Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1027-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Colorado; Revision to Definitions; Construction Permit Program; Regulation Three
Posted Date: 2010-11-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68570-68575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28133]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 68572]]

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 non-road 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 non-road 
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

[[Page 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).

[[Page 68574]]

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.

[[Page 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