4268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 931 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 17, 2010. 

Billie Clark, 

Acting Regional Director, Western Region. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1511 Filed 1–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0036; FRL–9256–6] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Colorado; 

Revision to Definitions; Common 

Provisions Regulation 

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. The intended effect of 

this proposal is to approve and make 

federally enforceable those portions of 

the revisions to Colorado’s Common 

Provisions that are consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Primarily, the 

revisions involved changes designed to 

fix ambiguous language, to make the 

definitions more readable or to delete 

obsolete definitions. In addition, a 

number of definitions were revised to 

reflect developments in federal law or 

were deleted to eliminate duplicative 

provisions that appear in other Colorado 

regulations. EPA is proposing to 

approve parts of the revision that delete 

duplicative or obsolete definitions, or 

that clarify existing definitions in a 

manner consistent with the CAA. In 

addition, EPA proposes to disapprove 

those portions of the rule revisions that 

EPA determined are inconsistent with 

the CAA. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0036, 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–2011– 

0036. 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: P–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 Submittal 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittal 

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 AQCC mean or refer to 

Air Quality Control Commission. 

(vi) The initials BACT mean or refer 

to Best Available Control Technology, 

and the initials LAER means or refers to 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate. 

(vii) The initials ASTM means or 

refers to the American Society for 

Testing and Materials. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4269 

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 Submittal 

On June 20, 2003, the State of 

Colorado submitted formal revisions to 

its SIP that changed or deleted 

numerous definitions in its Common 

Provisions. Colorado’s Common 

Provisions provide definitions, 

statement of intent and general 

provisions that are applicable to all 

emission control regulations adopted by 

the State. Primarily, this revision 

involved changes designed to fix 

ambiguous language, to make the 

definitions more readable or to delete 

obsolete definitions. In addition, a 

number of definitions were revised to 

reflect developments in federal law or 

deleted to eliminate duplicative 

provisions that appear in other Colorado 

regulations. 

Definitions deleted include: Actual 

emissions, allowable emissions, BACT, 

LAER and the modification of a source. 

These definitions were deleted from the 

Common Provisions because the State 

placed these definitions in their 

Regulation 3. 

Revisions to the Common Provisions 

also include grammatical, formatting 

and stylistic changes designed to make 

the regulation more readable. The State 

made these revisions to achieve 

consistency in the language used in the 

State’s air quality regulations. These 

revisions do not change the 

applicability of any of the air quality 

regulation requirements. The State also 

added a number of abbreviations to the 

existing list. 

The State clarified when fuel burning 

equipment would be considered part of 

a manufacturing process. The revisions 

to the Common Provisions change the 

definition of fuel burning and added a 

definition for manufacturing process 

equipment. The result was to clarify that 

fuel burning emissions are counted as 

manufacturing process emissions when 

they are vented through a common stack 

with other emissions from the 

manufacturing process. When fuel 

burning emissions are vented 

separately, the emissions are subject to 

regulations unique to fuel burning 

equipment. 

The definition of construction was 

changed to clarify the distinction 

between the State’s definition and the 

definition in federal programs. The 

clarification acknowledges that federal 

programs may utilize different 

definitions of construction and, in cases 

where enforceability of Federal 

programs are involved, the federal 

program definitions apply. 

The State determined that many of its 

definitions in the Common Provisions 

were either obsolete or found in other 

State air quality regulations. In those 

cases, the State eliminated the 

definitions from the Common 

Provisions. Section III refers to smoking 

gasoline powered motor vehicles. 

Section IV addresses conflict of interest 

by AQCC members. The State deleted 

these sections because they are 

duplicated in other State regulations. 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittal 

We have evaluated Colorado’s June 

20, 2003 submittal regarding revisions 

to the State’s Common Provisions. 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 provided, within Section I 

of the Common Provisions, a new 

definition for what constitutes the 

meaning of the word ‘‘day.’’ The new 

definition gives the Colorado Air 

Pollution Control Division discretion to 

change the meaning of day from the 

standard one to any other twenty-four 

hour period. Given that a day is often 

the time period for expressing emissions 

limitations, the revised definition 

potentially gives the State discretion, 

without going through a SIP revision, to 

modify emissions limitations for 

stationary sources. Such discretion 

violates section 110(i) of the CAA, 

which prohibits States (except in certain 

limited circumstances) from taking any 

action to modify requirements of a SIP 

with respect to stationary sources, 

except through a SIP revision. EPA 

proposes to disapprove this definition. 

The State added language to its 

definition of ‘‘construction’’ for the 

purposes of prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR). The revised definition, 

for the most part, tracks those given at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xviii) and 

51.166(b)(8). However, instead of 

providing that construction 

encompasses those changes that would 

result in an increase in emissions, the 

State’s revision encompasses only those 

changes that would result in an increase 

in ‘‘actual emissions.’’ ‘‘Actual 

emissions,’’ in the context of PSD and 

NSR, is a defined term that in general 

equals past emissions over a 

consecutive 24-month period that is 

representative of normal operations (see 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xii)(B), 

51.166(b)(21)(ii)). It is not clear how 

past emissions, prior to a change due to 

construction, could be representative of 

normal operations after the change. In 

any case, the revision is less stringent 

than Federal requirements and EPA 

therefore proposes to disapprove it. 

Colorado revised section II.I, relating 

to compliance certifications. Section II.I 

in the current SIP governs the use of 

credible evidence or information in 

compliance certifications and in 

establishing violations of the Colorado 

SIP. It reflects language at 40 CFR 

51.212(c), promulgated by EPA on 

February 24, 1997 in the ‘‘Credible 

Evidence Rule’’ (62 FR 8314). The 

revision adds (in part) the following 

language: ‘‘Evidence that has the effect 

of making any relevant standard or 

permit term more stringent shall not be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
4270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

credible for proving a violation of the 

standard or permit term.’’ In the 

preamble to the Credible Evidence Rule, 

EPA stated that it was not EPA’s intent 

to increase the stringency of any 

applicable requirement and that the 

Credible Evidence Rule did not do so 

(62 FR at 8323). EPA discussed at length 

and rejected the arguments made by 

commenters to the contrary (62 FR at 

8323–27). For the reasons discussed 

within the preamble to the Credible 

Evidence Rule, credible evidence does 

not increase the stringency of any 

applicable requirement. EPA therefore 

proposes to disapprove the revision to 

section II.I. 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

deletion of Section IV of the Common 

Provisions. Section IV refers to 

provisions regarding potential conflicts 

of interest of members of the Colorado 

AQCC. These provisions require the 

disclosure of information when a 

potential conflict of interest has been 

identified. Section 128(a)(2) of the CAA 

requires that each SIP contain 

requirements for disclosure of potential 

conflicts of interest of heads of 

executive agencies or members of state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. In 

deleting Section IV, Colorado had 

intended to submit substitute provisions 

contained within the rules of procedure 

for the AQCC; however, Colorado has 

not submitted them to EPA for inclusion 

into Colorado’s SIP. As the SIP is 

required to have such provisions, EPA 

proposes to disapprove the deletion of 

Section IV. 

Finally, the State revised the 

provision of Affirmative Defense for 

excess emissions during start up, 

shutdown and malfunction of 

equipment. The State in subsequent 

revisions sent to EPA modified the 

Affirmative Defense provision. EPA 

acted on these subsequent revisions in 

2008 and the results of the action can be 

found in 40 CFR 52.320(c)113. 

Therefore, we are taking no action on 

the portion of the revision modifying 

the Affirmative Defense provision 

within the June 20, 2003 submittal 

because our subsequent action on the 

provision has superseded this revision. 

What EPA Is Proposing To Approve 

EPA proposes to approve specific 

definitions that were added or modified 

with the June 20, 2003 Common 

Provisions. These include the 

definitions for a continuous monitoring 

system, emergency power generator, 

manufacturing process, enforceable, 

federally enforceable, manufacturing 

process or processing equipment, and 

volatile organic compounds. The new 

and modified definitions are consistent 

with the requirements of the CAA and 

do not change the stringency of any 

requirements of the SIP. 

Changes that correct numerous 

grammatical, stylistic and formatting 

errors within the Common Provisions 

are proposed for approval by EPA. EPA 

also proposes to approve the deletion of 

definitions and Section III that are 

obsolete or duplicated elsewhere in 

Colorado’s SIP. 

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 

submittal, EPA proposes to approve 

several portions of the revisions to the 

State’s Common Provisions. These 

portions do not relax the stringency of 

the Colorado SIP and in some cases 

strengthen it. Therefore, the portions of 

the revisions proposed for approval 

satisfy section 110(l). 

V. Proposed Action 

For the reasons expressed above, we 

propose to approve and disapprove 

revisions to the Common Provisions as 

submitted on June 20, 2003. EPA 

proposes to approve specific definitions 

that were added or modified with the 

June 20, 2003 Common Provisions. 

These include the definitions for 

continuous monitoring system, 

emergency power generator, 

manufacturing process, enforceable, 

federally enforceable, manufacturing 

process or processing equipment, and 

volatile organic compounds. 

Changes that correct numerous 

grammatical, stylistic and formatting 

errors, duplicative and obsolete 

provisions, and the addition of several 

abbreviations within the Common 

Provisions are also proposed for 

approval by EPA. This includes the 

deletion of Section III of the Common 

Provisions regarding smoking gasoline 

powered motor vehicles. 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

modified definitions of ‘‘construction’’ 

and ‘‘day.’’ The additional language 

added to Section II.I regarding credible 

evidence in submitting compliance 

certifications is disapproved. EPA 

proposes to disapprove the deletion of 

Section IV of the Common Provisions. 

Section IV refers to provisions regarding 

the conflicts of interest involving 

members of the AQCC. These provisions 

provide for the disclosure of 

information when a potential conflict of 

interest has been identified. 

EPA will not act on Sections II.E and 

II.J, defining the provision of 

Affirmative Defense for excess 

emissions during start up, shutdown 

and malfunction of equipment. The 

State in subsequent revisions sent to 

EPA modified the Affirmative Defense 

provision. EPA acted on these 

subsequent revisions in 2008 (40 CFR 

52.320(c)(113)). 

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 sq.); 

• 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4271 

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: January 13, 2011. 

Carol Rushin, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1475 Filed 1–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0649; FRL–9256–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado Regulation Number 3: 

Revisions to the Air Pollutant Emission 

Notice Requirements and Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing partial 

approval and partial disapproval of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions regarding the Air Pollutant 

Emission Notice (APEN) regulations 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

September 16, 1997, June 20, 2003, July 

11, 2005, August 8, 2006 and August 1, 

2007. The APEN provisions in Sections 

II.A. through II.D., Part A of Colorado’s 

Regulation Number 3, specify the APEN 

filing requirements for stationary 

sources and exemptions from such 

requirements. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2007–0649, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: freeman.crystal@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007– 

0649. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Freeman, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6602, 

freeman.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS