2466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Switzerland, or by calling +41–22–749– 

01–11, or at http://www.iso.org. 

(1) ISO 2719:2002, Determination of 

flash point—Pensky-Martens closed cup 

method, IBR approved for § 1065.705. 

(2) ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum 

products—Determination of pour point, 

IBR approved for § 1065.705. 

(3) ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997, 

Petroleum products—Transparent and 

opaque liquids—Determination of 

kinematic viscosity and calculation of 

dynamic viscosity, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.705. 

(4) ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum 

and liquid petroleum products— 

Laboratory determination of density— 

Hydrometer method, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.705. 

(5) ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum 

products and bituminous materials— 

Determination of water—Distillation 

method, IBR approved for § 1065.705. 

(6) ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum 

products—Determination of ash, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(7) ISO 8217:2005, Petroleum 

products—Fuels (class F)— 

Specifications of marine fuels, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(8) ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum 

products—Determination of sulfur 

content—Energy-dispersive X-ray 

fluorescence spectrometry, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(9) ISO 10307–2:1993, Petroleum 

products—Total sediment in residual 

fuel oils—Part 2: Determination using 

standard procedures for ageing, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(10) ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996, 

Petroleum products—Determination of 

carbon residue—Micro method, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(11) ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum 

products—Determination of aluminium 

and silicon in fuel oils—Inductively 

coupled plasma emission and atomic 

absorption spectroscopy methods, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(12) ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001, 

Crude petroleum and petroleum 

products—Determination of density— 

Oscillating U-tube method, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(13) ISO 14596:2007, Petroleum 

products—Determination of sulfur 

content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray 

fluorescence spectrometry, IBR 

approved for § 1065.705. 

(14) ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum 

products—Determination of vanadium 

and nickel content—Wavelengthdispersive X-ray fluorescence 

spectrometry, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.705. 

(15) ISO 14644–1:1999, Cleanrooms 

and associated controlled environments, 

IBR approved for § 1065.190. 

(e) NIST material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) by calling (800) 553– 

6847 or from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO). To purchase a 

NIST publication you must have the 

order number. Order numbers are 

available from the Public Inquiries Unit 

at (301) 975–NIST. Mailing address: 

Public Inquiries Unit, NIST, 100 Bureau 

Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899–1070. If you have a GPO stock 

number, you can purchase printed 

copies of NIST publications from GPO. 

GPO orders may be: Mailed to the U.S. 

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 

979050, St. Louis, MO 63197–9000, 

placed by telephone at (866) 512–1800 

(DC Area only: (202) 512–1800), or 

faxed to (202) 512–2104. More 

information can also be found at 

http://www.nist.gov. 

(1) NIST Special Publication 811, 

1995 Edition, Guide for the Use of the 

International System of Units (SI), Barry 

N. Taylor, Physics Laboratory, IBR 

approved for §§ 1065.20, 1065.1001, 

1065.1005. 

(2) NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994 

Edition, Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST 

Measurement Results, Barry N. Taylor 

and Chris E. Kuyatt, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.1001. 

(f) SAE material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from the 

Society of Automotive Engineers 

International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., 

Warrendale, PA 15096–0001, or by 

calling (724) 776–4841, or at http:// 

www.sae.org. 

(1) SAE 770141, 2001, Optimization 

of Flame Ionization Detector for 

Determination of Hydrocarbon in 

Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D. 

Reschke, IBR approved for § 1065.360. 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2012–712 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0588; FRL–9614–8] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado: 

Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide 

Rule Revisions; Regulation 1 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving 

and partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to 

Colorado’s Regulation 1. The partial 

approval of the State’s revisions allows 

for the use of obscurants during military 

exercises at the Fort Carson Military 

Base and Pino ́n Canyon Maneuver Site 

in Colorado when precautionary steps 

are taken during the exercise to 

maintain air quality. EPA approves the 

State’s revised determination of 

averaged over time emission rates and 

the expansion of recordkeeping 

requirements. EPA, however, is 

disapproving the revised provision 

governing fuel burning equipment. 

These revisions were adopted by the 

State of Colorado on July 21, 2005 and 

submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. 

The proposed partial approval and 

partial disapproval appeared in the 

Federal Register on August 10, 2011 (76 

FR 49391). EPA has determined that the 

approved revisions in Colorado’s 

submittal are consistent with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). This action is being 

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective February 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0588. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2467 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of SIP Revisions 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Section 110(l) of the CAA 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

The words State or Colorado mean the 

State of Colorado, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

The initials NSR mean or refer to New 

Source Review, the initials PSD mean or 

refer to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and the initials NAAQS 

mean or refer to National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

The initials CO mean Carbon 

Monoxide, NO2 mean Nitrogen Dioxide 

and SO2 mean Sulfur Dioxide. 

The initials BACT mean Best 

Available Control Technology. 

The word Base means United States 

Army Fort Carson Military Base and the 

word PCMS means Pino ́n Canyon 

Maneuver Site. 

The initials CEM mean Continuous 

Emission Monitoring. 

I. Summary of SIP Revisions 

Colorado’s Regulation 1 governs 

opacity, particulates, sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions from sources. Colorado 

adopted revisions to Regulation 1 on 

July 21, 2005 and submitted them to 

EPA on August 8, 2006. The State 

revised regulations regarding the use of 

smoke during military operations, 

equipment requirements and work 

practices (abatement and control 

measures) intended to control the 

emissions of particulates, smokes and 

SO2 from new and existing stationary 

sources. 

The revision also provides a new 

numbering scheme for each section of 

the regulation. Previously, subsections 

were designated only by the letter or 

number (for example, A or 1) assigned 

to that subsection. In the revision, every 

subsection is designated by full 

reference to it (for example, I.A or I.A.1). 

Section I.A. provides that Regulation 

1 provisions are applicable statewide. 

An exception is made if a provision 

within Regulation 1 is made specifically 

applicable to attainment, attainment/ 

maintenance or nonattainment areas. 

Consistent with its use of the term 

elsewhere, the State added the 

attainment/maintenance nomenclature 

as a revision to Section I.A. 

The State adopted EPA test methods 

number 1 through 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4) as it is applied to 

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces (40 CFR 

60.275). 

In the ‘‘Background’’ section of our 

proposed rule for these Regulation 1 

revisions (76 FR 49391), we said that the 

State had submitted a revision to 

Section II.A.1 requiring sources to use 

EPA Test Method 9 to determine 

opacity. Originally, the State had added 

language to the section stating that the 

use of the test method shall not 

preclude the use of other credible 

evidence. The use of other credible 

evidence was suggested by EPA during 

the State’s drafting of the revisions. The 

intent of the suggestion was to clarify 

that the use of the test method was not 

the only evidence that could be used to 

determine opacity. The State decided 

that the addition of the credible 

evidence wording was unnecessary 

because Regulation 1 is subject to the 

credible evidence provisions found in 

the State’s Common Provisions. 

Therefore, the State removed the 

credible evidence reference from their 

revisions to Regulation 1, and section 

II.A.1 was unchanged in this revision. 

The ‘‘Proposed Action’’ section of our 

notice did not propose action on this 

section, correctly reflecting that no 

substantive change to this section had 

been made. 

Section II.A.3 was revised to clarify 

that pilot plants and experimental 

operations shall not emit particulate 

matter in excess of 30 percent opacity 

for more than six minutes during a sixty 

minute time period. Prior to the revision 

the sixty minute time period had not 

been defined. 

The State revised Regulation 1 to 

address the United States Army Fort 

Carson Military Base’s (Base’s) need to 

use military obscurants during training 

while, at the same time, maintaining the 

air quality in areas accessible to the 

public near the military base. Section 

II.A of Regulation 1 prior to the revision 

set general standards for all sources 

prohibiting emissions into the 

atmosphere of any air pollutant which 

is in excess of 20% opacity. However in 

1998 the State revised Regulation 1 in 

recognition that obscurant generation 

training by the United States Army 

purposefully intends to be at or near 100 

percent opacity. Section II.D set specific 

limitations for the use of obscurants at 

the Base and the Pino ́n Canyon 

Maneuver Site (PCMS) at 100 percent 

opacity subject to specified limitations 

and conditions. These included using a 

buffer zone around the military’s 

training operation and limitation of the 

quantity of obscurant being generated. 

The August 8, 2006 submittal revised 

Section II. of Regulation 1 by removing 

the daily limitation to the use of 

obscurants, and replaced a threekilometer buffer zone within the 

military training area where obscurants 

could not be generated with a 

prohibition on transport of visible 

emissions from obscurants outside the 

boundaries of the facilities in order to 

protect the air quality in public areas 

outside the military boundary. 

Section III.A.1.d, prior to its revision 

by the State, stated that if two or more 

fuel burning units connect to any 

opening, the maximum allowable 

emission rate shall be calculated on a 

process rate of pound per million heat 

input (BTU) basis. The State revised this 

so that the maximum allowable 

emission rate shall be calculated on a 

design rate of pounds per hour. 

A revision to Section III.B.2.a of 

Regulation 1 clarified the areas where 

an incinerator emission standard 

applies. Previously, the emission rate 

limitation of 0.10 grain of particulate 

matter per standard cubic foot applied 

only to incinerators located in 

nonattainment areas. The revision, 

consistent with changes elsewhere, 

included attainment/maintenance areas 

as well. 

The August 8, 2006 submittal changed 

Section III.C.1.a. regarding 

manufacturing processes emission rates, 

to clarify that the applicability of the 

section is to process equipment with a 

design rate of 30 tons per hour or less. 

Under the revision averaging times for 

existing sources of SO2 (unless specified 

in other sections of Regulation 1) shall 

be a three hour rolling average (Section 

VI.A.1). Prior to the August 8, 2006 

submittal only sources utilizing a CEM 

were subject to the 3 hour rolling 

average. Requirements regarding 

frequency of fuel sampling were 

eliminated from this section. 

Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements were modified in Section 

VI.A.5 to allow the State to require a 

longer period than the two years for 

keeping records on site. 

We noted in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section of our proposed rule for these 

Regulation 1 revisions (76 FR 49391), 

that the State had submitted a revision 

to Section VI.B.4.i that addressed 

emission limitations for new cement 

manufacturing sources. This revision 

was removed by the State prior to the 

submittal of the revisions to EPA on 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

August 8, 2006. The State decided that 

new cement manufacturing plants will 

be included in the State’s NSR permit 

program that will include more 

stringent SO2 emissions than are 

established in Regulation 1. Therefore, 

the State removed as unnecessary and 

redundant the reference to new cement 

manufacturing plants in Section 

VI.B.4.i. The ‘‘Proposed Action’’ section 

of the notice did not propose action on 

this section, correctly reflecting that no 

substantive change had been made. 

In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the 

reference to the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site and Gates Rubber 

Company as sources using oil as a 

backup fuel is deleted since the sources 

no longer operate in the Denver, 

Colorado metropolitan area. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA did not receive comments 

regarding our proposed rule for 

Colorado’s Regulation 1 revisions. 

III. 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 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. The Colorado 

SIP revisions being approved that are 

the subject of this action do not interfere 

with attainment of the NAAQS or any 

other applicable requirement of the Act. 

In regard to the August 8, 2006 

submittal, EPA is approving several 

revisions to the State’s Regulation 

Number 1. These portions do not relax 

the stringency of the Colorado SIP. In 

particular, the State reinstated previous 

SO2 limits, where we had disapproved 

subsequent relaxations that the State 

submitted. Therefore, this action 

satisfies the requirements of section 

110(l). 

IV. Final Action 

We are not acting on purported 

substantive revisions made to Section 

II.C. regarding the State’s Open Burning 

regulation. Upon review of the 

revisions, the language was unchanged 

from a previous revision the State had 

made to its Open Burning regulations 

under the Smoke and Opacity section of 

Regulation 1. EPA approved this 

revision in an earlier action (76 FR 

4540, January 26, 2011). EPA therefore 

considers that no substantive revision 

was submitted for Section II.C. As 

discussed above, no substantive changes 

were made to sections II.A.1 and 

VI.B.4.i. 

What EPA Is Approving 

We are approving the new numbering 

scheme for Regulation 1. This approval 

does not constitute approval of any 

renumbered provisions that were not 

substantively modified, including 

sections II.A.1, II.C, and VII.B.4.i. We 

are approving the State’s incorporation 

by reference into the SIP of EPA test 

method 9. 

We are also approving the use of 

obscurants by the United States Army 

for military exercises at Fort Carson and 

PCMS under the prescribed conditions 

stated in Section II.D. The use of design 

rates for determining allowable 

emissions rates for manufacturing 

processes as defined in Section III.C.1.a 

of Regulation 1 is also approved. 

The revision to the default averaging 

time (3 hour rolling average) for existing 

sources of SO2 (Section VI.A.1) is 

approved. The modification to 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in Section VI.A.5 is also 

approved. The reinstatement of Section 

VI.B.5, requirements for new sources of 

SO2 emissions not regulated elsewhere 

in Regulation 1, is approved. 

EPA is approving the deletion of the 

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site and the Gates Rubber Company in 

Section VIII.A. Minor grammatical 

revisions made throughout the revisions 

are also being approved. The State’s use 

of the term ‘‘attainment/maintenance’’ 

area in Sections I.A., III.B.2.a, IV.D.2, 

and IX is approved. 

What EPA Is Disapproving 

EPA is disapproving the revision to 

Section III.A.1.d regarding the 

maximum allowable emission rate for 

multiple fuel units. We did not receive 

information from the State showing that 

changing the method for calculating 

emissions would not result in an 

increase in emissions. The State 

considered the issue and realized that 

the likelihood of two units venting to 

one stack where a pound per hour 

emission rate was needed would be rare. 

Therefore, the State did not provide the 

information and EPA is disapproving 

the revision to Section III.A.1.d 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 2469 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 19, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 20, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(121) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(121) On August 8, 2006, the State of 

Colorado submitted revisions to 

Colorado’s 5 CCR 1001–3, Regulation 1, 

that allows for the use of obscurants 

during military exercises at the Fort 

Carson Military Base and Pino ́n Canyon 

Maneuver Site in Colorado while 

precautionary steps are taken during the 

exercise to maintain air quality. The 

State modified the equipment 

requirements and work practices 

(abatement and control measures) in 

Regulation 1 intended to control the 

emissions of particulates, smokes and 

SO2 from new and existing stationary 

sources. Consistent with its use of the 

term elsewhere, the State added the 

attainment/maintenance nomenclature. 

The revision also provides a new 

numbering scheme for each section of 

the regulation. 

The State adopted EPA test method 9 

(part 60 of this title, Appendix A–4) as 

it is applied to Standards of 

Performance for Steel Plants (§ 60.275a 

of this title). The State revised 

manufacturing process emission rates, 

to clarify that the applicability of the 

section is to process equipment with a 

design rate of 30 tons per hour or less. 

The averaging time for emission 

standards of all existing sources of SO2

shall be a three hour rolling average. 

New sources of SO2 not specifically 

regulated within Regulation 1 are 

limited to two tons per day and are 

subject to BACT. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) 5 CCR 1001–3, Regulation 1, 

Emission Control for Particulate Matter, 

Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur 

Oxides, Section I., Applicability: 

Referenced Federal Regulations; Section 

II., Smoke and Opacity; Section III., 

Particulate Matter (except Subsection 

III.A.1.d.); Section IV., Continuous 

Emission Monitoring Requirements for 

New or Existing Sources; Section V., 

Emission Standards for Existing Iron 

and Steel Plant Operations; Section VI., 

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations; 

Section VII., Emission Regulations for 

Certain Electric Generating Stations 

Owned and Operated by the Public 

Service Company of Colorado; Section 

VIII., Restrictions On The Use of Oil as 

a Backup Fuel; effective October 2, 

2005. 

[FR Doc. 2012–713 Filed 1–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0987; FRL–9617–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District and 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Antelope Valley Air Quality 

Management District (AVAQMD) and 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) emissions from 

stationary gas turbines. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

19, 2012 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

February 17, 2012. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0987, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES