68570 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Previous Port Access Route Studies 

A port access route study was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

April 16, 1979 (44 FR 22543) and 

modified on January 31, 1980 (45 FR 

7026) that studied the whole of Alaska’s 

maritime coast. Notice of study results 

were published on December 14, 1981 

(46 FR 61049). Only a portion of the 

current study area was included in the 

previous port access route study, as the 

previous study excluded all areas west 

of 170 degrees West longitude and also 

did not consider areas north of the 

Bering Strait. 

Necessity for a New Port Access Route 

Study 

The Coast Guard is always seeking 

ways to enhance the safety of life at sea. 

Since 2007’s record minimum for 

summer sea ice cover in the Arctic, 

international attention has been focused 

on the region and its potential 

accessibility for shipping and natural 

resource exploration. One significant 

study released in April 2009 by the 

Arctic Council entitled ‘‘Arctic Marine 

Shipping Assessment’’ noted both the 

sparse nature of aids to navigation in the 

United States Arctic as well as the 

absence of vessel routing measures in 

the Bering Strait. According to the 

study, significant increases in shipping 

are not expected in the near term. 

However, the U.S. Coast Guard desires 

to begin its study process so that 

essential safeguards are in place in 

advance of any future shipping increase. 

The Coast Guard has identified a 

potential safety enhancement by 

increasing predictability of vessel traffic 

patterns in this area with an established 

vessel routing system. When vessels 

follow predictable and charted routing 

measures such as a TSS, congestion may 

be reduced, and mariners may be better 

able to predict where vessel interactions 

may occur and act accordingly. 

This study will assess whether the 

creation of a vessel routing system is 

advisable to increase the predictability 

of vessel movements, which may 

decrease the potential for collisions, oil 

spills, and other events that could 

threaten the marine environment. 

There are numerous interested 

stakeholders with concerns regarding 

this region, and the U.S. Coast Guard is 

committed to ensuring that all 

viewpoints are obtained and considered 

prior to moving forward with any vessel 

routing measure implementation. 

Timeline, Study Area, and Process of 

this PARS: The Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District will conduct this PARS. 

The study will begin immediately upon 

publication of this notice and should 

take at least 24 months to complete. 

The study area is described as an area 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following geographic positions: 

• 62°30′ N, 173°00′ W; 

• 62°30′ N, 167°30′ W; 

• 67°30′ N, 167°30′ W; 

• 67°30′ N, 168°58′37′′ W, thence 

following the Russian Federation/ 

United States maritime boundary line to 

position 

• 63°40′ N, 173°00′ W, thence to the 

first geographical position. 

As part of this study, we will analyze 

vessel traffic density, agency and 

stakeholder experience in vessel traffic 

management, navigation, ship handling, 

and effects of weather. We encourage 

you to participate in the study process 

by submitting comments in response to 

this notice. 

We will publish the results of the 

PARS in the Federal Register. It is 

possible that the study may validate the 

status quo (no routing measures) and 

conclude that no changes are necessary. 

It is also possible that the study may 

recommend one or more changes to 

enhance navigational safety and the 

efficiency of vessel traffic management. 

The recommendations may lead to 

future rulemakings or appropriate 

international agreements. 

Possible Scope of the Recommendations 

We are attempting to determine the 

scope of any safety problems associated 

with vessel transits in the study area. 

We expect that information gathered 

during the study will help us identify 

any problems and appropriate solutions. 

The study may recommend that we— 

Æ Maintain current vessel routing 

measures, if any; 

Æ Establish a Traffic Separation 

Scheme (TSS); 

Æ Create one or more precautionary 

areas; 

Æ Create one or more inshore traffic 

zones; 

Æ Create deep-draft routes; 

Æ Establish area(s) to be avoided; 

Æ Establish, disestablish, or modify 

anchorage grounds; 

Æ Establish a Regulated Navigation 

Area (RNA) with specific vessel 

operating requirements to ensure safe 

navigation near shallow water; and 

Æ Identify any other appropriate 

ships’ routing measures to be used. 

Questions 

To help us conduct the port access 

route study, we request information that 

will help answer the following 

questions, although comments on other 

issues addressed in this document are 

also welcome. In responding to a 

question, please explain your reasons 

for each answer and follow the 

instructions under ‘‘Public Participation 

and Request for Comments’’ above. 

1. What navigational hazards do 

vessels operating in the study areas 

face? Please describe. 

2. Are there strains on safe navigation 

in the Bering Strait, such as increasing 

traffic density? If so, please describe. 

3. What are the benefits and 

drawbacks to establishing new routing 

measures? Please describe. 

4. What impacts, both positive and 

negative, would new routing measures 

have on the study area? 

5. What costs and benefits are 

associated with the potential study 

recommendations listed above? What 

measures do you think are most cost 

effective? 

This document is issued under 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 

5 U.S.C. 552. 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Christopher C. Colvin, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventeenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28115 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1027; FRL–9223–3] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado; 

Revision to Definitions; Construction 

Permit Program; Regulation 3 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

June 20, 2003 and April 12, 2004. The 

intended effect of this proposal is to 

approve those portions of the revisions 

to Colorado’s Regulation 3 that place 

restrictions on increment consumption, 

add innovative control technology as an 

alternative to BACT requirements and 

make other changes as described in 

more detail below. In addition, EPA 

proposes to disapprove those portions of 

the rule revisions that EPA determined 

are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), including provisions relating to 

pollution control projects. This action is 

being taken under section 110 of the 

CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 8, 2010. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68571 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–1027, 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 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop 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– 

1027. 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. Background of State’s Submittals 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittals 

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. 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 APEN mean or refer to 

Air Pollutant Emission Notice. 

(vi) The initials NSR mean or refer to 

New Source Review, the initials RACT 

mean or refer to Reasonably Available 

Control Technology, and the initials 

NAAQS mean or refer to National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

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. Background of State’s Submittals 

On June 20, 2003 and on April 12, 

2004, the State of Colorado submitted 

formal revisions to its SIP that changed 

or deleted numerous definitions in Part 

A of the State’s Regulation Number 3. 

Primarily, these were minor changes 

designed to fix ambiguous language, to 

make the definitions more readable or to 

delete obsolete or duplicative 

definitions. In addition to the 

clarifications, formatting and readability 

changes were made to the definition 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68572 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

section and a number of definitions 

were added or modified to reflect 

developments in Federal law. Also, in 

the April 12, 2004 submittal, the only 

revision to Parts A and B of Regulation 

3 was a minor change to Part A, Section 

I.A regarding the availability of material 

incorporated by reference. 

One modified definition was for nonroad engines. In response to the 1990 

CAA Amendments, Federal case law, 

and EPA’s interpretation of the term, 

Colorado modified the definition of a 

non-road engine. The definition was 

also moved from the Air Pollutant 

Emission Notice (APEN) section of 

Regulation 3 (Part A, Section II) to the 

definition section (Part A, Section I). In 

addition, Colorado took steps to keep 

track of these sources by requiring a 

non-road engine rated at 1200 

horsepower or greater to file a Colorado 

APEN. The filing of an APEN for nonroad engines is stipulated by Colorado’s 

SIP revisions to be a State-only 

requirement. 

New definitions also included the 

definition of Pollution Control Projects 

at existing electric utility steam 

generating units and the use of Clean 

Coal Technology at these units. 

Colorado also revised its definitions of 

actual emissions and major modification 

to include special provisions governing 

physical or operational changes at 

electric utility steam generating units. 

These new definitions and revisions 

responded to changes in the Federal 

regulations arising out of the decision in 

the Wisconsin Electric Power Company 

(‘‘WEPCO’’) case (Wisconsin Electric 

Power Co. v. Reilly, 893 F.2d 901 (7th 

Cir. 1990)). As a result of the WEPCO 

decision, EPA’s NSR regulations were 

changed in 1992 and Colorado 

responded to the changes by adding 

these definitions to its Regulation 3. 

Revisions were also submitted 

involving Part B of Colorado’s 

Regulation 3. Part B describes the 

process air emission sources must go 

through to obtain a required 

construction permit prior to 

commencing operation. The State’s 

submittals modified the exemptions 

from construction permitting, modified 

requirements for permit applicants, 

added restrictions on increment 

consumption, and added provisions 

regarding innovative control technology. 

Colorado added language to its area 

classification section of Part B, Section 

V stating that within certain Class II 

areas in the State (for example, certain 

National Monuments that are not Class 

I areas), sulfur dioxide concentration 

increases over baseline concentrations 

are limited to the amount permitted in 

Class I areas as established under 

Section 163(b) of the Federal CAA. Such 

increases are not allowed if the Federal 

Land Manager determines and the State 

concurs that there would be an adverse 

impact on air quality from the sulfur 

dioxide concentration increase. 

In Section III.D.1.c(iii), Colorado 

modified the exemption from 

construction permitting for stationary 

internal combustion engines. The State 

also limited to 75 percent the amount 

that a new major stationary source or 

major modification may consume of an 

applicable pollutant increment (Part B, 

Section VII.A.5). Sources may ask for a 

waiver from the limit. 

Finally, the State added the ability for 

a pollution source to request from the 

State a waiver from Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) 

requirements, if the source installed and 

the State approved a system of 

Innovative Control Technology (Part B, 

Section IX). The owner or operator of an 

emission source using this technology 

would receive the waiver under the 

condition that the source using the 

Innovative Control Technology agrees to 

achieve a level of continuous emissions 

reduction greater than or equivalent to 

BACT. The level of emission reduction 

must be achieved no later than four 

years from time of startup. At no time 

may the technology cause any violation 

of an applicable NAAQS. 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittals 

We have evaluated Colorado’s June 

20, 2003 and April 12, 2004 submittals 

regarding revisions to the State’s 

Regulation 3, Parts A and B. We propose 

to approve most of the revisions but also 

propose to disapprove certain revisions 

within the June 20, 2003 submittal. 

What EPA Is Proposing To Disapprove 

The State revised the definition of 

nonroad engine (Part A Section I.B.40). 

The revised definition of ‘‘nonroad 

engine’’ includes State-only 

requirements. As noted above, Colorado 

designated various parts of Regulation 

Number 3 State Only. In Section 

I.B.40.c., the State said this section is 

designated State Only and, therefore, 

not Federally enforceable. 

Our interpretation is that provisions 

designated State Only have not been 

submitted to us for approval since one 

of the key purposes of a SIP approval is 

to make the submitted regulations 

Federally enforceable. Instead, we 

interpret these provisions to have been 

submitted for informational purposes. 

Hence, we are not proposing to act on 

the portions of Regulation Number 3 

designated State Only and do not 

discuss them further unless they impact 

the portions of the regulation that 

Colorado intended to be Federally 

enforceable. 

The State added terms and definitions 

(Section I.B.70) including for a 

‘‘pollution control project’’ (I.B.70.d) in 

response to EPA’s 1992 WEPCO rule. 

Under the definition of ‘‘modification’’ 

(I.B.36), the State also added provisions 

related to these definitions, including 

for pollution control projects 

(I.B.36.b(iii)(G)). On June 24, 2005, the 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 

vacated the Pollution Control Project 

portion of the WEPCO rule as well as 

the corresponding portion of EPA’s 2002 

NSR rule (State of New York et. al. v. 

EPA, 413 F3d3 (DC Cir. 2005)). 

Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove 

Part A, Sections I.B.36.b(iii)(G)and 

I.B.70.d in Regulation 3. 

EPA also proposes to disapprove the 

new provisions in Part A, Section IV.C. 

regarding emissions trading under 

permit caps. These new provisions 

apply to both construction permits and 

to CAA Title V operating permits. For 

operating permits, the provisions should 

not be incorporated into the Federally 

enforceable version of the Colorado SIP. 

Instead, they should be submitted 

separately under 40 CFR 70.4(i) as a 

revision of Colorado’s approved 

operating permit program. To the extent 

that these new provisions apply to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) or nonattainment NSR for major 

sources or major modifications, they are 

not allowed by the regulations in 40 

CFR 51.166 or 51.165. EPA provides a 

mechanism for establishing permit caps 

through plant wide applicability 

limitations (PALs). The provisions in 

IV.C for emissions trading under permit 

caps do not meet the requirements for 

PALs in 40 CFR 51.165(f) and 

51.166(w). Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to disapprove the provisions for 

emissions trading under permit caps set 

forth in Section IV.C. 

In Part A Section V.F.5, Colorado 

expanded the acronym Lowest 

Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) as 

one instance of a regulation-wide style 

change that expanded many acronyms. 

The revision apparently inadvertently 

deleted the requirement that trading 

transactions may not be used 

inconsistently with or to circumvent 

requirements of LAER. EPA proposes to 

disapprove this change because 

emissions trading must be consistent 

with other requirements of the CAA, 

including LAER. 

Turning to Part B of Regulation 3, in 

Section III.D.1.c(iii), the State modified 

the requirements for stationary internal 

combustion engines to be exempt from 

construction permitting. Previously, all 

such engines were exempt if they had 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68573 

actual emissions of less than five tons 

per year or were rated less than fifty 

horsepower. Under the revision, in 

attainment areas such engines are 

exempt if they have uncontrolled actual 

emissions of less than ten tons per year 

or are rated less than one hundred 

horsepower; thus, more engines may be 

exempt from construction permitting 

under the revision. Under section 110(l) 

of the CAA, EPA cannot approve a SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment or reasonable further 

progress, as define in Section 171 of the 

CAA, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The State did 

not provide a demonstration or other 

analysis that the expansion of the 

exemption satisfies the requirements of 

section 110(l). EPA believes that 

exempting a potentially greater number 

of stationary engines from construction 

permitting may result in increased 

emissions of criteria pollutants such as 

NOx. EPA therefore proposes to 

disapprove the revision to Section 

III.D.I.c(iii). 

Finally in Part B, Section IV.B.2 and 

Section IV.H.8 regarding operating and 

maintenance plans and recordkeeping 

formats, the revisions to these 

provisions have the effect of exempting 

a source’s operating and maintenance 

plan for control equipment and 

recordkeeping format from public 

comment. This is contrary to the public 

participation requirements of 40 CFR 

51.161(a), which require the State to 

allow public comment on information 

submitted by owners and operators. As 

set out in 40 CFR 51.160(c) and (a), the 

submitted information subject to public 

comment must include information on 

operation of the source as necessary for 

the State to determine that the 

construction or modification of the 

source will not violate the applicable 

portions of the control strategy or 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of a national standard. As 

the exempted information appears to 

fall within this requirement, EPA 

proposes to disapprove this revision. 

What EPA Is Proposing To Approve 

The State added language to its 

definition of actual emissions (Section 

I.B.1.d) for electric utility steam 

generating units. The State defined 

actual emissions by allowing the actual 

emissions from the unit following a 

physical or operational change of the 

unit to equal the actual annual 

emissions of the unit provided the 

operator can provide information from a 

five year period showing no emission 

increase resulting from the unit’s 

physical or operational change. This 

revised definition is consistent with 

EPA’s 1992 WEPCO rule discussed 

earlier in this proposed rule. Although 

a term used (‘‘representative actual 

annual emissions’’) is that of the WEPCO 

rule, the substance of the revised 

definition is also consistent with current 

Federal regulations I 40 CFR 51.165 and 

51.166, and EPA, therefore, proposes to 

approve the revised definition. 

The State also modified its definition 

for commenced construction in Section 

I.B.13 by excluding certain construction 

activities from the requirement for a 

permit. Planning activities, site clearing 

and grading, ordering equipment and 

materials, storing of equipment, 

constructing personnel trailers, 

engineering and design changes, and 

geotechnical investigation do not 

require that a permit be issued prior to 

these activities. EPA proposes to 

approve this change in the definition of 

commenced construction as it is 

consistent with EPA guidance 

interpreting the equivalent term, ‘‘begin 

actual construction’’. (See 

Memorandum, ‘‘Construction Activities 

Prior to Issuance of a PSD Permit with 

Respect to ‘Begin Actual Construction’ ’’ 

from Edward E. Reich (March 28, 

1986)). As noted in that guidance, 

though, such activity, if undertaken 

prior to issuance of a permit, is at the 

risk of the owner or operator and would 

not guarantee that the permit would be 

forthcoming. 

The revisions to Regulation 3 

excluded the consideration of clean coal 

technology demonstration projects as a 

major modification when the projects do 

not result in an increase in the potential 

to emit any regulated pollutant. EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision since 

the revision is consistent with the 

Federal NSR regulations described at 40 

CFR 51.165 and 51.166. 

Earlier in this proposed rule EPA 

stated that we were disapproving 

Pollution Control Projects as defined in 

Section I.B.70.d of Colorado’s 

Regulation 3. However, the remainder of 

the revised definitions within Part A, 

Section I.B.70 is consistent with EPA’s 

1992 WEPCO rule and with current 

Federal NSR regulations. These 

definitions include clean coal 

technology, electric utility steam 

generating unit, reactivation of very 

clean coal-fired electric utility steam 

generating unit, repowering, 

representative actual annual emissions, 

temporary clean coal technology 

demonstration project and wet 

screening operations. EPA is proposing 

to approve this revision since the 

revision is consistent with the Federal 

NSR regulations. 

Colorado revised its fee schedule in 

Part A, Section VI.D by eliminating the 

dollar amount of the annual fee and 

referring the fee applicant to provisions 

provided in Colorado’s Revised Statutes 

Section 25–7–114.7. Colorado also 

revised the filing of claims regarding 

confidential information and how the 

State elevates such claims (Part A, 

Section VII.). EPA believes these 

revisions are consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and therefore 

proposes to approve them. 

Construction permit review 

requirements regarding reasonable 

available control technology (RACT) for 

minor sources in attainment/ 

maintenance areas were added in Part B, 

Section IV.D.3.e. These requirements 

mirror the existing requirements in 

Section IV.D.2.d for minor sources in 

nonattainment areas. This revision 

strengthens the SIP by extending RACT 

requirements to attainment and 

maintenance areas and EPA therefore 

proposes to approve them. 

As noted in Section II of this 

proposed rule, in Part B, Section V of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3, the State made 

the restrictions on maximum allowable 

increases of sulfur dioxide 

concentrations over baseline 

concentrations in Class I areas also 

applicable to certain Class II areas, such 

as certain National Monuments that are 

not Class I areas. This change 

strengthens the SIP by making the more 

stringent Class I restrictions also 

applicable in the listed Class II areas 

and EPA therefore proposes to approve 

the revision. 

Increment consumption restrictions 

were also added to Part B of Colorado’s 

Regulation 3. In Section VIII.A.5 it 

specifies that no new major stationary 

source or major modification shall 

individually consume more than 75 

percent of an applicable increment. 

These new provisions apply to PSD for 

major sources or major modifications 

EPA is proposing to approve this 

revision as the revision is more stringent 

than Federal requirements regarding 

increment consumption. 

Finally, the State added Part B, 

Section IX regarding the use of 

innovative control technology. Major 

stationary sources may request from the 

State a waiver from BACT requirements 

if a system of innovative control 

technology is provided by the source 

and approved by the State. EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision since 

the revision is consistent with the 

Federal NSR regulations described at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(19). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

IV. 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 being approved that are 

the subject of this document do not 

interfere with attainment of the NAAQS 

or any other applicable requirement of 

the Act. In regard to the June 20, 2003, 

and April 12, 2004 submittals, EPA 

proposes to approve several revisions to 

the State’s Regulation Number 3. These 

portions do not relax the stringency of 

the Colorado SIP and in some cases 

strengthen it. In the case of innovative 

control technology, an air emission 

source may only use it as long as the 

technology provides for a level of 

continuous emission reduction greater 

than or equivalent to BACT. In the one 

instance in which a revised provision 

appears to relax the stringency of the 

SIP (Part B, Section III.D.1.c(iii)), EPA 

proposes to disapprove the revised 

provision. Therefore, the portions of the 

revisions proposed for approval satisfy 

section 110(l) requirements because 

they do not relax existing SIP 

requirements. 

V. Proposed Action 

For the reasons expressed above, we 

propose to approve Parts A and B of 

Regulation 3 as submitted on June 20, 

2003 and April 12, 2004 with the 

following exceptions. EPA proposes to 

disapprove portions of Part A in 

Sections I.B.36(b)(iii)(G) and I.B.70(d) 

relating to pollution control projects due 

to the decision of the DC Circuit Court 

of Appeals, and to not act on the portion 

in Section I.B.40.c providing State-only 

requirements for nonroad engines, as we 

regard that portion to not be part of the 

submittal. EPA also proposes to 

disapprove the addition of Part A, 

Section IV.D. regarding emissions 

trading under permit caps. The revision 

to Part A, Section V.F.5 is proposed for 

disapproval because it inadvertently 

removes the provision for LAER. 

Furthermore, EPA proposes to 

disapprove the revision to the 

construction permit exemption in Part 

B, Section III.D.1.c(iii), as it does not 

appear to satisfy the criteria of section 

110(l) of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

proposes to disapprove revisions to Part 

B, Section IV.B2 and Section IV.H.8 

because the revisions prevent public 

comment on operating and maintenance 

plans and recordkeeping formats. 

The State added language to its 

definition of actual emissions (Section 

I.B.1.d) for electric utility steam 

generating units. EPA proposes to 

approve the revised definition. The 

State also modified its definition for 

commenced construction in Section 

I.B.13 by excluding certain construction 

activities from the requirement for a 

permit. EPA proposes to approve this 

change in the definition of commenced 

construction as it is consistent with EPA 

guidance. The revisions to Regulation 3 

excluded the consideration of clean coal 

technology demonstration projects as a 

major modification when the projects do 

not result in an increase in the potential 

to emit of any regulated pollutant. EPA 

is proposing to approve this revision 

since the revision is consistent with the 

Federal NSR regulations. Revised 

definitions within Part A, Section 

I.B.70, with the exception of the 

definition of a Pollution Control Project 

are consistent with EPA’s 1992 WEPCO 

rule and with current Federal NSR 

regulations. EPA is proposing to 

approve these revised definitions since 

they are consistent with the Federal 

NSR regulations. Colorado revised its 

fee schedule in Part A, Section VI.D by 

eliminating the dollar amount of the 

annual fee and referring the fee 

applicant to provisions provided in 

Colorado’s Revised Statutes Section 25– 

7–114.7. EPA believes this revision is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and therefore proposes to approve 

the revision. In Part B, Section V of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3, the State made 

the restrictions on maximum allowable 

increases of sulfur dioxide 

concentrations over baseline 

concentrations in Class I areas also 

applicable to certain Class II areas, such 

as certain National Monuments that are 

not Class I areas. Increment 

consumption restrictions were also 

added to Part B, Section VIII.A.5 of 

Colorado’s Regulation 3. EPA proposes 

to approve these revisions. 

The State added Part B, Section IX 

regarding the use of innovative control 

technology. Major stationary sources 

may request from the State a waiver 

from BACT requirements if a system of 

innovative control technology is 

provided by the source and approved by 

the State. EPA is proposing to approve 

this revision since the revision is 

consistent with the Federal NSR 

regulations. The remaining revisions in 

Part A and B of Regulation 3 submitted 

on June 20, 2003 and April 12, 2004 

involve editorial and grammatical 

changes and are consistent with EPA’s 

interpretations of the Act. We propose 

to approve these revisions. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68575 

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, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 29, 2010. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28133 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 86, 1033, 1039, 1042, 

1045, 1054, and 1065 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0142; FRL–9220–7] 

RIN 2060–AO69 

Revisions To In-Use Testing for HeavyDuty Diesel Engines and Vehicles; 

Emissions Measurement and 

Instrumentation; Not-to-Exceed 

Emission Standards; and Technical 

Amendments for Off-Highway Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to make 

several revisions to EPA’s mobile source 

emission programs and test procedures. 

EPA believes that each of these is minor 

and non-controversial in nature. Most of 

the proposed changes arise from the 

results of the collaborative test program 

and related technical work we 

conducted for the highway heavy-duty 

diesel in-use testing program. Most 

noteworthy here is the proposal to adopt 

a particulate matter measurement 

allowance for use with portable 

emission measurement systems. Related 

to this are two provisions to align the inuse program timing requirements with 

completion of the program as required 

in current regulations and the 

incorporation of revisions to a few 

technical requirements in the testing 

regulations based on information 

learned in this and one other test 

program. Finally, the NPRM proposes to 

modify a few transitional flexibilities for 

locomotive, recreational marine, and 

Tier 4 nonroad engines and incorporates 

a handful of minor corrections. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 8, 2010. Request 

for a public hearing must be received by 

November 23, 2010. If we receive a 

request for a public hearing, we will 

publish information related to the 

timing and location of the hearing and 

the timing of a new deadline for public 

comments. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0142, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Headquarters 

Library, EPA West Building, Room: 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0142. 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/oar/dockets.html. 

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 EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

Building, EPA Headquarters Library, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 

Wilcox, Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4390; fax number: 

(734) 214–4050; email address: 

laroo.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, we are making 

these revisions as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because we view 

these revisions as noncontroversial and 

anticipate no adverse comment. 

The regulatory text for this proposed 

rule is included in the direct final rule 

and parties should review that rule for 

the regulatory text. If we receive no 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS