Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 235 

1 76 FR 76328 (Dec. 7, 2011). 

and consumers determine whether 

equipment meets applicable new 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

efficiency standards for specific regions. 

The ANPR’s comment period ends on 

January 10, 2012. Shortly after 

publication of the ANPR, DOE issued a 

related Notice of Data Availability 1

seeking comments on an enforcement 

plan for the new regional standards. The 

FTC disclosures and the DOE plan 

involve overlapping issues. DOE’s 

comment period ends February 6, 2012. 

At a joint December 16, 2011 public 

meeting about the FTC disclosures and 

the DOE plan, the American Council for 

an Energy Efficient Economy requested 

that the FTC extend its comment 

deadline to match DOE’s February 6, 

2012 date. The Commission is extending 

the deadline as requested. The 

extension will ensure consistent timing 

in the FTC and DOE comment periods 

and will provide additional time for 

comment preparation. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Richard C. Donohue 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33696 Filed 1–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0963; FRL–9615–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Colorado; Procedural Rules; Conflicts 

of Interest 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to approve 

Section 1.11 of Colorado’s procedural 

rules as adopted by the Air Quality 

Control Commission (Commission) on 

January 16, 1998 and submitted to EPA 

as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision on November 5, 1999. Section 

1.11 specifies certain requirements 

regarding the composition of the 

Commission and disclosure by its 

members of potential conflicts of 

interest. We are also reproposing 

approval of a portion of Colorado’s 

January 7, 2008 submittal to meet the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), specifically the portion 

intended to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA. We 

previously proposed approval, 76 FR 

28707, of this portion as part of our 

action on the January 7, 2008 submittal. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0963, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: komp.mark@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0963. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the 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 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Komp, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6022, 

komp.mark@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Purpose of This Action 

II. Background of State’s Submittals 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittals 

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 In a notice of proposed action dated January 25, 

2011, EPA erroneously stated that Colorado had not 

submitted this portion of Colorado’s procedural 

rules for approval into the SIP (76 FR 4268). Due 

to this error, EPA disapproved the deletion of a 

provision regarding disclosure of potential conflicts 

of interest from Colorado’s Common Provisions. 

EPA will correct the erroneous disapproval in a 

subsequent action, if EPA finalizes the approval of 

section 1.11 of Colorado’s procedural rules for 

inclusion into the SIP. 

(iv) The words State or Colorado mean the 

State of Colorado, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(v) The word Commission means the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. 

I. Purpose of This Action 

EPA is proposing to fully approve 

Section 1.11 of Colorado’s procedural 

rules, adopted by the State of Colorado 

on January 16, 1998 and submitted to 

EPA on November 5, 1999. The 

approval into Colorado’s SIP of Section 

1.11 will make it federally enforceable. 

Section 1.11 of Colorado’s procedural 

rules mandates that the Commission 

have at least a majority of members that 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under Colorado’s 

air quality regulations or the CAA. The 

proposed approval will also federally 

mandate that Commission members 

disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest that arise during their terms of 

membership to the other commissioners 

in a public meeting of the Commission. 

EPA is also reproposing approval of a 

portion of Colorado’s January 7, 2008 

submittal to meet the ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On May 18, 2011, EPA proposed 

approval of Colorado’s submittal with 

respect to (among other infrastructure 

requirements) the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. However, in a final 

action on July 22, 2011, 76 FR 43906, 

EPA did not complete approval of the 

submittal with respect to Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In this action, EPA 

reproposes, for reasons stated below, to 

approve the January 7, 2008 submittal 

with respect to the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

II. Background of State’s Submittals 

Colorado adopted revisions to its 

procedural rules on January 16, 1998, 

and submitted part of the revised 

procedural rules to EPA on November 5, 

1999.1 Colorado’s procedural rules 

govern all procedures and hearings 

before the Commission and certain 

procedures and hearings before the Air 

Pollution Control Division within the 

Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment. The role of the 

Commission is to adopt an air quality 

management program that fosters the 

health, welfare, convenience, and 

comfort of the inhabitants of the State of 

Colorado and implements this through 

its regulatory program. The Commission 

also hears appeals from the regulated 

community and the general public 

regarding the actions of the Air 

Pollution Control Division, including 

appeals of Division compliance orders 

and noncompliance penalty 

determinations, and challenges of 

Division denials of proposed permits or 

of permit terms and conditions, for 

construction permits and operating 

permits. The proposed revisions to the 

Commission’s procedural rules, last 

revised in 1984, were intended to bring 

the Commission current with all 

applicable procedural requirements for 

their official actions. In particular, 

Section 1.11 was intended to address 

the requirements of section 128 of the 

CAA. 

Separately, on January 7, 2008, 

Colorado provided a submittal to meet 

the requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Under Section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, within three years of EPA’s 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, states are required to make a 

submittal, known as an ‘‘infrastructure 

SIP,’’ to meet the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2). Section 

110(a)(1) provides the procedural and 

timing requirements for SIP submissions 

after a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists 

specific elements the SIP must contain 

or satisfy. These infrastructure elements 

include requirements, such as modeling, 

monitoring, and emissions inventories 

that are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittals 

In its November 5, 1999, submittal, 

Colorado stated that Section 1.11 is the 

only provision in the Commission’s 

procedural rules that the State intends 

to be part of the SIP and was submitted 

to EPA for approval. Colorado intended 

that all other requirements found in the 

procedural rules in all sections except 

Section 1.11 are not to be acted on as 

part of the SIP. As noted in the 

statement of basis for the Commission’s 

adoption of section 1.11, the section is 

intended to satisfy the requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. 

Section 128 of the CAA requires SIPs 

to contain provisions that: (1) Any board 

or body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA have 

at least a majority of its members 

represent the public interest and not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under the CAA; 

and (2) any potential conflicts of interest 

by members of such board or body or 

the head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

Section 1.11 of Colorado’s procedural 

rules provides that the Commission 

shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and 

who do not derive a significant portion 

of their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders under 

Colorado’s air quality regulations or 

under the CAA. Section 1.11 also 

provides that members of the 

Commission shall disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest that arise during 

their terms of membership to the other 

Commissioners in a public meeting of 

the Commission. The procedural rules 

elsewhere require that public meetings 

of the Commission be recorded and that 

the recordings are made available to the 

public at cost. These provisions meet 

the requirements of section 128 as stated 

above. EPA therefore proposes to 

approve section 1.11 of Colorado’s 

procedural rules for inclusion into the 

SIP. 

On May 18, 2011, EPA proposed 

approval of Colorado’s infrastructure 

SIP submittal with respect to (among 

other infrastructure requirements) the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

received adverse comments on, among 

other things, Colorado’s implementation 

of sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). As a 

result, in a final action on July 22, 2011, 

76 FR 43906, EPA deferred action on the 

submittal with respect to Section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requires SIPs to comply with the 

requirements regarding state boards 

under Section 128 of the CAA. As 

discussed above, approval of Section 

1.11 of the State’s procedural rules will 

satisfy the requirements under section 

128 regarding state boards, and will 

therefore satisfy the requirements of 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), as well. EPA 

therefore proposes to approve 

Colorado’s January 7, 2008, submittal 

with respect to the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which will 

complete EPA’s action on all portions of 

the State’s submittal to meet 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 237 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. The Colorado 

SIP revisions that are proposed for 

approval in this action do not interfere 

with attainment of the NAAQS or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

The revisions do not make substantive 

changes that relax the stringency of the 

Colorado SIP; instead, the submittal of 

Section 1.11 of Colorado’s procedural 

rule meets a requirement of the CAA. 

Therefore, the revisions proposed for 

approval satisfy section 110(l) 

requirements. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing for approval Section 

1.11 of Colorado’s procedural rule as 

adopted by the Commission on January 

16, 1998, and submitted to EPA on 

November 5, 1999. We are also 

reproposing approval of a portion of 

Colorado’s January 7, 2008, submittal to 

meet the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, specifically the portion 

intended to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 23, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33760 Filed 1–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0354; FRL–9614–5] 

RIN 2060–AQ98 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Adjustments to the Allowance System 

for Controlling HCFC Production, 

Import, and Export 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency [EPA]. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to adjust the 

allowance system controlling U.S. 

consumption and production of 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as a 

result of a recent court decision vacating 

a portion of the rule titled ‘‘Protection 

of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustments to 

the Allowance System for Controlling 

HCFC Production, Import, and Export; 

Final Rule.’’ EPA interprets the court’s 

vacatur as applying to the part of the 

rule that establishes the company-bycompany baselines and calendar-year 

allowances for HCFC–22 and HCFC– 

142b. Following the August 5, 2011 

interim final rule allocating allowances 

for 2011, this action proposes to relieve 

the regulatory ban on production and 

consumption of these two chemicals 

following the court’s vacatur by 

establishing company-by-company 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b baselines and 

allocating production and consumption 

allowances for 2012–2014. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by the 

EPA Docket on or before February 3, 

2012, unless a public hearing is 

requested. Any party requesting a public 

hearing must notify the contact listed 

below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard 

Time on January 11, 2012. If a public 

hearing is requested, the hearing would 

be held on January 19, 2012 and 

commenters will have until February 

21, 2012 to submit comments before the 

close of the comment period. If a 

hearing is held, it will take place at EPA 

headquarters in Washington, DC. EPA 

will post a notice on our Web site, 

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

strathome.html, announcing further 

information should a hearing take place. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0354, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0354, Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket #EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0354 Air and Radiation 

Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room B108, Mail Code 

6102T, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0354. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 


wreier-aviles on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS