Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46549 

this program. Local entities should refer 

to the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program Number 20.205, 

Highway Planning and Construction, for 

further information. Accordingly, the 

FHWA solicits comments on this issue. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq.) and has determined 

preliminarily that this proposal does not 

contain collection of information 

requirements for the purposes of the 

PRA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and 

has determined that this action would 

not have any effect on the quality of the 

environment and meets the criteria for 

the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 

771.117(c)(20). 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. The FHWA 

does not anticipate that this proposed 

action would affect a taking of private 

property or otherwise have taking 

implications under Executive Order 

12630. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This action meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

The FHWA has analyzed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. The FHWA certifies that this 

proposed action would not cause an 

environmental risk to health or safety 

that might disproportionately affect 

children. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

The FHWA has analyzed this action 

under Executive Order 13175, dated 

November 6, 2000, and believes that the 

proposed action would not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes; would not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments; and would 

not preempt tribal laws. The proposed 

rulemaking addresses obligations of 

Federal funds to States for Federal-aid 

highway projects and would not impose 

any direct compliance requirements on 

Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a 

tribal summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) 

The FHWA analyzed this proposed 

rule under Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has 

determined that this rule is not a 

significant energy action because the 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, and the 

rule is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

Executive Order 12898 requires that 

each Federal agency make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations. The 

FHWA has determined that this rule 

does not raise any environmental justice 

issues. 

Regulation Identification Number 

A regulation identification number 

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 

action listed in the Unified Agenda of 

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory 

Information Service Center publishes 

the Unified Agenda in April and 

October of each year. The RIN number 

contained in the heading of this 

document can be used to cross-reference 

this action with the Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 636 

Construction, Construction manager, 

General contractor, Grant programs, 

Transportation, Highways, and Roads. 

Issued on: July 16, 2013. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Administrator. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

FHWA proposes to revise title 23, Code 

of Federal Regulations, part 636 as 

follows: 

PART 636—DESIGN-BUILD 

CONTRACTING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 636 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1503 of Pub. L. 109–59, 

119 Stat. 1144; Sec. 1307 of Pub. L. 105–178, 

112 Stat. 107; 23 U.S.C. 101, 109, 112, 113, 

114, 115, 119, 128, and 315; 49 CFR 1.85(b). 

■ 2. Amend § 636.209 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 636.209 What items must be included in 

a phase-two solicitation? 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) At your discretion, you may 

allow proposers to submit alternative 

technical concepts (ATCs) in their 

proposals if: 

(i) The alternative concepts do not 

conflict with criteria agreed upon in the 

environmental decision making process, 

and 

(ii) The RFP document clearly 

describes the contracting agency’s 

requirements for ATC: 

(A) Content, 

(B) Submission, 

(C) Review, 

(D) Confidential meetings procedures 

(if used), and 

(E) Evaluation in the proposal review 

process. 

(2) The confidentiality of ATCs will 

be maintained, except to the extent 

disclosure is necessary to maintain 

compliance with Federal or State 

permitting or other legal requirements 

necessary for the delivery of the project. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18514 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0548; FRL— 

9842–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: State 

Board Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Idaho for parallel processing on July 16, 

2013, for purposes of meeting the state 

board requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The EPA is also proposing to 

approve the submittal as meeting the 

corresponding state board infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for the 1997 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46550 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The eight-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous one-hour averaging period, and the level 

of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2The letter accompanying the submittal was 

dated July 9, 2012. 

Standards (NAAQS). If the final SIP 

revision submitted by the State to the 

EPA is consistent with the July 16, 2013, 

submittal, the State’s SIP will, upon 

final approval, contain the required 

provisions regarding board composition 

and disclosure of potential conflicts of 

interest. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0548, by any of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013– 

0548. The 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 

the disclosure of which 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or by using the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Evaluation of Board Composition 

Requirements 

B. Evaluation of Disclosure Requirements 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

CAA section 128, titled ‘‘State 

Boards,’’ requires each SIP ‘‘to contain 

requirements that (1) any board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders under this chapter shall have at 

least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive any significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under this 

chapter, 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.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7428. 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone.1 This action 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) within three years of 

issuance of the new or revised NAAQS. 

CAA section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that each such plan 

submittal must meet, including section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which requires 

compliance with the state board 

requirements of CAA section 128. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a 

finding that the State of Idaho had failed 

to make a complete submittal to satisfy 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (73 

FR 16205). On September 15, 2008, the 

State of Idaho made a SIP submittal to 

the EPA for purposes of meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. On April 

11, 2012, we proposed to approve the 

Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

(77 FR 21702). In the notice, we stated 

that Idaho’s SIP submission did not 

address all of the requirements of CAA 

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

that infrastructure SIPs meet the 

requirements of CAA section 128, and 

that we would address the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) in a 

separate action (77 FR at 21710). On 

July 17, 2012, we took final action to 

approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E)(i), 

(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 

41916). 

II. The State’s Submittal 

On July 16, 2013, the State submitted 

a SIP revision 2 for purposes of meeting 

the state board requirements of CAA 

section 128 and the corresponding state 

board infrastructure SIP requirements 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Specifically, the State submitted 

Executive Order 2013–06, dated June 

26, 2013, and Idaho Code §§ 59–701 

through 705, Ethics in Government Act, 

and requested parallel processing on the 

submittal. Under the parallel processing 

procedure, a State submits a SIP 

revision to the EPA before final 

adoption by the State. The EPA reviews 

this proposed State action and prepares 

a notice of proposed rulemaking. The 

EPA publishes its notice of proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register and 

solicits public comment in 

approximately the same time frame 

during which the State is completing its 

rulemaking action. For Idaho’s SIP 

submittal, the State provided a schedule 

for finalizing the SIP revision, including 

public review and submittal of the final 

SIP package to the EPA. If changes are 

made to the SIP revision after this 

proposal, such changes will be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 46551 

described in the EPA’s final rulemaking 

action and, if such changes are 

significant, the EPA may re-propose the 

action and provide an additional public 

comment period. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

approve the July 16, 2013, submittal as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 128 and CAA section 

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

NAAQS, if the final SIP revision 

submitted by the State to the EPA is 

consistent with the July 16, 2013, 

submittal. The EPA’s proposed 

determination that Idaho’s SIP, as 

amended, meets the CAA section 128 

requirements for purposes of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS is also 

applicable to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for other 

infrastructure SIP submittals for Idaho. 

Our evaluation of the State’s submittal 

is presented below. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Evaluation of Board Composition 

Requirements 

Idaho Code § 39–107, Board— 

Composition—Officers— 

Compensation—Powers—Subpoena— 

Depositions—Review, was originally 

approved into the Idaho SIP on July 28, 

1982 (47 FR 32530), and subsequently 

approved on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 

2217). Idaho Code § 39–107(1)(a) 

establishes compositional requirements 

of the Idaho Board of Environmental 

Quality (Board), namely, that it consist 

of seven members who shall be 

appointed by the governor and further 

that: 

Each member of the board shall be a citizen 

of the United States, a resident of the state 

of Idaho, and a qualified elector, and shall be 

appointed to assure appropriate geographic 

representation of the state of Idaho. No more 

than four (4) members of the board shall be 

from any one (1) political party. Two (2) 

members of the board shall be chosen with 

due regard to their knowledge of and interest 

in solid waste; two (2) members shall be 

chosen for their knowledge of and interest in 

air quality; two (2) members shall be chosen 

for their knowledge of and interest in water 

quality; and one (1) member shall be chosen 

with due regard for his knowledge of and 

interest in air, water and solid waste issues. 

To meet the requirements of CAA 

section 128(a)(1), Idaho has submitted 

Executive Order 2013–06, dated June 

26, 2013, which orders that ‘‘the 

appointment of members to the Idaho 

board of environmental quality shall be 

made in conformance with the 

requirements of Idaho Code section 39– 

107(1)(a), and section 128 of the Clean 

Air Act.’’ The EPA believes that 

Executive Order 2013–06 meets the 

requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1). 

Thus, if the final SIP revision submitted 

by Idaho is consistent with the July 16, 

2013, submittal, the EPA proposes to 

find that Idaho’s SIP revision meets the 

requirements of that CAA section 

128(a)(1) and the corresponding board 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA notes, however, that as 

provided in Idaho Code § 67–802, 

executive orders in Idaho cease to be 

effective four calendar years from the 

date of issuance unless an earlier 

termination date is specified in the 

order or unless the order is renewed by 

subsequent executive order. Because 

Executive Order 2013–06 does not 

specify an earlier termination date, it 

will expire on June 26, 2017, unless it 

is renewed by subsequent executive 

order. The EPA therefore notes that if 

Executive Order 2013–06 is not 

renewed, or if it is not replaced with 

legislation or some other legal authority 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 128(a)(1) and submitted to and 

approved by EPA as a SIP revision, 

Idaho’s SIP will no longer meet the 

requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1). 

At that time, the EPA will consider 

appropriate action. 

B. Evaluation of Disclosure 

Requirements 

The July 16, 2013, submittal also 

includes the Idaho statutes governing 

disclosure of conflicts of interest for 

public officials, specifically, Idaho Code 

§§ 59–701 through 59–705, Ethics in 

Government. Idaho Code § 59–704 is the 

heart of these disclosure provisions and 

establishes required action in the case of 

conflicts of interest. That section 

provides that ‘‘A public official shall not 

take any official action or make a formal 

decision or formal recommendation 

concerning any matter where he has a 

conflict of interest and has failed to 

disclose such conflict as provided in 

this section.’’ Under Idaho Code § 59– 

703(10), ‘‘public official’’ is defined to 

include ‘‘any person holding public 

office of a governmental entity by virtue 

of formal appointment as required by 

law’’ and ‘‘any person holding public 

office of a governmental entity by virtue 

of employment, or a person employed 

by a governmental entity on a consultive 

basis.’’ Thus, the disclosure 

requirements in Idaho Code § 59–704 

apply to Board members and the 

Director of the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ). In 

conjunction with the definition of 

‘‘official action’’ in Idaho Code § 59– 

703(1), the EPA believes that Idaho 

Code § 59–704 requires the disclosure of 

conflicts of interest by a member of the 

Board or the Director of the IDEQ in 

their approvals of permits and 

enforcement orders and is thus 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 128(a)(2). Therefore, if the 

final SIP revision submitted by Idaho is 

consistent with the July 16, 2013, 

submittal, the EPA proposes to approve 

Idaho’s final SIP revision as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 128(a)(2) 

and the corresponding board 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

ozone NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to CAA sections 110 and 

128, if the final SIP revision submitted 

by Idaho to address the requirements of 

CAA section 128 is consistent with 

Idaho’s July 16, 2013, submittal, the 

EPA is proposing to approve Idaho’s SIP 

revision as meeting the requirements of 

CAA sections 128 and also the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

NAAQS. This approval, once finalized, 

would also serve as a determination that 

Idaho meets the CAA section 128 

requirements for purposes of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for other 

infrastructure SIP submittals for Idaho. 

V. 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, the 

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); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46552 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• 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 the requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• does not provide the 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 the 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 25, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18538 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0659; FRL–9840–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Colorado Springs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Colorado. On March 31, 2010, the 

Governor of Colorado’s designee 

submitted to EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 175A(b) second 10-year 

maintenance plan for the Colorado 

Springs area for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This limited 

maintenance plan (LMP) addresses 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a 

second 10-year period beyond the 

original redesignation. This action is 

being taken under sections 110 and 

175A of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 3, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0659, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register for 

detailed instruction on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 

8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving 

Colorado’s SIP revision as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If EPA receives no 

adverse comments, EPA will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. EPA will address 

all public comments in a subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. See the information 

provided in the Direct Final action of 

the same title which is located in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register. 

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

Dated: July 16, 2013. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18436 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0446; A–1–FRL– 

9842–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Regulations Limiting 

Emissions of Volatile Organic 

Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These 

are revisions to existing air pollution 

control requirements for stationary 

sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 3, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2008–0446 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0446,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS