[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49391-49396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20282]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0588; FRL9450-5]


Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide Rule 
Revisions; Regulation 1

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1 adopted by the State of Colorado 
on July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The revisions 
involve the use of obscurants during military exercises while 
maintaining air quality, averaged emission rate determination over time 
and recordkeeping requirements. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs 
opacity, particulate, sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), and carbon 
monoxide (CO) emissions from sources. EPA has determined that most of 
the revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) and should be approved, but a revision to a provision 
governing fuel burning equipment is not and should be disapproved.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0588 by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac1c5c7da84c7cbd8c1eacfdacb84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3888c8e93cd8e829188a3869382cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER

[[Page 49392]]

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    <bullet> Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday 
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0588. 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 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 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://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, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Mailcode: 8P-AR, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6022, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ff4f0f2efb1f2feedf4dffaeffeb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f2f6f4e9b7f4f8ebf2d9fce9f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Purpose of This Action
III. Background of State's Submittals
IV. EPA Analysis of State's Submittals
V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VI. Proposed Action
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 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.
    (vi) The initials CO mean Carbon Monoxide, NO2 mean Nitrogen 
Dioxide and SO2 mean Sulfur Dioxide.
    (vii) The initials BACT mean Best Available Control Technology.
    (viii) The word Base means United States Army Fort Carson 
Military Base and the word PCMS means Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

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 
http://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. 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 July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The revisions 
involve the deletion of obsolete, adoption of new, and clarification of 
ambiguous provisions. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs opacity, and 
particulate, SO2, and CO emissions from sources. EPA has determined 
that most of the revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with 
the CAA and should be approved, but a revision to a provision governing 
fuel burning equipment is 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

[[Page 49393]]

rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional 
office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

III. Background of State's Submittals

    The State's August 8, 2006 submittal consisted of one revision to 
the State's Regulation 1. The revision was adopted by the State on July 
21, 2005 and revises 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 SO<INF>2</INF> from new and existing 
stationary sources.
    It also provides a new numbering scheme for each section of the 
regulation. The revisions to Regulation 1 are described for each 
section where a revision was made within Regulation 1.

Introduction

    The State revised the numbering of Regulation 1. 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, III.A or III.A.1).
    The State adopted EPA test method 9 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4) 
as it is applied to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants (40 CFR 
60.275a).

Section I. Applicability of: Referenced Federal Regulations

    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.

Section II. Smoke and Opacity

    Section II.A.1 provides that no owner or operator of a source shall 
allow or cause emissions to be released into the atmosphere of any air 
pollutant in excess of 20 percent opacity. Sources are to use EPA Test 
Method 9 to determine opacity but the State added language to the 
section stating that the use of the test method shall not preclude the 
use of other credible evidence. Section II.A.3 was revised to clarify 
that the emission limit on pilot plants and experimental operations is 
taken over a sixty minute time period.
    The submittal indicated that revisions were made to Section II.C. 
regarding the State's Open Burning regulation. However, upon review of 
the revisions the language appears to be 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, Jan. 26, 2011).
    The State revised Regulation 1 to address the United States Army 
Fort Carson Military Base's (Base) need to use military smoke or 
obscurants (both which will be referred to as obscurants in this 
proposed action) during training.
    As background information prior to the revision, Section II.A of 
Regulation 1 set general standards prohibiting emissions into the 
atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of 20% opacity. In 
recognition that obscurant generation in training by the United States 
Army purposefully intends to be at or near 100 percent opacity, the 
State added provisions for obscurant generation in 1998. Section II.D 
set specific limitations for the use of obscurants at the Base and the 
Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) at 100 percent opacity subject 
to specified limitations and conditions.
    The revisions to Section II.D in the August 8, 2006 submission 
include the replacement of the specific reference to fog oil with a 
general reference to obscurants allowing the Army the use of other 
materials to generate obscurants. The revision removed the daily 
limitation to the use of obscurants, and replaces a three-kilometer 
buffer zone where obscurants could not be generated with a prohibition 
on transport of visible emissions from obscurants outside the 
boundaries of the facilities.
    Other revisions to Section II.D added the measures to protect air 
quality beyond the Base and PCMS' boundary that must be executed before 
and during obscurant training. These measures included analyzing 
meteorological conditions before training with obscurants begins to 
ensure that atmospheric conditions meet established criteria for the 
dispersion of the obscurants. The revisions specify precluding 
obscurant training if unsatisfactory atmospheric dispersion conditions 
exist and stopping such training if atmospheric dispersion conditions 
deteriorate. Base and PCMS personnel are to be posted as observers on 
the obscurant training and are trained to anticipate the probability of 
obscurants drifting across the Base and PCMS boundaries. These 
personnel will have the authority to cease operations. The Base and 
PCMS commanders shall be responsible for compliance with the 
stipulations of Section II.D.

Section III. Particulate Matter

    Prior to its revision, Section III.A.1.d stated that if two or more 
fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable 
emission rate shall be calculated on a pound per million heat input 
(BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the maximum allowable 
emission rate shall be calculated on a lb/hour basis. In our July 5, 
2005 letter, we expressed that it was unclear why the regulation was 
changed. We suggested to the State that a testing protocol be developed 
to determine compliance with the revised emission rate.
    A revision to Section III.B.2.a of Regulation 1 changed 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, 
expanded the applicability to include incinerators located in 
attainment/maintenance areas as well.
    Finally, 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.

Section IV. Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements for New and 
Existing Sources

    Fluidized bed catalytic units at petroleum refineries located in 
nonattainment areas are required to install, calibrate, maintain and 
operate continuous emission monitoring systems for the measurement of 
CO. This requirement was expanded, consistent with changes elsewhere, 
to include the same types of units located in attainment/maintenance 
areas.

Section VI. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations

    Averaging times for existing sources of SO<INF>2</INF> unless 
specified in other sections of Regulation 1 shall be a three hour 
rolling average (Section VI.A.1). Prior to the revision 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. Previously, Section IV.H of 
Regulation 1 required only a two year limit to keeping records. The 
revision to Section VI.A.5 and

[[Page 49394]]

Section VI.B.7 acknowledge that other applicable regulations could 
require longer periods for recordkeeping without conflicting with the 
two year recordkeeping period specified in Section IV.H.
    In Section VI.A.3.f, the State eliminated a reference to new 
sources submitting an averaging plan, as the section refers only to 
existing sources.
    Previously, the State had proposed an increase in the emission 
limit for petroleum refining and refineries processing 1,000 or more 
barrels per day of oil (Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g.(ii)). The 
existing emission limit of 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day 
was revised to 0.7 lbs per barrel per day. EPA disapproved the 
relaxation of these limits in a previous action (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 
2011). In the August 8, 2006 submittal, the State reinstated the 
language that existed in the SIP prior to the previous proposed 
revision.
    The State added Section VI.B.4.i to Regulation 1 that addressed 
emission limitations for new cement manufacturing sources. The emission 
limitation reflects verbatim the emission limitations for existing 
cement manufacturing found within Section VI.A.3.f with the exception 
that new sources must submit an emission limit averaging plan with 
their construction permit application. Revisions to section VI.B.4.i 
regarding cement manufacturing incorporated the revised averaging times 
found in section VI.A.3.f and stated that records showing compliance 
with the emission standard specified in Section VI.A.3.f are to be 
maintained by the owner for a period of two or five years dependent 
upon the conditions stated in the source's operating permit.
    The State reinstated Section VI.B.5, which specifies that new 
sources of SO<INF>2</INF>, not specifically regulated in other sections 
of Regulation 1 are limited in their emissions to no more than two tons 
per day of SO<INF>2</INF> or must utilize Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT) as determined by the State. EPA previously 
disapproved the removal of Section VI.B.5 (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).

Section VIII. Restrictions on Use of Oil as a Backup Fuel

    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.

Section IX. Emission Regulations Concerning Areas Which Are 
Nonattainment for Carbon Monoxide

    The State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature as a 
revision to Section IX. Prior to the revision, refinery fluidized bed 
catalytic cracking units emitting annually 1,000 or more tons of CO 
located in nonattainment areas were subject to an emission limitation 
of 500 parts per million by volume of CO averaged over a one hour 
period. The State revised this provision to include cracking units in 
attainment/maintenance units.

IV. EPA Analysis of State's Submittals

    We have evaluated Colorado's August 8, 2006 submittal regarding 
revisions to the State's Regulation 1. EPA had corresponded to the 
State regarding the State's proposed revisions prior to their State 
adoption on July 21, 2005. In our letters dated March 19, 2001 and 
August 8, 2001 to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, we expressed our 
concern regarding a number of issues we are proposing action on today.

Military Exercises Using Smoke at Fort Carson Facilities

    In our March 19, 2001 letter, we expressed concern that the 
elimination of the three kilometer buffer smoke between where smoke 
could be released and the military property boundary would not be 
sufficient to provide assurance that the smoke would not drift over the 
military boundary and impact public health. The State and United States 
Army alleviated our concerns when both parties agreed to a number of 
additional measures to prevent obscurants from crossing the boundary. 
These included assessing atmospheric dispersion conditions prior to the 
use of the obscurants, the posting of observers, developing procedures 
beforehand for the use of obscurants and placing authority to terminate 
the use of obscurants in the hands of military personnel directly 
involved in the military exercise where the obscurant is being used.
    We do not consider the elimination of the three kilometer buffer 
zone a relaxation of previous SIP conditions since the buffer zone 
provision was replaced with new provisions that, at a minimum, 
compensate for the removal of previous conditions. We are proposing 
approval of the revision.

Fuel Burning Units

    Prior to its revision, Section III.A.1.d stated that if two or more 
fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable 
emission rate shall be calculated on a pound per million heat input 
(BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the maximum allowable 
emission rate shall be calculated on a lb per hour basis. In our July 
5, 2005 letter, we expressed that it was unclear why the regulation was 
changed. We suggested to the State that a testing protocol be developed 
to determine compliance with the revised emission rate. The State did 
not develop a testing protocol to determine compliance, and did not 
explain the basis for the change. It is unclear how the change is 
consistent with the emissions limits provided for individual fuel 
burning units, which are expressed in lbs per million BTU, and whether 
the change constitutes a relaxation of the provision. Given the lack of 
a testing protocol for compliance, the apparent inconsistency with the 
limits for individual fuel burning units, and the possible relaxation 
of the provision, EPA proposes to disapprove the revision to Section 
III.A.1.d.

Process Design, Averaging Times, and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The State revised Section III.C.1.a to clarify the applicability of 
provisions to manufacturing process equipment. We propose to approve 
this revision, which confirms the State's existing practice. However, 
we note that the submittal does not show the same change to Section 
III.C.1.b, in which the reference to process weight remains. The State 
should revise III.C.1.b correspondingly.
    EPA noted in our August 8, 2001 letter that the averaging time for 
all SO<INF>2</INF> emissions standards should be a three hour rolling 
average. EPA reasoned that section VI.A applies to different types of 
sources with varying sulfur in fuel content. A 24 hour sampling period 
is too long to assess the amount of SO<INF>2</INF> being emitted when 
the sulfur in fuel can vary over shorter periods. The State expanded 
the applicability of the default averaging period, a three hour rolling 
average, in section VI.A.1. EPA proposes approval of this revision.
    The State also revised the recordkeeping provisions to require 
records be retained for a longer period than two years if other 
applicable regulations require it. We are approving the State's 
clarification of the recordkeeping requirements.

SO2 Emission Rates for Petroleum Refining and New Sources

    The State had proposed a SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit relaxation 
in Sections VI.B.4.e and g pertaining, respectively, to petroleum 
refineries and to shale oil refineries that process 1,000 or more

[[Page 49395]]

barrels of oil per day. We had expressed concern in our August 8, 2001 
letter to the State telling the State that we viewed this as a 
relaxation to the SIP. Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (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 Act. The State was asked to submit an analysis indicating whether 
the relaxation would interfere with the SO<INF>2</INF> National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or the SO<INF>2</INF> increments.
    The State responded to EPA's concern by attempting to model 
compliance with the NAAQS using the proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limits of 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day. In the State's 
July 21, 2005 Statement of Basis that accompanied the August 8, 2006 
submittal, the State said that modeling with the revised emission 
limitations resulted in violations of the NAAQS. The State decided that 
the previous emission limitation of 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed 
per day should be reinstated to protect the NAAQS, because the modeling 
did not support the relaxation of the standard. EPA proposes to approve 
the reinstatement of the previous limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and g.
    The State did add requirements in Section VI.B.5 that new sources 
not regulated elsewhere in Regulation 1 for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
would be limited to not more than two tons of SO2 per day or be 
required to utilize BACT. In a previous submission, the State had 
deleted Section VI.B.5. EPA disapproved that submission (76 FR 4540). 
The August 8, 2006 submission restores the language that existed (and 
continues to exist) in the SIP and therefore makes no change (other 
than renumbering) to the provisions. EPA therefore proposes to approve 
this submission.

Renumbering and Deletion of Former Sources

    The renumbering of the sections does not modify any substantive 
provision of the SIP. EPA therefore proposes to approve it. However, 
EPA does not view the renumbering as resubmitting provisions that have 
already been approved for inclusion into the SIP, or that previously 
have been disapproved, but were not modified in any way other than 
renumbering. In particular, EPA's proposed approval of the renumbering 
does not constitute approval of existing director's discretion 
provisions that were not substantively modified in this submission, or 
of director's discretion provisions that were previously disapproved 
and that were not substantively modified in this submission (see, for 
example, 76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).
    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 was deleted 
since the sources no longer operate in the Denver, Colorado 
metropolitan area. EPA is proposing to approve the deleted reference to 
these sources.

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

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be 
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of 
the Act. The Colorado SIP revisions that are proposed for approval in 
this action do not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other 
applicable requirement of the Act. For the most part, the revisions do 
not make substantive changes that relax the stringency of the Colorado 
SIP. As discussed above, the substantive changes to the provisions for 
the use of military obscurants, taken as a whole, provide at least 
equivalent stringency to the existing provisions. Therefore, the 
portions of the revisions proposed for approval satisfy section 110(l) 
requirements.

VI. Proposed Action

    We are not acting on purported 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 revision was submitted for Section II.C.

What EPA Is Proposing To Approve

    We are proposing approving the new numbering scheme for Regulation 
1. As discussed above, this proposed approval does not constitute 
approval of any renumbered provisions that were not substantively 
modified. We propose to approve the State's incorporation by reference 
into the SIP of EPA test method 9.
    We are also proposing for approval 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 proposed 
for approval.
    The revision to the default averaging time for existing sources of 
SO<INF>2</INF> (Section VI.A.1) is proposed for approval. The 
modification to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Section 
VI.A.5 is also proposed for approval. The reinstatement of Section 
VI.B.5, requirements for new sources of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions not 
regulated elsewhere in Regulation 1, is proposed for approval.
    EPA proposes to approve 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 proposed for approval. The State's use of the term 
``attainment/maintenance'' area in Sections I.A., III.B.2.a, IV.D.2, 
and IX is proposed for approval.

What EPA Is Disapproving

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the revision to Section III.A.1.d 
regarding the maximum allowable emission rate for multiple fuel units.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described

[[Page 49396]]

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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 CAA; and
    <bullet> 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 action 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. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-20282 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>