Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1033-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 1
Posted Date: 2010-07-21T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 139)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 42342-42346]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jy10-18]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1033; FRL-9177-7]

 
 Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 1

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of 
Colorado regarding its Regulation 1. Regulation 1 provides certain 
emission controls for opacity, particulates, carbon monoxide and sulfur 
dioxide. The revision involves the deletion of obsolete, the adoption 
of new, and the clarification of ambiguous provisions within Regulation 
1. The intended effect of this proposed action is to make federally 
enforceable the revised portions of Colorado's Regulation 1 that EPA is 
proposing to approve and to disapprove portions of the regulation that 
EPA deems are not consistent with the Clean Air Act. This action is 
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1033, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: komp.mark@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 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-
2007-1033. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The 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 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/epahome/dockets.htm. 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 
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 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, U. S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 8, Air Program, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6022, komp.mark@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 42343]]

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado, 
unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (v) The words Provision or Regulation refer to Colorado's 
Regulation 1.
    (vi) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide, HC mean 
or refer to hydrocarbons and CO mean or refer to Carbon Monoxide.
    (vii) The initials RACT mean or refer to Reasonably Available 
Control Technology.

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 
www.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. What is the purpose of this action?

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1 adopted by the State of Colorado 
on August 16, 2001 and submitted to EPA on July 31, 2002. The revisions 
involve the deletion of obsolete, adoption of new, and clarification of 
ambiguous provisions. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs opacity, and 
particulate, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions from 
sources. After our review of these revisions, we believe that some of 
the revisions are consistent with the Act and should be approved while 
some of the revisions are not and should be disapproved.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. 
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure 
by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the 
Addresses section of this document.

III. Background Information Regarding Colorado's Submittal

    On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted a formal revision 
to its SIP. The July 31, 2002 revision deleted obsolete provisions in 
Sections II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 \1\ regarding, respectively, alfalfa 
dehydrating plant drum dryers, wigwam burners, and the static firing of 
Pershing missiles. The provisions were deleted from the regulation 
because these sources no longer exist in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references in this notice to particular section numbers 
are to the designated sections within Regulation 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado added language to its open burning provisions (Sections 
II.C.2.d and C.3) to clarify that the open burning of animal parts and 
carcasses are not exempt from permit requirements. However, a special 
allowance to conduct open burning activities without a permit is 
provided where the State Agricultural Commission declares a public 
health emergency or a contagious or infectious outbreak of disease that 
imperils livestock is evident. Such activities require a telephone 
notice to State and local health departments prior to conducting such 
open burning activities. All necessary safeguards must be used to 
minimize impacts on public health or welfare.
    The State revised the method in Section III.A.1.d for calculating 
emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducting to a common stack. 
Emissions are to be calculated on a pound per million British thermal 
unit (lbs/mmBtu) input and must be based on a weighted average of the 
individual allowable limits for each unit.
    The State added clarifying language in several provisions of 
Regulation 1 stating that alternative performance test methods may be 
used with approval from the State. It also specified that ASTM or 
equivalent methods approved by the State may be used for fuel sampling 
from sources subject to Regulation 1.
    In sections VI A.3.e. and VI.B.4.g. regarding SO2 
emissions, the State changed the overall emission limit for petroleum 
and oil shale refineries from 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per 
day to 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day. The State also 
added new language that modifies the method for calculating compliance 
with emission limits for petroleum refining and cement manufacturing. 
The State deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that new sources of 
SO2 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories 
are subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best 
available control technology.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of State's Submittal

    We have evaluated Colorado's July 31, 2002 submittal regarding 
revisions to the State's Regulation 1. We propose to approve some of 
the revisions but also propose to disapprove other revisions.

Proposed Approvals

    We propose approval of the deletion of emission limits in Sections 
II.A.6, A.7, and A.9 of Regulation 1 for alfalfa dehydrating plant drum 
dryers, wigwam burners, and Pershing missiles because these sources no 
longer exist in the State and the emission limits have effectively 
become obsolete. For the same reasons, we propose to approve the 
revision to Section III.C.2 regarding the deletion of process weight 
emission standards for alfalfa drum dryers.
    We also propose to approve clarifying language in Sections II.C.2.d 
and II.C.3 regarding the incineration of animal parts to prevent the 
outbreak of disease during a public health emergency. The clarification 
provides for the prompt notification of both State and local health 
officials and the use of all

[[Page 42344]]

necessary safeguards to minimize the impact of emissions from the 
burning on public health and welfare.
    Finally, we propose to approve the State's revision to the method 
of computing compliance with emission limits for cement manufacturing 
and petroleum refining (Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f., VI.B.4.e, and 
VI.B.4.g(ii)). The revised method more accurately reflects the daily 
processed-based SO2 emissions limits by using actual hours 
of operations as an averaging time when the facility does not operate 
for an entire 24-hour period. The State also revised the method in 
Section III.A.1.d for calculating particulate matter emission rates for 
two or more fuel burning units connected to a common opening. 
Previously, the method summed the allowable emissions from the fuel 
burning units; the revised method uses a weighted average of the 
individual allowable limits. The revised method more accurately ensures 
compliance with emission limits, and we, therefore, propose to approve 
it.
    There are several provisions within Regulation 1 that we propose to 
disapprove. Our reasons are described below. As described separately 
below, we also propose to partially approve and partially disapprove 
specific portions of Section V regarding electric arc furnace shops at 
iron and steel operations.

Director's Discretion

    EPA reviewed the July 31, 2002 Regulation 1 SIP revision submittal 
and found several instances throughout the sections within Regulation 1 
where we believe ``director's discretion'' provisions provide the State 
with the ability to modify requirements for stationary sources. Such 
provisions are inconsistent with sections 110(a) and 110(i) of the CAA 
which provide for the review and approval of SIP revisions by the 
Administrator. Section 110(i) specifically prohibits States, except in 
certain limited circumstances, from taking any action to modify any 
requirement of a SIP with respect to any stationary source, except 
through a SIP revision.
    For this submittal, we propose to disapprove the revised sections 
within Regulation 1 that contain director's discretion provisions. The 
revised sections are as follows:
Sections III.A.2 and III.C.3. Performance Tests
    EPA proposes to disapprove the revisions to these sections, which 
specify particulate matter performance tests for fuel burning equipment 
(III.A.2) and manufacturing processes (III.A.C). Previously, the 
sections specified certain EPA-approved methods for performance tests. 
The revisions add the phrase `` * * * or other credible method approved 
by the Division to determine compliance with this subsection of this 
regulation.'' EPA believes these are instances of director's discretion 
that are inconsistent with section 110(i) of the CAA, because they 
allow the State to modify stationary source requirements of the SIP 
without a SIP revision and without corresponding requirements such as 
public notice and comment and EPA approval.
Section VI.C. Fuel Sampling
    EPA proposes to disapprove the revision to this section. The 
revision allows for the use equivalent test methods approved by the 
Division in fuel sampling plans. EPA believes that this is an instance 
of director's discretion that is inconsistent with section 110(i) of 
the CAA, because it allows the State to modify stationary source 
requirements of the SIP without a SIP revision and without 
corresponding requirements such as public notice and comment and EPA 
approval.
Section VI.F. Alternative Compliance Procedures
    The State added Section VI.F to Regulation 1. This section provides 
for alternative compliance procedures to those in Section VI. 
Specifically, it provides for alternative test methods, methods of 
control, compliance periods, emission limits, and monitoring schedules. 
Section VI.F.3 states that Colorado shall obtain concurrence from EPA 
prior to approving an alternative test method. However, EPA believes 
that Section VI.F is inconsistent with section 110(i) of the CAA, as it 
allows the State to modify stationary source requirements without a SIP 
revision and without corresponding public notice and comment. 
Therefore, we propose to disapprove Sections III.A.2, III.C.3, VI.C, 
and VI.F.
    The State may retain some flexibility through the authorities under 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(iii) and the policy in EPA's White Paper No. 2.\2\ 
These authorities allow adoption of enabling language in a SIP to 
provide for use of alternative, equally stringent requirements in the 
Title V permitting process so that source specific SIP revisions are 
not needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under regulations in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1)(iii) and policy 
expressed in EPA's March 5, 1996 Guidance Memorandum, ``White Paper 
Number 2 for Improved Implementation of the Part 70 Operating 
Permits Program'' by Lydia N. Wegman, a State may adopt enabling 
language in the SIP that allows the State to apply equivalent or 
more stringent limits, monitoring techniques, or recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements through the Title V permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limits

    Colorado revised Section VI (pertaining to sulfur dioxide emission 
regulations) by modifying emission limits for petroleum refineries 
(Section VI.B.4.e) and shale oil refineries (Section VI.B.4.g(ii)). The 
existing SIP approved rules for these sources limit SO2 
emissions to 0.3 pounds per barrel of oil processed per day. The State 
has revised the daily limit to 0.7 pounds per barrel of oil processed 
per day. Section 110(l) of the CAA provides that we cannot approve a 
revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or 
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. There has been no 
demonstration that the proposed relaxation of the SO2 
emission limits satisfies the requirements of Section 110(l). We 
believe these proposed changes pose a problem under Section 110(l) 
because they may result in an increase in SO2 emissions 
within the State. The relaxation of SO2 emission limits may 
also have an impact on the attainment status for other pollutants. 
Sulfur dioxide is a known precursor to the formation of particulate 
matter. As a result, the proposed changes may interfere with attainment 
of the NAAQS or other applicable requirements of the CAA. We therefore 
propose to disapprove the relaxation of the SO2 emission 
limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii).
    Colorado later revised Section VI pertaining to sulfur dioxide 
emission regulations with regard to emission limits for petroleum 
(Section VI.B.4.e) and refining oil produced from shale (Section 
VI.B.4.g(ii)). The State revised the daily limit back to 0.3 pounds per 
barrel of oil processed per day. The State submitted this revision to 
Regulation 1 via the Governor's designee's letter dated August 8, 2006. 
We are not acting on the August 8, 2006 submittal with today's action 
but will act on the submittal in a separate action.
    In the July 31, 2002 submittal we propose to act on, the State also 
deleted Section VI.B.5, which stipulates that new sources of 
SO2 emissions that do not fall in specific source categories 
are subject to a 2 ton per day emission limit and are to utilize best 
available control technology. This deletion is a relaxation of the 
SIP's requirements. As we stated before, Section 110(l) of the CAA 
provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP if the revision 
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and

[[Page 42345]]

reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the 
CAA. There has been no demonstration that the proposed deletion will 
satisfy the requirements of Section 110(l). We believe the deletion of 
Section VI.B.5 poses a problem under Section 110(l) because it may 
result in an increase in SO2 emissions within the State and 
interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or other applicable requirements 
of the CAA. Therefore, we propose to disapprove the deletion of Section 
VI.B.5.

Emission Limits for Existing Iron and Steel Operations

    Colorado's Regulation 1 Section V provides for specific opacity and 
emission limits for gas-cleaning devices associated with electric arc 
furnace shops. Other sources of particulate emissions at iron and steel 
plants must comply with emission limits set forth in the Smoke and 
Opacity section of Regulation 1 (Section II). In the revision submitted 
July 31, 2002, the State deleted language from Section V regarding 
emission limits for existing iron and steel plant operations, because 
operations other than electric arc furnaces at the single existing iron 
and steel plant within the State have ceased, rendering the limits 
obsolete. EPA proposes to approve the submitted provisions with the 
following exception.
    For the July 31, 2002 submittal, the State added in Section V.A.2 a 
director's discretion clause regarding the sampling methodology the 
source may use to determine that the mass emission rate does not exceed 
0.00520 grains per dry standard cubic foot. As revised by the State, 
the source may use a credible method approved by the State. As 
discussed earlier in this proposal, this director's discretion 
provision provides the State with the ability to modify stationary 
source requirements in the SIP without going through the SIP revision 
process and without corresponding public notice and comment and EPA 
approval. EPA therefore proposes to disapprove the phrase ``or by other 
credible method approved by the Division.''

Locomotive Opacity Limits

    Although Colorado did not revise Section II.B, which sets opacity 
limits for locomotives, EPA is taking this opportunity to note that the 
provisions in Section II.B appear to be preempted. Under section 
209(e)(1)(B) of the CAA, all state standards or other requirements 
relating to the control of emissions from new locomotives or new 
engines used in locomotives are expressly preempted. Under section 
209(e)(2), state standards or other requirements relating to the 
control of emissions from all other locomotives or locomotive engines 
are impliedly preempted, with the following exception. EPA can 
authorize California to adopt such standards under certain 
circumstances; if EPA does so, other states may adopt identical 
standards.
    Section II.B of Colorado's SIP imposes opacity limits on 
locomotives. These limits would appear to be a standard relating to 
control of emissions. Therefore, under section 209(e)(1)(B), the 
standards would be preempted as they relate to new locomotives or new 
engines used in locomotives, and, as EPA has not authorized California 
to adopt opacity limits for other locomotives or locomotive engines, 
the Colorado standards would appear to be preempted as they apply to 
such sources.
    EPA's concern regarding Colorado's opacity limits should not be 
interpreted to mean that Colorado would be prohibited by the Clean Air 
Act from regulating the use and operation of locomotives and locomotive 
engines, although any such regulation would need to be evaluated. As 
described in 40 CFR Part 89, Appendix A to Subpart A:
    ``EPA believes that States are not precluded under section 209 from 
regulating the use and operation of non-road engines, such as 
regulations on hours of usage, daily mass emission limits, or sulfur 
limits on fuel; nor are permits regulating such operations precluded, 
once the engine is no longer new.''

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act 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 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
or any other applicable requirement of the Act. We believe that those 
portions of the revision to Colorado's Regulation 1 that we propose to 
approve satisfy section 110(l), because those portions do not relax 
existing SIP requirements. Instead, the portions of the July 31, 2002 
submittal EPA proposes to approve either increase stringency of 
existing requirements, clarify those requirements, or remove obsolete 
requirements. Therefore, section 110(l) is satisfied.

VI. Proposed Action

    For the reasons expressed above, we are proposing to approve 
revisions to the following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) Sections 
II.A.6, II.A.7, and II.A.9 regarding the deletion of emission limits 
for sources that no longer exist in the State; (2) Sections II.C.2.d. 
and II.C.3 regarding the burning of diseased animal carcasses to 
prevent a public health emergency; (3) Section III.A.1.d involving the 
State's method for calculating emissions from multiple fuel burning 
units ducted to a common stack; (4) Section III.C.2 regarding the 
deletion of process weight emission standards for alfalfa drum dryers; 
(5) Section V regarding emission standards for electric arc furnaces, 
except for the director's discretion provision provided for in Section 
V; (6) Sections VI.A.3.e, VI.A.3.f, VI.B.4.e, and VI.B.4.g(ii) 
regarding the methods used for the averaging of emissions over a 24 
hour period.
    For reasons expressed above, we propose to disapprove revisions to 
the following provisions in Regulation 1: (1) Section III.A.2. and 
Section III.C.3 involving director's discretion regarding the method 
for conducting performance tests; (2) the director's discretion 
provision in Section V regarding the method used to determine 
compliance with electric arc furnaces' emission standard; (3) Sections 
VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g(ii) regarding changes in the SO2 
emission limits for petroleum and oil shale refining; (4) VI.B.5 
regarding SO2 emission limits for new sources not falling in 
specified source categories; and (5) Sections VI.C. and VI.F. regarding 
the use of director's discretion for alternative methods to show 
compliance with fuel sampling plans and alternative compliance 
procedures respectively.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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

[[Page 42346]]

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 (Public Law 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects 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.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2010.
Carol Rushin,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-17790 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P