Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 49391 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for Part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective 

September 15, 2010, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

AEA PA E5 Palmyra, PA [New] 

Reigle Field, PA 

(Lat. 40°17′15′′ N., long. 76°34′39′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 9.6-mile 

radius of Reigle Field. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 

1, 2011. 

Mark D. Ward, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20302 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0448; FRL–9450–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Rules Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take 

several actions on a revision to the 

Minnesota State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) which updates Minnesota’s rules 

in the SIP. The Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the 

SIP revision to EPA on May 5, 2008. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

majority of MPCA’s submittal, which 

will result in consistent enforceability of 

rules at the state and Federal levels. 

EPA is proposing to defer action on two 

sections of Minnesota’s rules related to 

the state’s operating permit program. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the state’s request to remove the 

Minneapolis/St. Paul vehicle inspection 

and maintenance program from the 

Minnesota SIP. These actions are 

approvable because they are consistent 

with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2008–0448, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christos Panos, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–8328, panos.christos@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: July 29, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20208 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 (SO2), 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: 

• 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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49392 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• 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, komp.mark@epa.gov. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 SO2 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 Pino ́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 SO2 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49394 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 SO2, 

not specifically regulated in other 

sections of Regulation 1 are limited in 

their emissions to no more than two 

tons per day of SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2

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 SO2

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 SO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or the 

SO2 increments. 

The State responded to EPA’s concern 

by attempting to model compliance with 

the NAAQS using the proposed SO2

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 

SO2 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 SO2 (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 SO2

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: 

• 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49396 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 CAA; 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. 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0168; FRL–8882–8] 

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for 

Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or 

on Various Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a 

pesticide petition requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0168 and 

the pesticide petition number 

(PP7F7260), by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0168 and the pesticide petition number 

(PP7F7260). EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or email. The 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 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 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, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http://www.

regulations.gov, or, if only available in 

hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket in Rm. S–4400, One Potomac 

Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 

Arlington, VA. The hours of operation 

of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Chao, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–8735; e-mail address: chao.

julie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS