Conformity Adequacy Review: Region 8
State Implementation Plans (SIP) Submissions that EPA has Found Adequate or Inadequate
Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
For more information about adequacy review, return to the main adequacy page.
Contact: Gregory Lohrke at 303-312-6396 [email protected]
U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202.
|
Colorado
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Area
|
Pollutant
|
SIP Submission
|
Finding (date budgets apply)
|
Additional Information/ Comments
|
| Aspen | PM10 | maintenance plan | Adequate (6/11/2012) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| Adequate (9/4/2002) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |||
| Canon City | PM10 | maintenance plan | Adequate (8/17/2011) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| Adequate (7/31/2000) FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through SIP approval process. | |||
| Colorado Springs | carbon monoxide | limited maintenance plan | Adequate (8/17/2011) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| maintenance plan 1998-2009 budgets | Inadequate (4/29/1999) | Determination made under old process | ||
| maintenance plan 2010 budget and beyond | Adequate (4/29/1999) | Determination made under old process | ||
| Denver | 2008 8-hour ozone | reasonable further progress | Adequate (6/8/2023) Letter (pdf) FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| attainment plan | Adequate (4/2/2018) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process | ||
| 1997 8-hour ozone | attainment plan | Adequate (3/19/2010) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |
| pm10 | maintenance plan | Adequate (6/28/2007) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |
| Adequate (10/29/2001) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |||
| carbon monoxide | maintenance plan | Adequate (6/28/2007) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |
| Adequate (8/18/2000) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |||
| Fort Collins | carbon monoxide | limited maintenance plan | Adequate (6/11/2012) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| maintenance plan | Adequate (1/15/2003) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | ||
| Greeley | carbon monoxide | limited maintenance plan | Adequate (8/17/2011) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| maintenance plan | Adequate (1/20/2004) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | ||
| Lamar | PM10 | second maintenance plan | adequate 10/20/2014 79 FR 59767 printed 10/03/2014 |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process |
| maintenance plan | Adequate (11/12/2002) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | ||
| Longmont | carbon monoxide | maintenance plan | Adequate (6/28/2007) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| Inadequate (5/14/1999) | Determination made under old process | |||
| Pagosa Springs | PM10 | maintenance plan | Adequate (8/17/2011) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| Adequate (8/18/2000) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |||
| Steamboat Springs | PM10 | second maintenance plan | adequate 10/20/2014 79 FR 59767 printed 10/03/2014 |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| maintenance plan | Adequate (11/12/2002) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | ||
| Telluride | PM10 | maintenance plan | Adequate (8/17/2011) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| Adequate (8/18/2000) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |||
|
Montana
|
||||
|
Area
|
Pollutant
|
SIP Submission
|
Finding (date budgets apply)
|
Additional Information/ Comments
|
| Missoula | PM 10 | maintenance plan | Adequate (10/12/2018)
Letter (Missoula PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan) (pdf)
FR Notice (printed 9/27/2018) 83 FR 48715 |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| carbon monoxide | maintenance plan | Adequate (11/13/2017 )82 FR 43180 printed 9/14/2017) | Budgets found adequate through the SIP approval process. | |
| Adequate (6/16/2006) Letter FR Notice (PDF)(2 pp, 141 K, published June 1, 2006, About PDF) |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |||
|
Utah
|
||||
|
Area
|
Pollutant
|
SIP Submission
|
Finding (date budgets apply)
|
Additional Information/ Comments
|
| Ogden | carbon monoxide | maintenance plan | Adequate (6/10/2005) Letter FR Notice (PDF)(2 pp, 144 K, published May 26, 2005, About PDF) |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| carbon monoxide | maintenance plan | Adequate (4/29/1999) | Determination made under old process | |
| Provo (Utah County) | carbon monoxide | attainment demonstration | Adequate (8/4/2004) Letter FR Notice (PDF)(1 pp, 138 K, published July 20, 2004, About PDF) |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
| PM10 | attainment demonstration (2010 & 2020 budgets) | Adequate (10/16/2002) Letter FR Notice |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. | |
| carbon monoxide | attainment demonstration | Inadequate (5/14/1999) | Determination made under old process | |
| Salt Lake City Area | carbon monoxide | maintenance plan | Adequate (6/15/2005) Letter FR Notice (PDF)(1 pp, 139 K, published May 31, 2005, About PDF) |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process. |
|
Utah portion of Logan UT-ID Area |
PM2.5 |
attainment demonstration |
Adequate (9/28/2015) |
Budgets found adequate through the adequacy review process |