42342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. Section 39.13 is amended by 

adding a new airworthiness directive to 

read as follows: 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. 

FAA–2010–0720; Directorate Identifier 

2010–SW–050–AD. 

Applicability: Model S–92A helicopters, 

with main gearbox housing, part number 

92351–15110–042, –043, –044, or –045, 

installed, certificated in any category. 

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless 

done previously. 

To prevent failure of the main gearbox 

housing mounting foot pad, loss of the main 

gearbox, and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter, do the following: 

(a) Within 60 days, revise the airworthiness 

limitations section of the Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness by reducing the life 

limits of the affected main gearbox housing 

from 2700 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 1000 

hours TIS. 

(b) After revising the life limit in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD, 

before further flight, replace any main 

gearbox housing that exceeds the life limit of 

1000 hours TIS. 

(c) To request a different method of 

compliance or a different compliance time 

for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 

39.19. Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, Attn: Michael 

Schwetz, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803, telephone (781) 238–7761, fax (781) 

238–7170, for information about previously 

approved alternative methods of compliance. 

(d) The Joint Aircraft System/Component 

(JASC) Code is 6320: Main Rotor Gearbox. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 13, 

2010. 

Mark R. Schilling, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17756 Filed 7–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1033; FRL–9177–7] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado; 

Revisions to Regulation 1 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado 

regarding its Regulation 1. Regulation 1 

provides certain emission controls for 

opacity, particulates, carbon monoxide 

and sulfur dioxide. The revision 

involves the deletion of obsolete, the 

adoption of new, and the clarification of 

ambiguous provisions within Regulation 

1. The intended effect of this proposed 

action is to make federally enforceable 

the revised portions of Colorado’s 

Regulation 1 that EPA is proposing to 

approve and to disapprove portions of 

the regulation that EPA deems are not 

consistent with the Clean Air Act. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1033, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 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: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

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–2007– 

1033. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail 

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, U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Air 

Program, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6022, 

komp.mark@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. Background Information Regarding 

Colorado’s Submittal 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of State’s Submittal 

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA 

VI. Proposed Action 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42343 

1All references in this notice to particular section 

numbers are to the designated sections within 

Regulation 1. 

VII. 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. 

(iv) The words State or Colorado mean the 

State of Colorado, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(v) The words Provision or Regulation refer 

to Colorado’s Regulation 1. 

(vi) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide, HC mean or refer to hydrocarbons 

and CO mean or refer to Carbon Monoxide. 

(vii) The initials RACT mean or refer to 

Reasonably Available Control Technology. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove revisions to 

Colorado’s Regulation 1 adopted by the 

State of Colorado on August 16, 2001 

and submitted to EPA on July 31, 2002. 

The revisions involve the deletion of 

obsolete, adoption of new, and 

clarification of ambiguous provisions. 

Colorado’s Regulation 1 governs 

opacity, and particulate, sulfur dioxide, 

and carbon monoxide emissions from 

sources. After our review of these 

revisions, we believe that some of the 

revisions are consistent with the Act 

and should be approved while some of 

the revisions are not and should be 

disapproved. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. Interested 

parties may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA Regional 

office listed in the Addresses section of 

this document. 

III. Background Information Regarding 

Colorado’s Submittal 

On July 31, 2002, the State of 

Colorado submitted a formal revision to 

its SIP. The July 31, 2002 revision 

deleted obsolete provisions in Sections 

II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 1 regarding, 

respectively, alfalfa dehydrating plant 

drum dryers, wigwam burners, and the 

static firing of Pershing missiles. The 

provisions were deleted from the 

regulation because these sources no 

longer exist in the State. 

Colorado added language to its open 

burning provisions (Sections II.C.2.d 

and C.3) to clarify that the open burning 

of animal parts and carcasses are not 

exempt from permit requirements. 

However, a special allowance to 

conduct open burning activities without 

a permit is provided where the State 

Agricultural Commission declares a 

public health emergency or a contagious 

or infectious outbreak of disease that 

imperils livestock is evident. Such 

activities require a telephone notice to 

State and local health departments prior 

to conducting such open burning 

activities. All necessary safeguards must 

be used to minimize impacts on public 

health or welfare. 

The State revised the method in 

Section III.A.1.d for calculating 

emissions from multiple fuel burning 

units ducting to a common stack. 

Emissions are to be calculated on a 

pound per million British thermal unit 

(lbs/mmBtu) input and must be based 

on a weighted average of the individual 

allowable limits for each unit. 

The State added clarifying language in 

several provisions of Regulation 1 

stating that alternative performance test 

methods may be used with approval 

from the State. It also specified that 

ASTM or equivalent methods approved 

by the State may be used for fuel 

sampling from sources subject to 

Regulation 1. 

In sections VI A.3.e. and VI.B.4.g. 

regarding SO2 emissions, the State 

changed the overall emission limit for 

petroleum and oil shale refineries from 

0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per 

day to 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed 

per day. The State also added new 

language that modifies the method for 

calculating compliance with emission 

limits for petroleum refining and 

cement manufacturing. The State 

deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates 

that new sources of SO2 emissions that 

do not fall in specific source categories 

are subject to a 2 ton per day emission 

limit and are to utilize best available 

control technology. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of State’s 

Submittal 

We have evaluated Colorado’s July 31, 

2002 submittal regarding revisions to 

the State’s Regulation 1. We propose to 

approve some of the revisions but also 

propose to disapprove other revisions. 

Proposed Approvals 

We propose approval of the deletion 

of emission limits in Sections II.A.6, 

A.7, and A.9 of Regulation 1 for alfalfa 

dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam 

burners, and Pershing missiles because 

these sources no longer exist in the State 

and the emission limits have effectively 

become obsolete. For the same reasons, 

we propose to approve the revision to 

Section III.C.2 regarding the deletion of 

process weight emission standards for 

alfalfa drum dryers. 

We also propose to approve clarifying 

language in Sections II.C.2.d and II.C.3 

regarding the incineration of animal 

parts to prevent the outbreak of disease 

during a public health emergency. The 

clarification provides for the prompt 

notification of both State and local 

health officials and the use of all 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2Under regulations in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(iii) and 

policy expressed in EPA’s March 5, 1996 Guidance 

Memorandum, ‘‘White Paper Number 2 for 

Improved Implementation of the Part 70 Operating 

Permits Program’’ by Lydia N. Wegman, a State may 

adopt enabling language in the SIP that allows the 

State to apply equivalent or more stringent limits, 

monitoring techniques, or recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements through the Title V 

permitting process. 

necessary safeguards to minimize the 

impact of emissions from the burning on 

public health and welfare. 

Finally, we propose to approve the 

State’s revision to the method of 

computing compliance with emission 

limits for cement manufacturing and 

petroleum refining (Sections VI.A.3.e, 

VI.A.3.f., VI.B.4.e, and VI.B.4.g(ii)). The 

revised method more accurately reflects 

the daily processed-based SO2

emissions limits by using actual hours 

of operations as an averaging time when 

the facility does not operate for an entire 

24-hour period. The State also revised 

the method in Section III.A.1.d for 

calculating particulate matter emission 

rates for two or more fuel burning units 

connected to a common opening. 

Previously, the method summed the 

allowable emissions from the fuel 

burning units; the revised method uses 

a weighted average of the individual 

allowable limits. The revised method 

more accurately ensures compliance 

with emission limits, and we, therefore, 

propose to approve it. 

There are several provisions within 

Regulation 1 that we propose to 

disapprove. Our reasons are described 

below. As described separately below, 

we also propose to partially approve 

and partially disapprove specific 

portions of Section V regarding electric 

arc furnace shops at iron and steel 

operations. 

Director’s Discretion 

EPA reviewed the July 31, 2002 

Regulation 1 SIP revision submittal and 

found several instances throughout the 

sections within Regulation 1 where we 

believe ‘‘director’s discretion’’ 

provisions provide the State with the 

ability to modify requirements for 

stationary sources. Such provisions are 

inconsistent with sections 110(a) and 

110(i) of the CAA which provide for the 

review and approval of SIP revisions by 

the Administrator. Section 110(i) 

specifically prohibits States, except in 

certain limited circumstances, from 

taking any action to modify any 

requirement of a SIP with respect to any 

stationary source, except through a SIP 

revision. 

For this submittal, we propose to 

disapprove the revised sections within 

Regulation 1 that contain director’s 

discretion provisions. The revised 

sections are as follows: 

Sections III.A.2 and III.C.3. Performance 

Tests 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

revisions to these sections, which 

specify particulate matter performance 

tests for fuel burning equipment (III.A.2) 

and manufacturing processes (III.A.C). 

Previously, the sections specified 

certain EPA-approved methods for 

performance tests. The revisions add the 

phrase ‘‘ * * * or other credible method 

approved by the Division to determine 

compliance with this subsection of this 

regulation.’’ EPA believes these are 

instances of director’s discretion that are 

inconsistent with section 110(i) of the 

CAA, because they allow the State to 

modify stationary source requirements 

of the SIP without a SIP revision and 

without corresponding requirements 

such as public notice and comment and 

EPA approval. 

Section VI.C. Fuel Sampling 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

revision to this section. The revision 

allows for the use equivalent test 

methods approved by the Division in 

fuel sampling plans. EPA believes that 

this is an instance of director’s 

discretion that is inconsistent with 

section 110(i) of the CAA, because it 

allows the State to modify stationary 

source requirements of the SIP without 

a SIP revision and without 

corresponding requirements such as 

public notice and comment and EPA 

approval. 

Section VI.F. Alternative Compliance 

Procedures 

The State added Section VI.F to 

Regulation 1. This section provides for 

alternative compliance procedures to 

those in Section VI. Specifically, it 

provides for alternative test methods, 

methods of control, compliance periods, 

emission limits, and monitoring 

schedules. Section VI.F.3 states that 

Colorado shall obtain concurrence from 

EPA prior to approving an alternative 

test method. However, EPA believes that 

Section VI.F is inconsistent with section 

110(i) of the CAA, as it allows the State 

to modify stationary source 

requirements without a SIP revision and 

without corresponding public notice 

and comment. Therefore, we propose to 

disapprove Sections III.A.2, III.C.3, VI.C, 

and VI.F. 

The State may retain some flexibility 

through the authorities under 40 CFR 

70.6(a)(1)(iii) and the policy in EPA’s 

White Paper No. 2.2 These authorities 

allow adoption of enabling language in 

a SIP to provide for use of alternative, 

equally stringent requirements in the 

Title V permitting process so that source 

specific SIP revisions are not needed. 

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limits 

Colorado revised Section VI 

(pertaining to sulfur dioxide emission 

regulations) by modifying emission 

limits for petroleum refineries (Section 

VI.B.4.e) and shale oil refineries 

(Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The existing SIP 

approved rules for these sources limit 

SO2 emissions to 0.3 pounds per barrel 

of oil processed per day. The State has 

revised the daily limit to 0.7 pounds per 

barrel of oil processed per day. Section 

110(l) of the CAA provides that we 

cannot approve a revision to a SIP if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. There has been 

no demonstration that the proposed 

relaxation of the SO2 emission limits 

satisfies the requirements of Section 

110(l). We believe these proposed 

changes pose a problem under Section 

110(l) because they may result in an 

increase in SO2 emissions within the 

State. The relaxation of SO2 emission 

limits may also have an impact on the 

attainment status for other pollutants. 

Sulfur dioxide is a known precursor to 

the formation of particulate matter. As 

a result, the proposed changes may 

interfere with attainment of the NAAQS 

or other applicable requirements of the 

CAA. We therefore propose to 

disapprove the relaxation of the SO2

emission limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and 

VI.B.4.g(ii). 

Colorado later revised Section VI 

pertaining to sulfur dioxide emission 

regulations with regard to emission 

limits for petroleum (Section VI.B.4.e) 

and refining oil produced from shale 

(Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The State revised 

the daily limit back to 0.3 pounds per 

barrel of oil processed per day. The 

State submitted this revision to 

Regulation 1 via the Governor’s 

designee’s letter dated August 8, 2006. 

We are not acting on the August 8, 2006 

submittal with today’s action but will 

act on the submittal in a separate action. 

In the July 31, 2002 submittal we 

propose to act on, the State also deleted 

Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that 

new sources of SO2 emissions that do 

not fall in specific source categories are 

subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit 

and are to utilize best available control 

technology. This deletion is a relaxation 

of the SIP’s requirements. As we stated 

before, Section 110(l) of the CAA 

provides that we cannot approve a 

revision to a SIP if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42345 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

There has been no demonstration that 

the proposed deletion will satisfy the 

requirements of Section 110(l). We 

believe the deletion of Section VI.B.5 

poses a problem under Section 110(l) 

because it may result in an increase in 

SO2 emissions within the State and 

interfere with attainment of the NAAQS 

or other applicable requirements of the 

CAA. Therefore, we propose to 

disapprove the deletion of Section 

VI.B.5. 

Emission Limits for Existing Iron and 

Steel Operations 

Colorado’s Regulation 1 Section V 

provides for specific opacity and 

emission limits for gas-cleaning devices 

associated with electric arc furnace 

shops. Other sources of particulate 

emissions at iron and steel plants must 

comply with emission limits set forth in 

the Smoke and Opacity section of 

Regulation 1 (Section II). In the revision 

submitted July 31, 2002, the State 

deleted language from Section V 

regarding emission limits for existing 

iron and steel plant operations, because 

operations other than electric arc 

furnaces at the single existing iron and 

steel plant within the State have ceased, 

rendering the limits obsolete. EPA 

proposes to approve the submitted 

provisions with the following exception. 

For the July 31, 2002 submittal, the 

State added in Section V.A.2 a director’s 

discretion clause regarding the sampling 

methodology the source may use to 

determine that the mass emission rate 

does not exceed 0.00520 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot. As revised by the 

State, the source may use a credible 

method approved by the State. As 

discussed earlier in this proposal, this 

director’s discretion provision provides 

the State with the ability to modify 

stationary source requirements in the 

SIP without going through the SIP 

revision process and without 

corresponding public notice and 

comment and EPA approval. EPA 

therefore proposes to disapprove the 

phrase ‘‘or by other credible method 

approved by the Division.’’ 

Locomotive Opacity Limits 

Although Colorado did not revise 

Section II.B, which sets opacity limits 

for locomotives, EPA is taking this 

opportunity to note that the provisions 

in Section II.B appear to be preempted. 

Under section 209(e)(1)(B) of the CAA, 

all state standards or other requirements 

relating to the control of emissions from 

new locomotives or new engines used in 

locomotives are expressly preempted. 

Under section 209(e)(2), state standards 

or other requirements relating to the 

control of emissions from all other 

locomotives or locomotive engines are 

impliedly preempted, with the 

following exception. EPA can authorize 

California to adopt such standards 

under certain circumstances; if EPA 

does so, other states may adopt identical 

standards. 

Section II.B of Colorado’s SIP imposes 

opacity limits on locomotives. These 

limits would appear to be a standard 

relating to control of emissions. 

Therefore, under section 209(e)(1)(B), 

the standards would be preempted as 

they relate to new locomotives or new 

engines used in locomotives, and, as 

EPA has not authorized California to 

adopt opacity limits for other 

locomotives or locomotive engines, the 

Colorado standards would appear to be 

preempted as they apply to such 

sources. 

EPA’s concern regarding Colorado’s 

opacity limits should not be interpreted 

to mean that Colorado would be 

prohibited by the Clean Air Act from 

regulating the use and operation of 

locomotives and locomotive engines, 

although any such regulation would 

need to be evaluated. As described in 40 

CFR Part 89, Appendix A to Subpart A: 

‘‘EPA believes that States are not 

precluded under section 209 from 

regulating the use and operation of nonroad engines, such as regulations on 

hours of usage, daily mass emission 

limits, or sulfur limits on fuel; nor are 

permits regulating such operations 

precluded, once the engine is no longer 

new.’’ 

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act 

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. We 

believe that those portions of the 

revision to Colorado’s Regulation 1 that 

we propose to approve satisfy section 

110(l), because those portions do not 

relax existing SIP requirements. Instead, 

the portions of the July 31, 2002 

submittal EPA proposes to approve 

either increase stringency of existing 

requirements, clarify those 

requirements, or remove obsolete 

requirements. Therefore, section 110(l) 

is satisfied. 

VI. Proposed Action 

For the reasons expressed above, we 

are proposing to approve revisions to 

the following provisions in Regulation 

1: (1) Sections II.A.6, II.A.7, and II.A.9 

regarding the deletion of emission limits 

for sources that no longer exist in the 

State; (2) Sections II.C.2.d. and II.C.3 

regarding the burning of diseased 

animal carcasses to prevent a public 

health emergency; (3) Section III.A.1.d 

involving the State’s method for 

calculating emissions from multiple fuel 

burning units ducted to a common 

stack; (4) Section III.C.2 regarding the 

deletion of process weight emission 

standards for alfalfa drum dryers; (5) 

Section V regarding emission standards 

for electric arc furnaces, except for the 

director’s discretion provision provided 

for in Section V; (6) Sections VI.A.3.e, 

VI.A.3.f, VI.B.4.e, and VI.B.4.g(ii) 

regarding the methods used for the 

averaging of emissions over a 24 hour 

period. 

For reasons expressed above, we 

propose to disapprove revisions to the 

following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) 

Section III.A.2. and Section III.C.3 

involving director’s discretion regarding 

the method for conducting performance 

tests; (2) the director’s discretion 

provision in Section V regarding the 

method used to determine compliance 

with electric arc furnaces’ emission 

standard; (3) Sections VI.B.4.e and 

VI.B.4.g(ii) regarding changes in the SO2

emission limits for petroleum and oil 

shale refining; (4) VI.B.5 regarding SO2

emission limits for new sources not 

falling in specified source categories; 

and (5) Sections VI.C. and VI.F. 

regarding the use of director’s discretion 

for alternative methods to show 

compliance with fuel sampling plans 

and alternative compliance procedures 

respectively. 

VII. 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42346 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 (Public Law 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. 

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

Dated: July 12, 2010. 

Carol Rushin, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17790 Filed 7–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0285; FRL–9177–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Colorado; Attainment Demonstration 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 

and Approval of Related Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to act on 

proposed revisions to Colorado’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). On June 18, 

2009, Colorado submitted proposed SIP 

revisions intended to ensure attainment 

of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the 

Denver Metro Area/North Front Range 

nonattainment area by 2010. The June 

18, 2009 submittal consists of an ozone 

attainment plan, which includes 

emission inventories, a modeled 

attainment demonstration using 

photochemical grid modeling, a weight 

of evidence analysis, and 2010 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for 

transportation conformity. The 

submittal also includes revisions to 

Colorado Regulation Numbers 3 and 7 

and to Colorado’s Ambient Air Quality 

Standards Regulation. EPA is proposing 

to approve the attainment 

demonstration, the rest of the ozone 

attainment plan, with limited 

exceptions, and the revisions to 

Colorado Regulation Number 3, Parts A 

and B. EPA is proposing to approve 

portions of the revisions to Colorado 

Regulation Number 7 and to disapprove 

other portions. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove Colorado Regulation 

Number 3, Part C, and Colorado’s 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Regulation. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove limited portions of the 

ozone attainment plan. EPA is 

proposing these actions pursuant to 

section 110 and part D of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and EPA’s regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Regulation 

Number EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0285, by 

one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: kenney.james@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: James Kenney, Air Program, 

EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129. 

• Hand Delivery: James Kenney, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., 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 Regulation Number EPA– 

R08–OAR–2010–0285. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1