+(,121/,1(

Citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 42342 2010 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Oct 29 19:06:51 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
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 Doe. 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 8PAR, 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(1) of the CAA

VI. Proposed Action

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

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 S02 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 CB. 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' 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

1 All references in this notice to particular section

numbers are to the designated sections within

Regulation 1.

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 SU 2 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 SU 2 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

42343
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 139/Wednesday, July 21, 2010/Proposed Rules

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 SO 2

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.i.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

2 Under 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.

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

SO 2 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(1) 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 SO 2 emission limits

satisfies the requirements of Section

110(1). We believe these proposed

changes pose a problem under Section

110(1) because they may result in an

increase in SO 2 emissions within the

State. The relaxation of SO 2 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 SO 2

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 SO 2 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(1) 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

42344
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 139/Wednesday, July 21, 2010/Proposed Rules

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(1). We

believe the deletion of Section VI.B.5

poses a problem under Section 110(1)

because it may result in an increase in

SO 2 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 1I.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(1) of the

CAA

Section 110(1) 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(1), 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(1)

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.i.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 SO 2

emission limits for petroleum and oil

shale refining; (4) VI.B.5 regarding SO 2

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

42345
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 Doe. 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 8PAR, 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 EPAR08-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://

42346