requirement for the 2008
ozone NAAQS on November 7, 2023. The EPA has previously taken action to
approve or conditionally approve SIP submittals to address the State's
other Serious ozone nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 88 FR 29827, 88 FR 76676, and 88 FR 85511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Contingency Measures Requirements
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states are required to submit an
attainment plan SIP that includes contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. For ozone nonattainment areas classified
Serious or above, CAA section 182(c)(9) further specifies that states
must include contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails
to meet any applicable milestone. An EPA determination that a state
failed to meet an RFP milestone or to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date is referred to as a ``triggering event''
because it triggers the requirement to implement the contingency
measures specified in the SIP.
The information provided below is explained in greater detail in
EPA's ``Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan
Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure
Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter'' \16\ (``2024
Contingency Measures Guidance''). The purpose of contingency measures
is to continue progress in reducing emissions while a state revises its
SIP to meet a missed RFP requirement or to correct a failure to attain
a NAAQS.\17\ As part of a contingency measures SIP submittal, states
should estimate the amount of anticipated emission reductions that the
contingency measures would achieve if triggered. If a state is unable
to identify and adopt contingency measures that would provide for
approximately one year's worth of emission reductions, then the state
may provide an
[[Page 19450]]
``infeasibility justification'' that demonstrates that a lesser amount
of emission reductions is appropriate because additional contingency
measures are infeasible in the area.\18\ The EPA does not read the
statute to require contingency measures that are not feasible, i.e., to
require the imposition of control measures regardless of technological
or cost constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan
Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure
Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter'' (Dec. 3, 2024),
available at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/final-contingency-measures-guidance.
\17\ See Proposed Rule, Conditional Approval; Contingency
Measure State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone Standard; San
Joaquin Valley, California, 89 FR 85119, 85122 (Oct. 25, 2024);
Proposed Rule, Air Plan Approval; AK, Fairbanks North Star Borough;
2006 24-Hour PM 2.5 Serious Area and 189(d) Plan, 90 FR 1600, 1623
(Jan. 8, 2025); see also 2024 Contingency Measures Guidance at 9.
\18\ 2024 Contingency Measures Guidance at 29-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9), contingency measures should be fully adopted rules or
control measures that are ready to be implemented upon a triggering
event.\19\ They consist of control measures for the area that are not
otherwise required to meet other attainment plan requirements (e.g., to
meet reasonably available control measure or reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements). To comply with CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), contingency measures must be both conditional
and prospective. That is, they must be measures that go into effect and
achieve emission reductions in the event of a future triggering event,
but not before the triggering event. The EPA cannot approve already
implemented measures, i.e., measures that have already achieved
emission reductions or that are already adopted into law and will
achieve reductions regardless of whether there is a future triggering
event, as contingency measures, even if already implemented measures
would achieve surplus emission reductions beyond those necessary to
meet other applicable CAA requirements.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 827 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
(``The Act's plain text expressly provides that valid contingency
measures become operative only when the triggering conditions set
forth in the statute occur, and not any earlier.'').
\20\ See Sierra Club, 21 F.4th at 827-28 (holding that the
specific wording of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) unambiguously
requires that contingency measures be ``conditional and
prospective,'' and that already implemented measures are not
measures ``to take effect'' only if and when the contingency
occurs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recommends that contingency measures achieve emissions
reductions equivalent to one year's worth of ``progress.'' \21\ The EPA
recommends that one year's worth of ``progress'' be calculated by
determining the average annual reductions between the base year
emissions inventory and the projected attainment year emissions
inventory, determining what percentage of the base year emissions
inventory this amount represents, and then applying that percentage to
the projected attainment year emissions inventory to determine the
amount of reductions needed to ensure ongoing progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 89 FR at 85123-85124 (explaining one year's worth of
progress in connection with proposed approval of San Joaquin Valley
contingency measures); 90 FR at 1624-1625 (explaining one year's
worth of progress in connection with proposed approval of Fairbanks
contingency measures); 2024 Contingency Measures Guidance at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the time within which emission reductions from contingency
measures should occur, the EPA recommends that emission reductions
should occur within one year of the triggering event or up to two years
of the triggering event if there are insufficient contingency measures
available to achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions
within one year.\22\ The EPA's longstanding recommendation is that
contingency measures take effect within 60 days of the triggering
event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 2024 Contingency Measures Guidance at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained previously, if after an adequate evaluation a state is
unable to identify contingency measures that would provide emission
reductions achieving approximately one year's worth of progress, then
the EPA recommends that the state provide an infeasibility
justification for a lesser amount, which the state should support with
an infeasibility justification. This infeasibility justification should
explain and document the state's evaluation of existing and potential
control measures relevant to the appropriate source categories and
pollutants in the nonattainment area, and the state's conclusions
regarding whether such measures are feasible as contingency measures in
the area.
The statutory scheme contemplates that a state will have approved
contingency measures in place in the SIP and ready to be implemented in
the event of a triggering event before the triggering event occurs.
That is, contingency measures that are conditional and prospective upon
a triggering event. In this case, the State did not have such approved
contingency measures in place at the time of the relevant triggering
event, which was EPA's determination that the State failed to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the DMNFR area by the Serious attainment
deadline.\23\ But the State is still required to provide such
contingency measures to the EPA. As discussed further below, when the
State is developing and submitting required contingency measures for a
triggering event that has already occurred, the timeframe for achieving
reductions should be evaluated based on the adoption date of the
measure rather than the now-passed trigger date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 87 FR 60926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Summary of State's SIP Submittals
On June 26, 2023, Colorado submitted SIP submittals related to
Moderate and Severe nonattainment plan requirements for the 2015 and
2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively, which included revisions to Reg. 7
establishing a motor vehicle coating contingency measure for the DMNFR
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On June 8, 2024, before
the EPA proposed action on this submitted contingency measure and
before the Moderate area attainment date for the 2015 NAAQS, Colorado
requested voluntary reclassification from Moderate to Serious
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for this area. On July 24, 2024,
the EPA granted the voluntary reclassification request.\24\ Prior to
the voluntary reclassification, EPA did not take action on the 2023
contingency measures submittal and Colorado was not required to
implement the motor vehicle coating control measure as a contingency
measure. In the April 2, 2025 submittal, Colorado has included
regulatory revisions to repurpose the motor vehicle coatings measure as
a Serious area contingency measure with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
contingency measures requirement. Because the EPA has not yet approved
the original motor vehicle coating measure as a contingency measure,
the Agency must act on both the initial regulatory language for the
motor vehicle coatings requirements from the June 26, 2023 SIP
submittal and subsequent revisions as described in Colorado's April
2025 SIP Submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 89 FR 59832.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2024, Colorado submitted revisions to Reg. 7 to separate
out certain components of Reg. 7 to create Reg. 24, Reg. 25, and Reg.
26 as new standalone regulations. On April 2, 2025, Colorado submitted
the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan as a revision to the Colorado
SIP.\25\ The State developed the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan
to address the EPA's November 7, 2023 disapproval of the State's
submittal intended to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious area
contingency measures requirements.\26\ In this rulemaking, we are
proposing approval of only the portions of the June 26, 2023, May 23,
2024, and April 2, 2025 SIP submittals related to contingency
[[Page 19451]]
measures requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and of associated
revisions to Reg. 7, Part A; Reg. 7, Part C, sections I.A. and I.P.;
Reg. 25, Part A; and Reg. 25, Part B, sections I.A. and I.P. The EPA
will address the remaining revisions from the June 26, 2023, May 23,
2024, and April 2, 2025 SIP submittals in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ April 2025 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 2, ``Technical
Support Documents'' at 490-561 (``2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures
Plan'').
\26\ See 88 FR 76676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Revisions to Regulation 7, Parts A and C and Reorganization Into
Regulation 25, Parts A and B
In the June 26, 2023 submittal, among other revisions, Reg. 7, Part
C, section I.P. was added and Reg. 7, Part C, section I.A.3.a. was
updated to reflect the applicable EPA reference method used to
demonstrate compliance, as revised in the CFR on March 23, 2021.\27\
Reg. 7, Part C, section I.P. established surface coating requirements
for motor vehicle materials, including provisions that would function
as a contingency measure that would be triggered within 60 days after
the effective date of a finding by the EPA of failure to attain by the
2015 ozone NAAQS Moderate ozone attainment date of August 3, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ June 2023 SIP Submittal, Document Set 5 of 7, ``Reg Lang &
SBAP Adopted_R7'' at 25-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distinct from the aforementioned motor vehicle coating
requirements, the June 26, 2023 submittal included revisions to the
applicability and general provisions found in Reg. 7, Part A that are
relevant to requirements across Reg. 7. These revisions are not
specific to the contingency measures requirement that the EPA is
addressing in this rulemaking, but the EPA is proposing approval of
these revisions because the revised sections are included in the
reorganization of Reg. 7 parts A and C into Reg. 25, parts A and B.
This includes revisions expanding the general applicability of
provisions in Reg. 7 to sources in the portion of northern Weld County
within the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that
are not included in the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, revisions clarifying the dates defining new and existing
sources for respective ozone standards, and revisions updating the
regulation to refer to a newer version of applicable EPA reference
methods used to demonstrate compliance.
The June 26, 2023 submittal includes revisions to Reg. 7 in
addition to those identified above, but the EPA is not proposing action
on those revisions in this rulemaking. They will instead be addressed
by the EPA in separate rulemakings at a later date. As described
previously, the rule provisions of the June 26, 2023 submittal for
motor vehicle coating materials, and which were structured as a
contingency measure for the DMNFR nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, were no longer required with respect to the Moderate area
classification for that NAAQS following the EPA granting Colorado's
voluntary reclassification request. Included with its April 2, 2025
submittal, the State adopted revisions described below to repurpose
these emission control requirements as a Serious nonattainment area
contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In the State's May 23, 2024 submittal, Reg. 7 was retitled from
``Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Control of Hydrocarbons via
Oil and Gas Emissions (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) &
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX))'' to ``Control of Emissions from Oil
and Gas Emissions Operations.'' In addition, the State moved Reg. 7,
Part C, sections I.A. and I.P.; copied over portions of Reg. 7, Part A
concerning applicability/general provisions; and relocated other rule
sections from Reg. 7 to the newly established Reg. 25 for the ``Control
of Emissions from Surface Coating, Solvents, Asphalt, Graphic Arts and
Printing, and Pharmaceuticals.'' \28\ The State intended these
revisions to narrow Reg. 7 to be primarily focused on oil and gas
emission controls, and to relocate provisions addressing other source
categories from Reg. 7, including coatings, solvents, and similar
sources, to Reg. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ May 2024 SIP Submittal, ``Adopted Language_R7'' at 71-77,
``Adopted Language_R25'' at 40-46. As part of the May 23, 2024,
submittal, other provisions, apart from Reg. 7, Part C, section
I.P., were removed from Reg. 7, but the relocation of those
revisions are not being addressed in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After adopting Reg. 25, on April 2, 2025, the State submitted a
third SIP submittal to the EPA, which included revisions to parts A and
B of Reg. 25. This includes revisions to Reg. 25, Part A at section
II.C.2. concerning general emission limitations for all new sources,
and which are clerical in nature and reflect that the listed
regulations are not applicable to all emission sources. The revisions
to Reg. 25, Part B, section I.P. included: (1) in section I.P.7.,
correcting the numbering, with references in several subsections
changed from I.P.6. to I.P.7.; (2) in sections I.P.1.b., I.P.3.,
I.P.4.b. and I.P.7., changing ``sixty days'' to ``May 1, 2026'';
changing ``moderate'' to ``serious''; changing ``2015'' to ``2008'' in
relation to the relevant ozone NAAQS; and (3) adding section I.P.8.,
which is related to reporting requirements.\29\ The revisions to
Regulation 25, Part B, section I.P. from Colorado's April 2, 2025
submittal were made, in part, to require that the motor vehicle
coatings contingency measure contained therein be repurposed as a
contingency measure for the State's 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious area plan
for the DMNFR nonattainment area. The motor vehicle coatings
contingency measure was originally adopted for the purposes of the
State's 2015 ozone NAAQS Moderate nonattainment area plan. The April 2,
2025 SIP submittal included revisions to Reg. 7, Part B, section
III.C.4. identifying requirements for pneumatic controllers as a
contingency measure, but the EPA is not acting on this portion of the
SIP submittal in this rulemaking. Several additional revisions
unrelated to the contingency measures requirement are included in
Colorado's June 26, 2023, May 23, 2024, and April 2, 2025 SIP
submittals, but the EPA is not addressing these revisions in this
rulemaking and will act on them in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ April 2025 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 2, ``Reg
Language Adopted R25 (redline)'' at 4-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan
The 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan submitted to the EPA
identifies two contingency measures that Colorado deemed feasible for
the Serious area attainment plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\30\
Additionally, Colorado's contingency measures submission includes an
infeasibility justification to justify its submission of contingency
measures that achieve less than one year's worth of progress. The
State's evaluation of the feasibility of specific measures is presented
in greater detail in the ``Strategy Summary'' included as a part of the
supporting technical information in the State's April 2, 2025 SIP
Submittal.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 20-22.
\31\ April 2025 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 2, ``Technical
Support Documents'' at 562-584 (``Strategy Summary''). Subsequent
citations to the Strategy Summary use the page numbers within that
document; so, for example, ``Strategy Summary at 1'' refers to the
562nd page of the Technical Support Documents file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19452]]
1. One Year's Worth of Progress
Section 3.1 of the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan includes
the State's calculations for determining emission reductions
representing ``one year's worth'' of progress for the area.\32\ The
emission reductions representing one year's worth of emission
reductions progress as determined by Colorado are 8.9 tons per day of
NOX and 14.2 tons per day of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Contingency Measures Infeasibility Justification
Colorado reviewed each source category in the 2026 emissions
inventory for NOX and VOC that the State developed for other
attainment planning requirements, in order to identify feasible control
measures that could serve as contingency measures.\33\ Table 1 provides
the major categories from the 2026 emissions inventory; the inventory
is provided in greater detail in appendix C of the 2024 DMNFR
Contingency Measures Plan. The State's submittal explains that ``[e]ach
category was vetted for any potential strategies that are regulatory,
non-regulatory, and tax or grant funded that may be SIP-eligible.''
\34\ The State identified potential and current emission reduction
measures as part of their analysis. (Current emission reduction
measures have already been implemented, and therefore need not be
evaluated as a part of an infeasibility justification. But the
evaluation should consider whether additional requirements are feasible
for a given source category.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. at 43-49.
\34\ Id. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Colorado disqualified already adopted measures and measures
that the State lacked authority to adopt, the State evaluated the
feasibility of candidate measures (control measures that may be
appropriate as contingency measures if they are determined to be
technologically and economically feasible) based on the time required
to implement the measure, technological/economic feasibility, and
whether a measure met legal criteria for adoption. Based on this
analysis, the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan identifies two
control strategies for EPA evaluation as contingency measures, as
described in section IV.B.3. of this preamble, and provides an
infeasibility justification to show that its 2024 DMNFR Contingency
Measures Plan is approvable despite providing less than the recommended
amount of emission reductions, due to a lack of feasible measures in
the DMNFR nonattainment area.
Table 1--DMNFR 2026 Emissions Inventory of NOX and VOC
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source type NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................... 19.6 21.5
Area/Nonpoint........................... 0.3 66.3
On-road Mobile.......................... 21.7 27.0
Nonroad Mobile.......................... 34.6 47.4
Oil & Gas............................... 68.4 90.4
-------------------------------
Total............................... 144.5 252.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan describes various measures
that the State has already implemented (referred to as ``on-the-books''
measures), several of which are state-only requirements, but which are
not candidate contingency measures because ``they are already
implemented.'' \35\ Colorado's 2024 Contingency Measures Plan further
evaluates candidate measures for feasibility with respect to the
appropriate time within which a contingency measure should achieve
emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also evaluated whether the potential contingency measures
that it identified are subject to technological or economic factors
that would render a candidate measure infeasible as a contingency
measure.\36\ Finally, Colorado evaluated the feasibility of potential
measures as contingency measures by considering whether they would be
``permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus,'' including
whether a measure ``is otherwise ineligible because of federal
preemption.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. at 34-35.
\37\ Id. at 36-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feasibility Analysis
Colorado evaluated potential contingency measures for feasibility
and summarized the measures the State deemed infeasible.\38\ The State
evaluated measures across the five major source categories within the
State's emission inventory in the DMNFR nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS: point, area, on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, and oil and
gas sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Strategy Summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to point sources, Colorado considered non-oil and gas
point sources (the State evaluated oil and gas point sources
separately) through evaluation of existing stationary source
regulations.\39\ Colorado identified the existing stationary source
regulations in Regs. 3, 6, 7, 8, 23, 24, 25, and 26, including both
state-only and SIP-approved control requirements. The 2024 DMNFR
Contingency Measures Plan identifies these existing requirements as not
being candidates to satisfy the contingency measures requirement for
several reasons, principally because they are already adopted,
implemented, and achieving emission reductions (whether approved into
the SIP or on a state-only basis). These control measures may also be
required to meet other nonattainment SIP requirements or present
difficulties in meeting SIP creditability requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 43-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other specific contingency measures considered for the
stationary point source sector, Colorado evaluated the feasibility of
implementing a minor source emission offset program, but determined
that it would be infeasible to implement and achieve emission
reductions within two years, given the volume of stationary sources
that would be affected.\40\ The State also considered the feasibility
of establishing boiler emission limitations such as those established
by rules in neighboring Utah, but found that it has already effectively
implemented requirements
[[Page 19453]]
comparable to the Utah boiler rules.\41\ Colorado also examined the
scope of existing rules in the SIP to meet RACT requirements, and
determined that it has already adopted requirements for ``minor source
RACT'' \42\ as part of its construction permit program.\43\ A more
detailed accounting of the specific measures for the point source
category that the State considered is included in appendix D to the
2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan as well as in the Strategy Summary
technical support document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Strategy Summary at 6.
\41\ Id. at 21.
\42\ CAA ozone RACT requirements only apply to major sources of
NOX or VOC, as well as sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guideline, see CAA secs. 182(b)(2), 182(f). Minor source
RACT is therefore generally not required under the CAA, but
Colorado's SIP-approved minor source RACT program establishes
control requirements for permitting non-exempt minor sources. This
``minor source RACT'' should not be confused with RACT
determinations made by a state to meet CAA requirements, which the
EPA must evaluate and take a regulatory action on.
\43\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado also evaluated potential contingency measures for oil and
gas sources. This evaluation included the potential for prohibiting
venting of gas associated with blowdowns during the ozone season as
well as implementing best management practices in response to ozone
advisories that request that operators take voluntary measures to
reduce emissions on days with forecasted high ozone. The State deemed
these two measures infeasible as contingency measures based on the
economic feasibility on a cost per ton basis of prohibiting venting to
the atmosphere associated with blowdowns,\44\ and challenges concerning
enforceability with respect to quantifying emission reductions from
voluntary best management practices.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Regional Air Quality Council's Blowdowns Control
Strategy Overview available at https://raqc.org/episodic-emissions-venting-and-blowdowns/ and in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
\45\ Strategy Summary at 4, 6, and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan, the State further
described the existing requirements for oil and gas sources that could
not be candidate contingency measures because they are already adopted,
which include requirements for leak detection and repair, hydrocarbon
liquid loadout from storage tanks, flowback vessels, and natural-gas
reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE).
Colorado included an evaluation of area source measures, including
for cannabis cultivation operations, asphalt formulation restrictions,
non-fumigant pesticide requirements, and emission reductions from
livestock waste, as well as an evaluation of existing rules in other
states. In the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan and Strategy
Summary, the State justifies its finding of infeasibility as to
emission control requirements for cannabis cultivation operations and
hot mix asphalt plants on the basis that the State could not feasibly
achieve further emission reductions within two years.\46\ Colorado
explains that cultivation operations involve a large number of small
operators with limited experience with the regulatory process. There is
an incomplete data record concerning asphalt plants, of which there are
no major sources in the nonattainment area. These factors contribute to
the inability of the State to develop rules for these categories to be
adopted and achieve emission reductions within two years. Colorado's
submittal characterizes potential emission control requirements for
livestock waste emissions and non-fumigant pesticide requirements as
being infeasible due to legal constraints, including the lack of
statutory authority for the State to impose such measures on
agricultural sources.\47\ Regarding asphalt formulation restrictions,
Colorado justifies infeasibility based on technological considerations
due to the impact of regional altitude on paving operations.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Strategy Summary at 1 and 14.
\47\ Id. at 14.
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also evaluated mobile source control measures, including
for both on-road and nonroad mobile sources, as potential contingency
measures.\49\ The State's 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan
describes the difficulty in identifying potential contingency measures
for nonroad sources, in particular given Colorado's lack of authority
to impose regulatory requirements on certain sources due to federal
preemption, which limits the pool of candidate measures from the mobile
source category. In addition to measures that are non-regulatory in
nature and for which it would be difficult to quantify anticipated
emission reductions, and measures implemented in other areas that the
State deemed infeasible due to timing constraints, the State evaluated
the feasibility of indirect source rule requirements, including those
that would apply to sources that drive significant mobile source
activity, as well as potential emission control requirements for lawn
and garden equipment. Colorado determined the indirect source rules it
considered to be infeasible as contingency measures due to the State's
inability to accelerate ongoing research and data collection with
respect to developing such rules, which would not be completed in time
for the measure to be implemented and achieve emission reductions
within two years.\50\ The State also explains in the 2024 DMNFR
Contingency Measures Plan that prohibitions on gasoline-powered lawn
and garden equipment sales have already been adopted, with emission
reductions to be achieved in 2025, and therefore this measure is
already implemented and disqualified as a candidate contingency
measure.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 46-48.
\50\ Strategy Summary at 3.
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Adopted Contingency Measures
Colorado identified two control measures as contingency measures
for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the DMNFR Serious nonattainment
area, and submitted these to the EPA for evaluation and inclusion into
the SIP: (1) an existing state-only requirement for retrofitting
pneumatic controllers at upstream oil and gas facilities which the EPA
is not proposing action on in this rulemaking, and (2) a rule for
control of VOC emissions from motor vehicle coating facilities
including VOC content limitations, control efficiency requirements, and
periodic reporting. A summary of the two measures identified by
Colorado is below. Colorado also determined the expected emission
reductions from these measures, which are presented in table 2.
[[Page 19454]]
Table 2--Emissions Reductions From Identified Measures
[Tons per day] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency measure NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pneumatic Controller Retrofit........... 0.00 4.37
Motor Vehicle Coatings.................. 0.00 0.54
-------------------------------
Total............................... 0.00 4.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan, section 4., table 3.
As stated previously, the EPA is not acting on the pneumatic
controller retrofit contingency measure in this action and therefore is
not evaluating the measure further as part of this rulemaking. Our
proposed approval of Colorado's 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan is
based solely on the motor vehicle coatings measure described below and
the infeasibility justification.
Motor Vehicle Coatings
Colorado's June 26, 2023 SIP submittal included requirements to
reduce VOC emissions from motor vehicle coating facilities, which the
State initially intended for use as a contingency measure for the
Moderate nonattainment area plan for the DMNFR area for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\52\ The measure was not triggered with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\53\ With Colorado's April 2, 2025 SIP submittal, the State
adopted revisions to require that the motor vehicle coating control
measure be repurposed as a contingency measure for the DMNFR Serious
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\54\ Under Reg. 25, Part B,
section I.P.3., this contingency measure would require the State to
implement VOC content limitations for motor vehicle coatings, which
would apply to manufacturing for sale as well as to the sale, supply,
offer for sale, or distribution for sale of such coatings. Under this
measure, motor vehicle coating facilities must use products that meet
VOC content limitations or apply emission controls with a control
efficiency of 90% or greater. The revisions to Reg. 25, Part B, section
I.P. also include recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure
that upon triggering, affected sources maintain records that document
the VOC content of products used, and periodically report those records
to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division: annually for facilities
with VOC emissions greater than 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period,
or semiannually with the operating permit report for facilities with
emissions greater than 25 tons per year.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ June 2023 SIP Submittal, Document Set 5 of 7, ``Reg Lang &
SBAP Adopted_R7'' at 25-31.
\53\ Although the vehicle coatings measure was included as a
contingency measure in the Moderate area SIP for the 2015 NAAQS,
before the area's Moderate attainment date the area was reclassified
to Serious for the 2015 NAAQS in response to a request from the
State for voluntary reclassification. Final Rule, Clean Air Act
Reclassification; Colorado; Reclassification of the Denver Metro/
North Front Range 2015 Ozone Nonattainment Area to Serious, 89 FR
59832 (July 24, 2024). As a result, the 2015 Moderate contingency
measure for failure to attain was never triggered.
\54\ April 2025 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 2, ``Reg
Language Adopted R25 (redline)'' at 4-11.
\55\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado's June 26, 2023 submittal explains that the motor vehicle
coatings contingency measure is based on the California Air Resource
Board (CARB) Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings, which
``achieves additional reductions of VOCs from automotive coatings
beyond EPA's national automobile refinish rule.'' \56\ As shown in
table 2, when fully implemented, the measure would achieve VOC emission
reductions of 0.54 tpd. The EPA is proposing approval of the motor
vehicle coatings contingency measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ June 2023 SIP Submittal, Document Set 5 of 7, ``Reg Lang &
SBAP Adopted_R7'' at 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Procedural Requirements
The CAA requires that states meet certain procedural requirements
before submitting a SIP revision to the EPA, including the requirement
that states adopt SIP revisions after reasonable notice and public
hearing.\57\ Colorado adopted the June 26, 2023 submittal following a
September 17, 2022 notice of rulemaking in the Denver Post and a
December 13-16, 2022 rulemaking hearing.\58\ Colorado adopted the May
23, 2024 submittal following a January 21, 2023 notice of rulemaking in
the Denver Post and an April 20, 2023 rulemaking hearing.\59\ Colorado
adopted the April 2, 2025 submittal following an August 17, 2024 notice
of rulemaking in the Denver Post and a December 18-20, 2024 rulemaking
hearing.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ CAA section 110(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
\58\ June 2023 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 7, ``Denver Post
Legal Ad''.
\59\ May 2024 SIP Submittal, ``Denver Post Legal Ad''.
\60\ April 2025 SIP Submittal, Document Set 1 of 2, ``Denver
Post Legal Ad''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. The EPA's Evaluation of Colorado's SIP Submittals
A. Revisions to Regulation 7, Parts A and C and Reorganization Into
Regulation 25, Parts A and B
As discussed in section IV.A. of this document, Colorado's June 26,
2023 submittal added motor vehicle coating requirements in Reg. 7, Part
C as a new section I.P., which included provisions that the State
structured to serve as a contingency measure for the Moderate
nonattainment area plan with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The June
26, 2023 submittal also revised Reg. 7, Part A concerning applicability
and general provisions that apply across Reg. 7, including the relevant
motor vehicle coating requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve
these revisions from the June 26, 2023 submittal. The EPA is not
proposing action on revisions to other sections of Reg. 7, Part C from
the June 26, 2023 submittal besides those described above and will take
action on them in a future rulemaking.
Furthermore, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions from the
May 23, 2024 submittal that duplicate portions of Reg. 7 Part A in Reg.
25 Part A, and relocate Reg. 7 Part C requirements into Reg. 25 Part B.
Reg. 7, Part A concerns ``Applicability and General Provisions'' that
apply across Reg. 7, but only the pieces of Reg. 7, Part A relevant to
the control of emissions from surface coating, solvents, asphalt,
graphic arts and printing, and pharmaceuticals are included in the
newly established Reg. 25, Part A. Reg. 7, Part A is not being removed
from Reg. 7 given its applicability to the sections of Reg. 7 that are
not being relocated to standalone regulations. Because the EPA is not
yet taking action on all of the June 26, 2023 revisions to Reg. 7, Part
C, we are not taking action to relocate these provisions to Reg. 25,
Part B in this action and will propose action on the
[[Page 19455]]
relocation of these requirements in a future rulemaking.
The EPA also is proposing to approve revisions from the April 2,
2025 submittal including the clerical revision to Reg. 25, Part A,
section II.C.2.; the corrected numbering of Reg. 25, Part B, section
I.P.7.; and the addition of reporting provisions related to the VOC
content of products used at motor vehicle coating facilities in Reg.
25, Part C, section I.P.8. Lastly, because the motor vehicle coatings
contingency measure was never triggered for the Moderate DMNFR
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see discussion above at
sections I. and IV.), the EPA proposes to approve the revisions to Reg.
25, Part B, section I.P. in the April 2, 2025 submittal that serve to
repurpose the motor vehicles coating measure as a contingency measure
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In summary, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Reg.
7, Part A concerning applicability and general provisions; the addition
of Reg. 7, Part C, section I.P. motor vehicle coating requirements; a
revision to Reg. 7, Part C, section I.A.3.a. updating a reference date;
the copying over, with minor revisions, of Reg. 7 Part A to Reg. 25,
Part A; the relocation of Reg. 7, Part C, sections I.A and I.P to Reg.
25, Part B, sections I.A. and I.P.; the revision to Reg. 25, Part A,
section II.C.2.; and the revisions to Reg. 25, Part B, section I.P.
Given that the revisions that the EPA is evaluating span multiple SIP
submittals from Colorado, we have included table 3 detailing the
revisions from each submittal that we are proposing to approve in this
document. The remainder of the revisions included with each submittal
that we are not proposing action on in this proposed rulemaking will be
addressed by the EPA in separate rulemakings at a later date.
Table 3--Summary of EPA's Proposed Approval of Revisions to Regulations
7 and 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions included in the EPA's
Submittal proposed approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 2023.......................... Reg. 7, Part A, sections
I.A.1.a, I.B.2.a.(i)-(iii),
I.B.2.c, I.B.2.d,
I.B.2.d.(iii)-(iv), I.B.2.e,
II.A.13-18, II.C.1; Reg. 7,
Part C, section I.A.3.a., I.P.
May 23, 2024........................... Reg. 7, Part C, section I.P;
Reg. 25, Part A; Reg. 25, Part
B, sections I.A., I.P.;
appendix D-E
April 2, 2025.......................... Reg. 25, Part A, section
II.C.2.; Reg. 25, Part B,
sections I.P.1.b., I.P.3.,
I.P.4.b., I.P.7.a.,
I.P.7.a.(vi), I.P.7.b., I.P.8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: At this time, the EPA is not proposing action on any of the
revisions included in the June 26, 2023, May 23, 2024, and April 2,
2025 submittals besides those identified in table 3. Additionally,
those sections marked as ``state-only'' are not included for
incorporation into the SIP. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing action
on these sections, and any such sections which were relocated from
Reg. 7 to separate a separate regulation will continue to be ``state-
only.''
B. 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan
1. One Year's Worth of Progress
The EPA has reviewed the calculations in the 2024 DMNFR Contingency
Measures Plan, as summarized in section IV.B.1. of this document, and
is proposing to find that the State calculated one year's worth of
progress for NOX and VOC for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a
manner consistent with the EPA's recommendations.
2. Contingency Measures Infeasibility Justification
The EPA has reviewed the State's infeasibility justification
submitted to support its determination that there are no feasible
control measures that could be adopted as contingency measures in
addition to the motor vehicle coatings measure. The EPA has reviewed
the processes used by Colorado to assess a range of potential measures
across the stationary, area, mobile, and oil and gas source categories.
For the reasons explained below, and considering the relevant emission
sources and other facts specific to this nonattainment area, the EPA is
proposing to find that the motor vehicle coatings contingency measure
together with the State's infeasibility justification satisfies the
Serious ozone nonattainment area contingency measures requirement under
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the DMNFR area with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Colorado evaluated other potential contingency measures and
justified its determination of infeasibility, where applicable, using
EPA-recommended procedures.\61\ As described in section IV.B. of this
proposed rule, Colorado evaluated several potential control measures
across the source categories from the State's emission inventory for
VOC and NOX source categories in the DMNFR area, including
point, area, nonroad/on-road mobile, and oil and gas sources. After
setting aside measures that it has already adopted and implemented as
state-only provisions or to fulfill other SIP requirements, and
measures for which there are constraints for adoption concerning
federal preemption and are therefore not candidates for contingency
measures, the State made feasibility determinations based on whether
the remaining candidate measures could be implemented and achieve
emission reductions within two years, and whether the measures were
technologically and economically feasible.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 23-26.
\62\ Id at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While air agencies do not need to evaluate measures that they do
not have the legal authority to implement, the EPA recommends that an
infeasibility justification include a description of any such measures
that were recommended by the public or are being implemented elsewhere,
and an explanation of why the air agency lacks the legal authority to
implement them.\63\ The EPA is proposing to find that Colorado
reasonably excluded certain mobile source control measures from
consideration as candidate contingency measures due to difficulty in
ensuring such measures are not federally preempted. This includes
emission standards for new motorcycles, emission standards for new off-
road compression ignition engines, zero-emission off-road equipment
requirements, zero-emission cargo handling equipment requirements,
retirement of older diesel locomotives, evaporative emission standards,
and a prohibition on adding Tier 2 engines to fleets.\64\ These control
measures may be directly preempted; if not, the additional complexity
involved in ensuring that a potential regulation is not preempted would
prevent timely implementation of the measure to satisfy the Serious
nonattainment area contingency measures requirement for the DMNFR area
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See 2024 Contingency Measures Guidance at 39.
\64\ Strategy Summary at 16, 18, and 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to determine that the emission reductions that
could be achieved for this nonattainment area from livestock waste
emission reduction measures like diet manipulation and manure
management practices would be
[[Page 19456]]
difficult to quantify over the two-year timeframe in which reductions
from contingency measures should be achieved, and therefore would not
be appropriate candidates as contingency measures. Regarding pesticide
application, associated emissions represent a negligible amount of the
emission inventory for the DMNFR area. Therefore, the EPA is proposing
to find that the pesticide application category produces negligible
emissions, and that control measures for the category need not be
considered further for purposes of the contingency measures
requirement.
The EPA agrees with Colorado's assessment that emission reductions
in the SIP must be permanent, enforceable and quantifiable. In
particular, contingency measures must be surplus over and above what is
required for other nonattainment plan requirements. Accordingly, the
EPA is proposing to find that Colorado reasonably excluded certain
potential measures from consideration as candidate contingency measures
due to challenges concerning SIP creditability. This includes measures
where there is limited ability to quantify associated emission
reductions over the two-year timeframe in which reductions from
contingency measures should be achieved, like zero-fare transit, anti-
idling programs, an incentive program for electric vehicles/charging
stations, planting of lower-VOC tree species, an incentive program
providing financial assistance following failed vehicle emission tests,
a heavy-duty truck engine chip retrofit program, and an incentive
program to replace older light-duty vehicles.\65\ While the EPA agrees
that these measures or types of programs may result in emission
reductions, we see no basis to conclude that such measures could be
developed for this nonattainment area in a way that would support their
use as contingency measures. In particular, it would be difficult to
design these incentive-based measures in a way that would allow them to
achieve quantifiable reductions within the timeframe in which
reductions from contingency measures should be achieved. To the extent
these measures require funding for their implementation, the necessity
to authorize such funding could further delay the implementation of
such measures, making them further inappropriate for consideration as
contingency measures for this area.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Strategy Summary at 8-10 and 14-15.
\66\ A potential measure may also be infeasible if it requires
program funding to be available upon triggering the contingency
measure, but the funding or irrevocable funding commitment cannot be
secured prior to the time the state submits, and the EPA approves,
the contingency measure. Securing program funding or irrevocable
funding commitments in advance for a contingency measure that may
never be triggered may be a challenge for states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a triggering event occurs before an air agency adopts measures
to satisfy the contingency measures plan requirement, the timeframe for
achieving reductions (one year; if necessary, two years) should be
evaluated based on the adoption date of the measure rather than the
now-passed trigger date.\67\ Thus, in this situation, we do not
consider the past triggering event date of November 7, 2022 (the date
of EPA's finding that the DMNFR area failed to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS) the relevant starting point for the two-year period for: (1)
identifying the time window during which contingency measures should
achieve emission reductions in order to be creditable toward one year's
worth of progress, and (2) identifying the time window for a measure to
be deemed infeasible if it cannot be implemented within such
period.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 2024 Contingency Measures Guidance at 46 n. 92.
\68\ Colorado has included an evaluation of feasibility with
respect to timing using both 2 years beginning with the original
2022 triggering date, as well as the EPA's recommended evaluation of
2 years from adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological feasibility includes consideration of factors such as
operating procedures, raw materials requirements, physical plant
layout, and adverse environmental impacts such as water pollution,
waste disposal, and energy requirements that would negate the
environmental benefit of the emissions control. Colorado determined
that implementing standards for materials to reduce VOC emissions from
the use of cutback/emulsified asphalt would not be technologically
feasible given the impact of altitude on paving operations. The EPA is
proposing to find that Colorado provided an appropriate justification
for the exclusion of the measure based on technological infeasibility.
As described previously and evaluated below, technological
infeasibility also encompasses the inability to implement a measure and
achieve emission reductions from the measure in a suitable timeframe
for contingency measures. In this evaluation, we have separated the
consideration of timing of emission reductions from the broader
technological infeasibility categorization to better characterize
Colorado's analysis.
The EPA considers measures to be technologically infeasible if they
could not be implemented and achieve emission reductions in two years.
Colorado's 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan includes information on
the lack of available underlying data for source categories, and other
considerations for certain source types that the State determined would
preclude a full consideration of how candidate measures for such
categories could be developed and implemented, and whether such
measures would be technologically and economically feasible. For
example, Colorado determined that for the following potential control
measures the pool of affected sources consists of a relatively large
number of facilities, including small operations with minimal
experience with regulatory requirements. These potential control
measures would include measures for cannabis cultivation operations,
diesel inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs for NOX, an
indirect source rule for nonroad equipment, a minor source offset
program, and heavy equipment usage restrictions. The EPA is proposing
to concur with Colorado's determination that such characteristics
preclude a full consideration of how the potential measures could be
developed and implemented for this area, and whether such measures
would be technologically and economically feasible, within the two-year
timeframe that control measures would need to achieve emission
reductions. While adequate information may not presently be available
to move forward with the potential measures, these measures may become
feasible as additional information becomes available to Colorado.
As explained previously, in this circumstance where the triggering
event for the required contingency measures is in the past, we consider
the two-year timeframe applied from adoption of a candidate measure
appropriate. It is still important for a state to have measures that
will serve the purpose of achieving the additional emission reductions
that the contingency measures were intended to achieve, had a state
adopted contingency measures as part of the attainment plan SIP
submittal or at least in advance of the triggering event.
Accordingly, we are proposing to find that Colorado adequately
assessed the feasibility of potential control measures as contingency
measures. Colorado followed a process to address the contingency
measures requirement that included (1) identifying candidate
contingency measures, (2) assessing the feasibility of each candidate
measure, and (3) providing a infeasibility justification for each
candidate measure explaining why the State rejected it as infeasible as
a contingency measure for
[[Page 19457]]
the Serious DMNFR nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\69\
Concerning the control measures identified in Colorado's Strategy
Summary, we are proposing to find that Colorado appropriately excluded
certain control measures (i.e., determined that the measures are not
candidate contingency measures) according to the criteria identified in
table 4 and adequately demonstrated infeasibility for the remaining
candidate measures according to the criteria identified in table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan at 23-26.
Table 4--2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan Identification of Non-
Candidate Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified control The EPA's
Rationale for exclusion measures evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already Implemented Measures.. Lower VOC Content These are
Consumer Products/AIM already
Coatings; Enhanced implemented
Vehicle I/M Program; measures;
Diesel I/M Program; whether
Clean Fuel Fleet approved into
Equivalent; Advanced the SIP,
Clean Cars II promulgated on
Standards; Low Reid a state-only
Vapor Pressure (RVP)/ basis, or are
Reformulated Gasoline otherwise in
Standards; effect and
Prohibitions for Lawn/ achieving
Garden Equipment; emission
Stage I Vapor reductions,
Recovery at Gas they are
Stations; Widen CTG ineligible for
VOC RACT purposes of
Applicability; contingency
Regional Haze SIP measures.\a\
Provisions; Expand Therefore, the
Use of Alternative EPA is
Fuels in Government proposing to
and Private Fleets; find Colorado's
Road Use exclusion of
Restrictions; Clean the identified
Air Fleets Diesel measures as
Retrofits; Electric candidate
Vehicle Group measures to
Purchase Program; address
Alternative Fuel emissions from
Vehicle Tax Credit; the relevant
Electric Car Share source
Program; Commercial categories is
Lawn and Garden appropriate.
Program; Building and
Appliance Efficiency
Standards; Emission
Controls for
Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills; Diesel
Idling Rule; Emission
Standards for Space
and Water Heaters.
Federal Preemption /SIP Low-Emissions Diesel Colorado's
Creditability. Fuel; Reduce Public infeasibility
Transit Fares; justification
Increase Public includes
Transit Service; federally
Employer-based preempted
Transportation measures and
Management Plans/ measures for
Incentives; Expanded which there is
Commuter Trip difficulty in
Reduction Program; the associated
Increased/Permanent emission
Funding for Zero Fare reductions
Initiative and meeting the
Bicycle/Walking permanent,
Infrastructure; Limit enforceable,
Sections of Metro and
Area to Non-motorized quantifiable
Use; Limit/Restrict requirements
Vehicle Use in for SIP
Downtown Areas; High creditability
Occupancy/Shared Ride as a
Program; Secure contingency
Bicycle Storage; Anti- measure in the
idling Programs; DMNFR area. The
Charge Ahead Electric EPA is
Vehicle Charging proposing to
Station Program; Mow find Colorado's
Down Pollution Lawn demonstration
Mower Exchange; reasonably
Mandate Use-based excludes these
Vehicle Insurance; measures as
Increase State Tax on candidate
Fuel; Local measures to
Government Diesel address
Equipment emissions from
Specifications; the relevant
Commercial Diesel source
Best Practices; categories.
Mobile Source Credits
in Nonattainment New
Source Review;
Voluntary/Mandatory
Emission Reduction
Action Days; Work
Crew Carpooling; Oil
and Gas Best
Management Practices:
Defer Haul Trips,
Altered Vehicle Fleet
Maintenance,
Additional Leak
Detection and Repair,
Defer Liquid Hauling
to/from Field,
Postpone Well
Unloading Activities,
Reschedule Pipeline
Maintenance, Vapor
Return on Truck
Loading, Setting Pump
Units Ahead of Ozone
Season, Grouping
Maintenance
Activities, Delay
Compression Unit
Start Up, Improve
Chemical Storage; Eco-
driving Best
Practices; Boating
Restrictions; Diesel
Vehicle Best
Management Practices;
Out of Area
Inspection and Driver
Education; Low-VOC
Tree Species; Diesel
Engine Chip Reflash;
Regional Diesel Fuel;
Car Scrap Programs
(Vehicle Exchange
Colorado, Clean Cars
4 all, Clean Vehicle
Rebate); CARB Clean
Off-Road Fleet
Recognition Program;
San Joaquin Valley
(SJV) Hybrid and Zero-
Emission Truck and
Bus Voucher Incentive
Project; Low RVP
Gasoline/Low Emission
Diesel in Nonroad
Vehicles and
Equipment;
Evaporative Emission
Standards for
Recreational Boats;
Urban Heat Island/
Tree Canopy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that accelerating the implementation of a control requirement
(e.g., control measures that would have been implemented at some point
in the future to meet other attainment plan requirements but that
could be implemented earlier upon a triggering event so that upon
triggering, reductions would occur in the two-year window) may still
be approvable as a contingency measure.
Table 5--2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan Infeasibility
Justification Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified control
Rationale for infeasibility measures The EPA's evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological/Economic...... Episodic/Seasonal The EPA is proposing
Restrictions on to find Colorado
Operation of appropriately
Industrial, determined that the
Commercial, Oil and listed measures are
Gas Operations; infeasible as
Prohibition of contingency
Certain Oil and Gas measures on the
Operations during basis of
Ozone Season; technological and/
Asphalt Formulation or economic
Paving infeasibility.
Restrictions;
Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
(CDPHE) Extended
Air Quality
Forecasting.
[[Page 19458]]
Inability to Implement and Cannabis Cultivation For several
Achieve Emission Reductions Operations; Diesel measures, Colorado
within Two Years. I/M NOX Testing describes the
Program; Indirect present lack of
Source Rule Nonroad data available to
Equipment; Flaring make determinations
Minimization on technological or
Requirements; Oil economic
and Gas RICE Rule; feasibility, which
Minor Source would, in several
Emission Offset instances, require
Program Including engaging with
for Well Production businesses
Facilities; consisting of small
Reassessment of Oil operators with
and Gas NOX/VOC relative
Emissions Fees; unfamiliarity with
Trip Reduction the regulatory
Ordinances; Heavy- process. Where
Equipment Use adequate technical
Restrictions; data is
Control of unavailable, and
Emissions from Hot which would
Mix Asphalt Plants; preclude a full
Sale and consideration of
Installation of how candidate
Aftermarket measures for such
Catalytic Converter categories could be
Model Rule developed and
Expansion; CARB On- implemented, and
Road Motorcycles whether such
Emission Standards; measures would be
CARB Clean Miles technologically and
Standard; CARB economically
Transport feasible, such
Refrigeration Unit measures may be
Regulation Part 2; infeasible as
CARB In-Use Off- contingency
Road Diesel Fueled measures.
Fleets Regulation; Therefore, the EPA
CARB Large Spark- proposes to find
Ignition Engine Colorado's
Fleet Requirements; infeasibility
CARB Tier 5 Off- justification
Road New approvable in this
Compression- regard.
Ignition Engine
Standards; CARB Off-
Road Zero-Emissions
Targeted
Manufacturer Rule;
CARB Cargo Handling
Equipment
Requirements;
Accelerated Intro
to Cleaner Line-
Haul Locomotives;
Additional
Evaporative Vehicle
Emission Standards;
Tier 3 or Newer
Nonroad Equipment
Including
Agricultural
Equipment/Rec
Vehicle Emission
Standards/Clean
Construction
Policies; Utah
Commercial Cooking
Rule; Model Rule
for Reducing VOC
Emissions from
Adhesives and
Sealants; CARB 1,3-
Dichloropropene
Health Risk
Mitigation, SJV In-
Use Locomotive
Regulation; Utah
Appliance Pilot
Light Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, although not directly addressed in Colorado's
infeasibility justification, the EPA evaluated the stringency of the
State's existing SIP-approved emission limitations for combustion
equipment in Regulation 26, Part B, section II.A.4. (previously
Regulation 7, Part E, section II.A.4.). This includes emission
limitations for boilers, stationary combustion turbines, RICE, and
process heaters. The EPA has previously determined that these emission
limitations constitute RACT as required by the CAA for major stationary
sources of NOX. While an emission limitation constituting
RACT does not in itself preclude a state from strengthening the
existing limitation as a contingency measure, as a practical matter,
for these specific source categories a more stringent limitation with
respect to NOX concentrations or on a per heat/power basis
would likely require replacement of burners or add-on, pre/post-
combustion emission controls. The equipment retrofits on individual
pieces of combustion units that would be needed to achieve additional
emission reductions would require the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division within CDPHE, and the significant number of potentially
impacted individual operators to plan, prepare for installation, and
install the air pollution control equipment, which would take time
likely causing the measure to exceed the two-year timeframe for
contingency measures to achieve emission reductions. Furthermore, we
note that Colorado's SIP already includes combustion process
adjustments for combustion equipment, where owners/operators must
conduct inspections of fuel burning equipment and combustion controls
and perform maintenance as applicable. Therefore, the EPA is proposing
to find that establishing more stringent emission limitations for
combustion equipment than those required by Regulation 26, Part B,
section II.A.4. for boilers, stationary combustion turbines, RICE, and
process heaters, would be infeasible as a contingency measure because
it would not achieve emissions reductions within two years.
3. Adopted Contingency Measures
The emission reductions from the motor vehicle coatings measure
will be considered as the contingency measures reductions that should
have been triggered by EPA's prior finding that the DMNFR Serious
nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date. The EPA is proposing to find that this
measure is consistent with applicable CAA requirements for contingency
measures, and accordingly to approve the motor vehicle coatings measure
as a contingency measure with respect to the contingency measures
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious nonattainment plan for the
DMNFR area.
4. Conclusion
Based on the VOC emission reductions achieved by the motor vehicle
coatings contingency measure, and Colorado's infeasibility
justification for having contingency measures that achieve less than
one year's worth of progress, the EPA proposes to find that the 2024
DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan fulfills the contingency measures
requirements for the Serious nonattainment plan for the DMNFR area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Final approval of the 2024 DMNFR Contingency
Measures plan would cure the EPA's prior disapproval of the State's
March 22, 2021 SIP submittal intended to meet the contingency measures
requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the DMNFR Serious
nonattainment area.
VII. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted by the
State of Colorado to address the contingency measures requirement for
the Serious area nonattainment plan for the DMNFR area for purposes of
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The EPA is proposing this action based on our
determination that the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan meets the
requirements of CAA
[[Page 19459]]
section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). The EPA is also proposing to approve
revisions to Colorado Regulations 7 and 25 related to the contingency
measures requirement and as summarized in section IV.A. of this
proposed rulemaking.
In this same issue of the Federal Register, we are also issuing an
interim final determination, effective upon publication, to defer the
imposition of sanctions. Specifically, the determination will defer
application of the offset sanction for permitting of new or modified
sources and highway sanctions for which clocks were triggered by the
EPA's November 7, 2023 disapproval of SIP revisions submitted to
address the contingency measures requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the DMNFR Serious classification nonattainment area.\70\ The
determination to defer sanctions is based upon our proposed approval
action detailed in this document, with respect to the SIP submittals
addressing the contingency measures SIP requirement. Please see the
interim final determination for further information concerning
sanctions and the basis for issuing the interim final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed action, our
rationale for the proposed action, and any other pertinent matters
related to the issues discussed in this document. We encourage comments
regarding whether there are new or more stringent control measures not
identified in Colorado's analysis and which may be feasible as
contingency measures. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking
final action.
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of
the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an
implementation plan submitted by a state be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The Colorado SIP provisions that
the EPA is proposing to approve in this action do not interfere with
any applicable requirements of the Act. Thus, the EPA is proposing to
find that the approval of portions of the State's June 26, 2024, May
23, 2023, and April 2, 2025 SIP submittals as described in this notice
of proposed rulemaking is consistent with section 110(l). Therefore,
the EPA proposes to determine the CAA section 110(l) requirements are
satisfied.
IX. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
Regulation 25 pertaining to the ``Control of Emissions from Surface
Coating, Solvents, Asphalt, Graphic Arts and Printing, and
Pharmaceuticals'' and Regulation 7 pertaining to the ``Control of Ozone
via Ozone Precursors and Control of Hydrocarbons via Oil and Gas
Emissions (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) & Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX))'' (as specified in sections IV.A. and VI.A.
above). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. The proposed rule does
not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 21, 2025.
Cyrus M. Western,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2025-07937 Filed 5-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P