8326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2See Docket No. RM2011–1, United States Postal 

Service Request for Temporary Waivers from 

Periodic Reporting of Service Performance 

Measurement, October 1, 2010. 

3See Docket No. RM2011–4, United States Postal 

Service Request for Semi-Permanent Exception 

from Periodic Reporting of Service Performance 

Measurement or, in the Alternative, Petition for 

Rulemaking Concerning 39 CFR 3055.45(c). 

all categories of Standard Mail, Outside 

County Periodicals, non-retail Media 

Mail, Library Mail, Bound Printed 

Matter Parcels, and Stamp Fulfillment 

Services.2 Docket No. RM2011–4 

concerns a Postal Service request for a 

semi-permanent exception from 

periodic reporting of service 

performance measurement for FirstClass Mail Flats at the district level or 

other relief as appropriate.3 Interested 

persons are encouraged to review the 

filings presented in both related dockets 

when considering the instant request for 

waivers. 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–7 for consideration of 

matters related to the proposed 

temporary waivers from periodic 

reporting of service performance 

measurement identified in the Postal 

Service’s Request. 

Interested persons may submit 

comments on whether the Postal 

Service’s Request is consistent with the 

policies of 39 U.S.C. 3652(a)(2) and with 

the directions given in Order No. 465. 

Interested persons also may comment 

on interim measurement proposals. 

Comments are due no later than 

February 15, 2011. The Postal Service’s 

Request can be accessed via the 

Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov). 

The Commission appoints Emmett 

Rand Costich to serve as Public 

Representative in the captioned 

proceeding. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2011–7 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Postal Service’s 

Request. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

February 15, 2011. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Emmett 

Rand Costich is appointed to serve as 

the officer of the Commission (Public 

Representative) to represent the 

interests of the general public in this 

proceeding. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Ruth Ann Abrams, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3192 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1036; FRL–9266–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

‘‘Interference With Visibility’’ 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing partial 

approval of the Colorado interstate 

transport State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions, submitted on March 31, 

2010, addressing the requirements of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), and the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, in this 

Federal Register action EPA proposes 

full approval of those portions of the 

Colorado March 31, 2010 submission 

that address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement 

prohibiting a State’s emissions from 

interfering with any other State’s 

required measures to protect visibility 

for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1036, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dygowski.laurel @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, 

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– 

1036. 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, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8327 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 

4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 Colorado and State 

mean the State of Colorado. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background Information 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

IV. What is the State process to submit these 

materials to EPA? 

V. EPA’s Review and Technical Information 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

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. Background Information 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

action is being taken in response to the 

promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. This action does not 

address the requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5, or the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; those standards will be 

addressed in later actions. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

States to submit SIPs to address a new 

or revised NAAQS within 3 years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new SIPs must 

address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

requires that a State’s SIP must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the State from emitting 

any air pollutant in amounts which will: 

(1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in any 

other State; (2) interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other State; (3) interfere with any other 

State’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality; 

or (4) interfere with any other State’s 

required measures to protect visibility. 

On June 11, 2008, the State of 

Colorado submitted to EPA an Interstate 

Transport SIP addressing all four 

elements of the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to EPA’s 

concerns regarding the June 11, 2008 

submission, the State later submitted 

two superceding interstate transport SIP 

revisions: (a) A June 18, 2009 

submission addressing the requirements 

of elements (1) and (2) of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS; and (b) a March 31, 2010 

submission addressing the requirements 

of elements (3) and (4) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and of elements 

(1) through (4) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. As noted earlier, in this 

rulemaking EPA is evaluating only the 

Colorado SIP revisions of the March 31, 

2010 submission that address the 

requirements of element (4), prohibiting 

sources in Colorado from emitting 

pollutants from interfering with any 

other state’s measures to protect 

visibility, for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has already taken final 

action on elements (1) and (2) for ozone 

(see 75 FR 31306 and 75 FR 71029, 

respectively). EPA will be taking action 

on elements (1)–(3) for PM2.5 and 

element (3) for ozone in a separate 

action. 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

sections of the Colorado Interstate 

Transport SIP submitted March 31, 2010 

that address the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) ‘‘interference with 

visibility protection’’ requirement for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

January 13, 2010, the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission (AQCC) 

adopted interstate transport SIP 

revisions addressing the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Colorado submitted 

these revisions to EPA on March 31, 

2010. In this Federal Register action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

sections of the March 31, 2010 

submissions that address element (4), 

‘‘interference with visibility protection,’’ 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

IV. What is the State process to submit 

these materials to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

EPA’s rulemaking action on SIP 

submissions by States. The CAA 

requires States to observe certain 

procedural requirements in developing 

SIP revisions for submittal to EPA. 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that each SIP revision be adopted after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

This must occur prior to the revision 

being submitted by a State to EPA. 

The Colorado AQCC held a public 

hearing in December 2009 for the 

interstate transport SIP revision: ‘‘State 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

8328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding 

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ August 15, 2006. 

2 Id. 3Colorado March 31, 2010 SIP submission, at 23. 

of Colorado Implementation Plan to 

Meet the Requirements of the Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) and (II)— 

Regarding Interstate Transport for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 

The AQCC adopted this revision on 

January 13, 2010, and the State 

submitted it to EPA on March 31, 2010. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal from 

the State of Colorado and has 

determined that the State met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. 

V. EPA’s Review and Technical 

Information 

The interstate transport provisions at 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also 

referred to as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions, require that each SIP contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that adversely affect any other 

State’s air quality through interstate 

transport of air pollutants. As discussed 

in the Background Information section 

of this notice, a SIP must contain 

provisions that satisfy the four elements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 

only addresses element (4), or the 

‘‘interference with visibility protection’’ 

requirement, for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. On August 15, 2006, 

EPA issued guidance (2006 Guidance) 1

outlining the Agency’s phased approach 

to visibility protection: The 1980 

requirements of the Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment 

(RAVI) program, that addressed 

visibility impairment caused by one or 

a small number of sources, and the 1999 

Regional Haze requirements addressing 

visibility impairment due to emission of 

air pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographical area. 

The 2006 Guidance further explains 

that since EPA had not determined at 

that point in time that emissions from 

any States interfered with any other 

States’ measures addressing RAVI, 

States could satisfy this portion of the 

‘‘interference with visibility protection’’ 

requirement by certifying that none of 

their sources emitted pollutants 

interfering with other States’ 

implementation plan measures to 

protect visibility under the 1980 

regulations.2 The Colorado Interstate 

Transport submission of March 31, 2010 

outlines the periodic update of the State 

RAVI SIP and verifies that ‘‘no State or 

Federal Land Manager has identified 

Class I area impairment attributed to a 

Colorado source or identified a Colorado 

source that interferes with efforts to 

improve visibility.’’ 3 Consistent with 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance, the Colorado SIP 

verifies that there are no sources in the 

State that emit pollutants interfering 

with any other State’s measures to 

protect visibility through their RAVI 

SIPs. 

With respect to the 1999 Regional 

Haze provisions (see 64 FR 35714) 

addressing visibility impairment due to 

emission of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographical area, the 2006 Guidance 

indicated that States could satisfy the 

interference with visibility protection 

requirement through their EPAapproved Regional Haze (RH) SIPs. The 

2006 Guidance did not prohibit States 

from satisfying element (4) by 

something other than an EPA-approved 

RH SIP. The State submitted a partial 

RH SIP to EPA on June 11, 2008, and 

revisions to the 2008 submittal on June 

18, 2009. In the fall of 2010, the State 

revised its entire RH SIP and will be 

submitting this SIP to EPA in 2011. 

Thus, at the time the State submitted the 

March 13, 2010 Interstate Transport SIP, 

EPA had not approved a RH SIP for 

Colorado. 

The State of Colorado has elected to 

satisfy the element (4) requirement of 

the good neighbor provisions by 

providing a demonstration in its March 

13, 2010 Interstate Transport SIP 

submittal that it does not interfere with 

other State’s measures to protect 

visibility through their RH SIP. The 

State provides an analysis in its SIP that 

begins with an inventory of current 

control measures (some approved only 

at the State level, some that are 

Federally enforceable, and some that are 

Federal programs) that reduce visibility 

impairing pollutants. Some examples of 

measures the State has relied on in 

making its demonstration that are 

Federally enforceable or are Federal 

programs include: (1) Regulation 

Number 1—Emission Controls for 

Particulates, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide 

and Sulfur Oxides; (2) parts of 

Regulation Number 3—Stationary 

Source Permitting and Air pollutant 

Emission Notice Requirements; and (3) 

Federal mobile source tailpipe exhaust 

programs. The State also included some 

reductions attributable to its RH SIP, 

which have not been approved by EPA. 

The State used emission inventory 

information and modeling provided by 

the Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) to quantify the visibility 

impacts from Colorado sources on Class 

I areas outside of the State. Under the 

RH Rule, States must establish 

reasonable progress goals which provide 

for an improvement in visibility for the 

most impaired, or worst days, and no 

degradation on the best days (see 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)). The State analyzed 

its projected 2018 impacts on the worst 

days on surrounding Class I areas in 

Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming. The modeling the State 

used for this analysis includes emission 

reductions for RH that are not Federally 

enforceable. For nitrates, the most 

impacted areas were Canyonlands 

National Park in Utah and Bandelier 

National Monument in New Mexico. 

Colorado’s modeled contribution to 

nitrate extinction was 6.9% and 5.1%, 

respectively. Total nitrates from all 

source regions are projected to comprise 

9.5% of the extinction in Canyonlands 

and 6.6% of the extinction in Bandelier. 

Thus, Colorado’s nitrate contribution to 

the overall extinction in 2018 is 0.3% at 

Bandelier (0.051 × 0.066) and 0.7% 

(0.069 × 0.095) at Canyonlands. For 

sulfates, the most impacted areas were 

also Canyonlands National Park and 

Bandelier National Monument. 

Colorado’s modeled contribution to 

sulfate extinction was 2.3% and 1.2%, 

respectively. Total sulfates from all 

source regions are projected to comprise 

15.5% of the extinction in Canyonlands 

and 14.8% of the extinction in 

Bandelier. Thus, Colorado’s sulfate 

contribution to the overall extinction in 

2018 is 0.3% (0.012 × 0.148) at 

Bandelier and 0.2% (0.023 × 0.155) at 

Canyonlands. Colorado’s total impact 

from nitrates and sulfates combined at 

Bandelier and at Canyonlands is 0.5% 

and 1.0% of the overall extinction, 

respectively. EPA performed additional 

analysis (discussed below) to assess 

impacts to reasonable progress goals in 

Class I areas outside of the State. 

Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), the 

measures relied on by Colorado to make 

a demonstration that it does not 

interfere with other States’ measures to 

protect visibility in their RH SIP have to 

be approved by EPA as part of a SIP and 

made Federally enforceable. As 

mentioned above, the State’s 

demonstration relies on potential RH 

SIP emission reductions that have not 

been approved by EPA. EPA conducted 

a weight of evidence analysis on 

Canyonlands National Park, the most 

impacted Class I area to determine 

Colorado’s impact if non-Federally 

enforceable measures were not included 

in the demonstration. EPA’s weight of 

evidence analysis includes a 

recalculation of the reasonable progress 

goal to reflect the addition of nonWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 8329 

4The WRAP technical work, including modeling, 

was used by all western States as the basis for 

evaluating impacts on Class I areas and the need for 

controls. 

5A deciview is a measure of visibility impairment 

that directly relates to human perception. A higher 

deciview number indicates more perceptible 

visibility impairment. 

Federally enforceable measures, review 

of current and future year emission 

inventories, and an evaluation of the 

weighted emission potential (WEP) for 

sulfates and nitrates. The weighted 

emission potential information was 

obtained from technical work performed 

by the WRAP.4 (The complete weight of 

evidence analysis is included in the 

docket for this notice.) 

EPA recalculated the reasonable 

progress goal to determine approximate 

changes to visibility impacts at 

Canyonlands due to emission increases. 

To account for measures that are not 

Federally enforceable, EPA increased 

the Colorado emission inventory 45,700 

tons for sulfates and 5,200 tons for 

nitrates from the emission inventory 

used for Colorado in the WRAP 2018 

reasonable progress modeling. To 

calculate the approximate visibility 

impact from this change, the following 

procedure was followed: (1) Recalculate 

the baseline haze index (2000–2004) 

using daily 20% worst case monitored 

species extinction from WRAP data; (2) 

recalculate 2018 predicted reasonable 

progress goal haze index by applying 

Class I area specific annual relative 

response factors (RRFs) provided by 

WRAP to the daily 20% worst case 

monitored for each pollutant; (3) assume 

that Colorado’s relative contribution of 

nitrates and sulfates identified by 

WRAP tracer modeling for the 2018 base 

case is the same for the 2018 reasonable 

progress case; (4) rescale sulfate 

extinction and nitrate extinction in step 

2 to account for Colorado emissions that 

are not Federally enforceable; and (5) 

recalculate the reasonable progress goals 

that would be expected. This method of 

approximating the change in the haze 

index, given in deciviews (dv),5 shows 

that the 2018 predicted reasonable 

progress goal would only increase from 

10.77 dv to 10.80 dv. 

EPA also analyzed WEP information 

developed by the WRAP. The WEP 

analysis was developed as a screening 

tool for States to decide which source 

regions have the potential to contribute 

to haze formation in Class I areas, based 

on annual emissions inventories, 

baseline period back trajectories, and 

source to Class I area distances. The 

WEP analyses also show that Colorado 

has a minimal impact on visibility at 

Canyonlands. 

The RH Rule also requires States 

ensure no degradation of visibility on 

the best days. The WRAP modeling 

projects that visibility on the best days 

will not degrade in 2018 at any of the 

surrounding Class I areas. For example, 

modeling indicates that the visibility at 

Canyonlands on the best days is 

expected to improve from 3.8 dv to 3.5 

dv. Accordingly, EPA finds that 

Colorado does not interfere with another 

States’ ability to ensure no degradation 

of visibility on the best days. 

Based on the information presented 

above, EPA concludes that Colorado 

does not interfere with Utah’s measures 

to protect visibility at Canyonlands 

National Park. Since Colorado impacts 

Canyonlands more than any other out of 

State Class I area, Colorado’s impacts on 

other Class I areas, including Bandelier, 

would be even less. EPA thus has 

determined that Colorado does not 

interfere with other States’ measures to 

protect visibility in their RH SIP. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing partial approval of 

the March 31, 2010 Colorado Interstate 

Transport SIP revisions submission. 

Specifically, in this action EPA is 

proposing to approve subsections 3.1, 

3.2 and 3.3, addressing the ‘‘interference 

with protection of visibility’’ 

requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

and subsections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, 

addressing the ‘‘interference with 

protection of visibility’’ requirement for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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 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); 

• 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: February 3, 2011. 

Carol Rushin, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3280 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS