# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 42342 2010

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 18 14:34:39 2012

-- 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 ofthe main gearbox housing mounting foot pad, loss ofthe main gearbox, and subsequent loss of control ofthe helicopter, do the following:

(a)Within 60 days, revise the airworthiness limitations section ofthe Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by reducing the life limits ofthe affected main gearbox housing from 2700 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 1000 hours TIS.

(b)After revising thelife limit in accordance withparagraph (a) ofthis 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 14CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, BostonAircraft 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 aboutpreviously approved alternative methods of compliance.

(d)The Joint AircraftSystem/Component (JASC)Code is 6320:Main Rotor Gearbox.

Issued in FortWorth, Texas, onJuly 13, 2010. Mark R. Schilling, ActingManager, Rotorcraft Directorate, AircraftCertification Service.
[FRDoe. 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 ofAirQuality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisionsto 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 ofColorado regarding its Regulation 1.Regulation 1 provides certain emission controls for opacity, particulates, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. The revision involves the deletion ofobsolete, the adoption ofnew, andthe clarification of ambiguous provisions within Regulation 1.The intended effect ofthis proposed action is to make federally enforceable the revised portions of Colorado's Regulation 1thatEPA isproposing to approve and to disapprove portions of the regulation that EPA deems are not consistent with the Clean Air Act. This action isbeing taken under section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments mustbe 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.

* HandDelivery: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. to4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007- 1033. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbe included in the public docket without change andmay 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 thatyou consider tobe CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The www.regulations.govWeb site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity orcontact information unless you provide itin the body ofyour comment. Ifyou 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 ofthe
comment that isplaced in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends thatyou include your name and other contact information in thebody ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form ofencryption, andbe free ofany defects

or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docketvisit 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 ofthe
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket:All documents in the docket

are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed inthe 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.govorin hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy ofthe docket. You may view the hard
copy ofthe 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 ofContents

I. General Information II. What is the purpose ofthis action? III. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation ofState's Submittal V. Consideration of Section 110(1) ofthe CAA VI. Proposed Action 

### 42342

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 42342 2010

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions

For the purpose ofthis document, we

are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i)The words orinitials Act or CAA mean

orrefer to the Clean Air Act, unless the

context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, usor ourmean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii)The initials SIPmean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State ofColorado, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(v)The words ProvisionorRegulationrefer

to Colorado's Regulation 1.

(vi) The initials S02 mean orrefer to sulfur dioxide, HCmean orrefer to hydrocarbons and COmean or refer to Carbon Monoxide.

(vii)The initials RACTmean orrefer to Reasonably Available Control Technology.

I. General Information

A. WhatshouldIconsiderasIprepare my commentsforEPA?

1. SubmittingCB. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.govor e-mail. Clearly mark thepart or all ofthe information thatyou claim tobe CBI. ForCBI information in a disk orCD ROM that
you mail to EPA, markthe outside ofthe disk orCD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information thatis claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version ofthe comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy ofthe 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 forPreparingYour Comments. When submitting comments, remember

to:

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subjectheading, 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 ofFederal 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 thatyou used.

e. Ifyou estimate potential costs or burdens, explain howyou arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for itto be reproduced. f.Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

g. Explain yourviews as clearly as possible, avoiding theuse ofprofanity

or personal threats.

h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

II.Whatis the purpose ofthisaction?

EPA isproposing to partially approve and partially disapprove revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1adopted by the State ofColorado on August 16, 2001 and submitted to EPA on July 31, 2002. The revisions involve the deletion of obsolete, adoption ofnew, and clarification ofambiguous provisions. Colorado's Regulation 1governs opacity, and particulate, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from

sources. After ourreview ofthese revisions, we believe that some ofthe revisions are consistent with the Act and should be approved while some of the revisions are not and shouldbe 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 inthe Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments tothe EPA Regional office listed in theAddresses section of this document.

III. Background InformationRegarding 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 ofPershing 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 thatthe openburning ofanimal 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 ofdisease that imperils livestock isevident. Such activities require a telephone notice to State andlocal health departments prior

1Allreferences inthis noticeto particular section numbers are to the designated sections within Regulation 1. to conducting such openburning activities. Allnecessary 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 tobe calculated on a pound per million Britishthermal unit (lbs/mmBtu)input and mustbe based

on aweighted average ofthe individual allowable limits for each unit.

The State added clarifying language in several provisions ofRegulation 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. andVI.B.4.g. regarding SU 2emissions, the State changed the overall emission limit for petroleum and oil shale refineries from 0.3 lbs perbarrel ofoil processed per day to0.7 lbsper barrel ofoil 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 2emissions that do not fall in specific source categories

are subject to a 2tonper day emission limit and are toutilize 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 ofthe revisions but also propose to disapprove other revisions. Proposed Approvals
We propose approval ofthe deletion ofemission limits in Sections II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 ofRegulation 1for alfalfa dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam burners, and Pershing missiles because these sources no longer exist in the State andthe 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 ofanimal parts to prevent the outbreak ofdisease during a public health emergency. The clarification provides for the prompt notification ofboth State and local health officials and the use of all 42343

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

necessary safeguards to minimize the impact ofemissions from the burning on public health and welfare.

Finally, we propose to approve the State's revision tothe 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 ofoperations 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

aweighted average ofthe 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 1thatwe propose to disapprove. Our reasons are described below. As described separately below,

we also propose to partially approve andpartially disapprove specific portions of Section V regarding electric

arc furnace shops at iron and steel operations.

Director'sDiscretion

EPA reviewed the July 31, 2002 Regulation 1SIP revision submittal and found several instances throughout the sections within Regulation 1where we believe "director's discretion" provisions provide the State with the abilityto modify requirements for stationary sources. Such provisions are inconsistent with sections 110(a) and 110(i) ofthe CAA which provide for the review and approval ofSIP revisions by the Administrator. Section 110(i) specifically prohibits States, except in certain limited circumstances, from taking any action tomodify any requirement ofa SIP with respect to any stationary source, except through a SIP revision.

For this submittal, we propose to disapprove therevised sections within Regulation 1that 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 specifyparticulate matter performance
tests for fuel burning equipment (III.A.2) andmanufacturing 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 bythe Division to determine compliance with this subsection ofthis regulation." EPAbelieves these are instances ofdirector's discretion that are inconsistent with section 110(i) ofthe CAA, because they allow the State to modify stationary source requirements ofthe 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. EPAbelieves that this is an instance ofdirector's discretion that is inconsistent with section 110(i) ofthe CAA, because it allows the State to modify stationary

source requirements ofthe 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 ofcontrol, 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, EPAbelieves that Section VI.F is inconsistent with section 110(i) ofthe CAA, as itallows 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 ofenabling language in

a SIP to provide for use ofalternative, equally stringent requirements in the

2Underregulations in 40CFR 70.6(a)(1)(iii) and policy expressed in EPA's March 5, 1996 Guidance Memorandum, "White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation ofthe 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, orrecordkeeping and reportingrequirements through the Title V permitting process. Title V permitting process so that source specific SIP revisions are not needed. SulfurDioxideEmissionLimits

Colorado revised Section VI (pertainingto 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 SO2emissions to 0.3 pounds per barrel ofoil processed per day. The State has revised the daily limitto 0.7pounds per barrel ofoil processed per day. Section 110(1) ofthe CAA provides thatwe cannot approve a revision to a SIP ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement ofthe CAA. There has been

no demonstration thatthe proposed relaxation ofthe SO 2emission limits satisfies therequirements of Section 110(1). We believe these proposed changes pose a problem under Section 110(1) because theymay result in an increase in SO2emissions within the State. The relaxation of SO2emission limits may also have an impact on the attainment status for otherpollutants. Sulfur dioxide is a known precursor to the formation ofparticulate matter. As

aresult, the proposed changes may interfere with attainment of the NAAQS

orother applicable requirements ofthe CAA. We therefore propose to disapprove therelaxation ofthe 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 withregard to emission limits for petroleum (Section VI.B.4.e) andrefining oil produced from shale (Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The State revised the daily limitback to 0.3 pounds per barrel ofoil processed per day. The State submitted this revision to Regulation 1via the Governor's designee's letter dated August 8, 2006. We are not acting onthe 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 ofSO 2emissions that do
not fall in specific source categories are subject to a 2ton per day emission limit and are to utilizebest available control technology. This deletion is arelaxation ofthe SIP's requirements. As we stated before, Section 110(1) ofthe CAA provides thatwe cannot approve a revision to a SIP ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 42344

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 42344 2010

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

reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement ofthe 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 aproblem under Section 110(1) because it may result in an increase in SO2emissions within the State and interfere with attainment of the NAAQS

orother applicable requirements ofthe CAA. Therefore, we propose to disapprove the deletion ofSection VI.B.5.

EmissionLimitsforExistingIronand 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 ofparticulate 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 withinthe 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 thatthe 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 throughthe SIP revision process and without corresponding public notice and
comment and EPA approval. EPA therefore proposes to disapprove the phrase "or byother credible method approvedby the Division."

Locomotive OpacityLimits

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 tobe preempted. Under section 209(e)(1)(B) ofthe CAA, all state standards or other requirements relating to the control ofemissions from

new locomotives or new engines usedin locomotives are expressly preempted. Under section 209(e)(2), state standards or otherrequirements relating to the control ofemissions 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; ifEPA does so, other states may adopt identical standards.

Section II.B ofColorado's SIP imposes opacity limits on locomotives. These limits would appear to be a standard relating to control ofemissions. 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 asthey 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 ofnonroad engines, such asregulations on hours ofusage, 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 ofSection 110(1) ofthe CAA

Section 110(1) ofthe Clean Air Act
states that a SIP revision cannot be approved ifthe 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 ofthe Act.We believe that those portions ofthe revision to Colorado's Regulation 1that

we propose to approve satisfy section 110(1), because those portions donot relax existing SIP requirements. Instead, the portions ofthe July 31, 2002 submittal EPAproposes to approve either increase stringency ofexisting requirements, clarify those requirements, or remove obsolete requirements. Therefore, section 110(1) is satisfied.

VI. Proposed Action

For thereasons expressed above, we

are proposing to approve revisionsto the following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) Sections II.A.6, II.A.7, and II.A.9 regarding the deletion ofemission limits for sources thatno longer existin the State; (2) Sections II.C.2.d. andII.C.3 regarding theburning ofdiseased animal carcasses toprevent 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 ofprocess 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 ofemissions over a 24 hour period.

For reasons expressed above, we propose to disapprove revisions tothe following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) Section III.A.2. and Section III.C.3 involving director's discretion regarding the method for conducting performance tests; (2)the director's discretion provision in Section V regarding the method used to determine compliance with electric arc furnaces' emission standard; (3) Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii) regarding changes in the SO2 emission limits for petroleum and oil shale refining; (4) VI.B.5 regarding SO2 emission limits for new sources not falling in specified source categories; and (5) Sections VI.C. and VI.F. regarding theuse ofdirector's discretion for alternative methods to show compliance with fuel sampling plans and alternative compliance procedures respectively.

VII. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe 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 thatthey meet the criteria ofthe CleanAir Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state lawas meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Forthat
reason, this proposed action:

* Is not a "significantregulatory action" subject to review by the Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

* Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 42345

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 42345 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 139/Wednesday, July 21, 2010/Proposed Rules

ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

* 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 etseq.);

* Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (PublicLaw 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 actionbased onhealth 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 (66FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

* Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose 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 in40 CFRPart52

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 etseq. Dated: July 12, 2010. Carol Rushin,
DeputyRegional Administrator, Region 8. [FRDoe. 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 ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Attainment Demonstration forthe 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). OnJune 18, 2009, Colorado submittedproposed SIP revisions intended to ensure attainment ofthe 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 ofan 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 3and 7 and to Colorado's Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation. EPA is proposing
to approve the attainment demonstration, the rest ofthe ozone attainment plan, withlimited exceptions, and the revisions to Colorado Regulation Number 3,Parts A and B. EPA isproposing to approve portions ofthe revisions to Colorado Regulation Number 7andto 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 ofthe

ozone attainment plan. EPA is proposing these actions pursuant to section 110 and part D ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA'sregulations. DATES: Comments mustbe received on

or before August 20, 2010. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Regulation Number EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0285, by

one ofthe 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.

* HandDelivery: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 shouldbe made for deliveries ofboxed 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 maybe 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 thatyou consider to be CBI

orotherwise protected throughhttp:// www.regulations.govor e-mail. The http://www.regulations.govweb site is

an "anonymous access" system, which

means EPA will not know youridentity

orcontact information unless you provide itin the body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without goingthrough http:// www.regulations.gov,your e-mail address will be automatically captured andincluded as part ofthe comment that isplaced in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends thatyou include your
name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment andwith any disk orCD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may notbe able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, andbe free ofany defects or viruses. Foradditional 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

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 42346 2010