[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49391-49396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20282]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0588; FRL9450-5]
Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Colorado; Smoke, Opacity and Sulfur Dioxide Rule
Revisions; Regulation 1
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions to Colorado's Regulation 1 adopted by the State of Colorado
on July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The revisions
involve the use of obscurants during military exercises while
maintaining air quality, averaged emission rate determination over time
and recordkeeping requirements. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs
opacity, particulate, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions from sources. EPA has determined that most of
the revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and should be approved, but a revision to a provision
governing fuel burning equipment is not and should be disapproved.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0588 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER
[[Page 49392]]
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: 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-
2011-0588. 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,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Purpose of This Action
III. Background of State's Submittals
IV. EPA Analysis of State's Submittals
V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VI. Proposed Action
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 initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review, the
initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and the initials NAAQS mean or refer to National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
(vi) The initials CO mean Carbon Monoxide, NO2 mean Nitrogen
Dioxide and SO2 mean Sulfur Dioxide.
(vii) The initials BACT mean Best Available Control Technology.
(viii) The word Base means United States Army Fort Carson
Military Base and the word PCMS means Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.
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. 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 July 21, 2005 and submitted to EPA on August 8, 2006. The revisions
involve the deletion of obsolete, adoption of new, and clarification of
ambiguous provisions. Colorado's Regulation 1 governs opacity, and
particulate, SO2, and CO emissions from sources. EPA has determined
that most of the revisions in Colorado's submittal are consistent with
the CAA and should be approved, but a revision to a provision governing
fuel burning equipment is 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
[[Page 49393]]
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional
office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
III. Background of State's Submittals
The State's August 8, 2006 submittal consisted of one revision to
the State's Regulation 1. The revision was adopted by the State on July
21, 2005 and revises regulations regarding the use of smoke during
military operations, equipment requirements and work practices
(abatement and control measures intended to control the emissions of
particulates), smokes and SO2 from new and existing
stationary sources.
It also provides a new numbering scheme for each section of the
regulation. The revisions to Regulation 1 are described for each
section where a revision was made within Regulation 1.
Introduction
The State revised the numbering of Regulation 1. Previously,
subsections were designated only by the letter or number (for example,
A or 1) assigned to that subsection. In the revision, every subsection
is designated by full reference to it (for example, III.A or III.A.1).
The State adopted EPA test method 9 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4)
as it is applied to Standards of Performance for Steel Plants (40 CFR
60.275a).
Section I. Applicability of: Referenced Federal Regulations
Section I.A. provides that Regulation 1 provisions are applicable
statewide. An exception is made if a provision within Regulation 1 is
made specifically applicable to attainment, attainment/maintenance or
nonattainment areas. Consistent with its use of the term elsewhere, the
State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature as a revision to
Section I.A.
Section II. Smoke and Opacity
Section II.A.1 provides that no owner or operator of a source shall
allow or cause emissions to be released into the atmosphere of any air
pollutant in excess of 20 percent opacity. Sources are to use EPA Test
Method 9 to determine opacity but the State added language to the
section stating that the use of the test method shall not preclude the
use of other credible evidence. Section II.A.3 was revised to clarify
that the emission limit on pilot plants and experimental operations is
taken over a sixty minute time period.
The submittal indicated that revisions were made to Section II.C.
regarding the State's Open Burning regulation. However, upon review of
the revisions the language appears to be unchanged from a previous
revision the State had made to its Open Burning regulations under the
Smoke and Opacity section of Regulation 1. EPA approved this revision
in an earlier action (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).
The State revised Regulation 1 to address the United States Army
Fort Carson Military Base's (Base) need to use military smoke or
obscurants (both which will be referred to as obscurants in this
proposed action) during training.
As background information prior to the revision, Section II.A of
Regulation 1 set general standards prohibiting emissions into the
atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of 20% opacity. In
recognition that obscurant generation in training by the United States
Army purposefully intends to be at or near 100 percent opacity, the
State added provisions for obscurant generation in 1998. Section II.D
set specific limitations for the use of obscurants at the Base and the
Pin[oacute]n Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) at 100 percent opacity subject
to specified limitations and conditions.
The revisions to Section II.D in the August 8, 2006 submission
include the replacement of the specific reference to fog oil with a
general reference to obscurants allowing the Army the use of other
materials to generate obscurants. The revision removed the daily
limitation to the use of obscurants, and replaces a three-kilometer
buffer zone where obscurants could not be generated with a prohibition
on transport of visible emissions from obscurants outside the
boundaries of the facilities.
Other revisions to Section II.D added the measures to protect air
quality beyond the Base and PCMS' boundary that must be executed before
and during obscurant training. These measures included analyzing
meteorological conditions before training with obscurants begins to
ensure that atmospheric conditions meet established criteria for the
dispersion of the obscurants. The revisions specify precluding
obscurant training if unsatisfactory atmospheric dispersion conditions
exist and stopping such training if atmospheric dispersion conditions
deteriorate. Base and PCMS personnel are to be posted as observers on
the obscurant training and are trained to anticipate the probability of
obscurants drifting across the Base and PCMS boundaries. These
personnel will have the authority to cease operations. The Base and
PCMS commanders shall be responsible for compliance with the
stipulations of Section II.D.
Section III. Particulate Matter
Prior to its revision, Section III.A.1.d stated that if two or more
fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a pound per million heat input
(BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a lb/hour basis. In our July 5,
2005 letter, we expressed that it was unclear why the regulation was
changed. We suggested to the State that a testing protocol be developed
to determine compliance with the revised emission rate.
A revision to Section III.B.2.a of Regulation 1 changed the areas
where an incinerator emission standard applies. Previously, the
emission rate limitation of 0.10 grain of particulate matter per
standard cubic foot applied only to incinerators located in
nonattainment areas. The revision, consistent with changes elsewhere,
expanded the applicability to include incinerators located in
attainment/maintenance areas as well.
Finally, the August 8, 2006 submittal changed Section III.C.1.a.
regarding manufacturing processes emission rates, to clarify that the
applicability of the section is to process equipment with a design rate
of 30 tons per hour or less.
Section IV. Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements for New and
Existing Sources
Fluidized bed catalytic units at petroleum refineries located in
nonattainment areas are required to install, calibrate, maintain and
operate continuous emission monitoring systems for the measurement of
CO. This requirement was expanded, consistent with changes elsewhere,
to include the same types of units located in attainment/maintenance
areas.
Section VI. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations
Averaging times for existing sources of SO2 unless
specified in other sections of Regulation 1 shall be a three hour
rolling average (Section VI.A.1). Prior to the revision only sources
utilizing a CEM were subject to the 3 hour rolling average.
Requirements regarding frequency of fuel sampling were eliminated from
this section. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements were modified in
Section VI.A.5 to allow the State to require a longer period than the
two years for keeping records on site. Previously, Section IV.H of
Regulation 1 required only a two year limit to keeping records. The
revision to Section VI.A.5 and
[[Page 49394]]
Section VI.B.7 acknowledge that other applicable regulations could
require longer periods for recordkeeping without conflicting with the
two year recordkeeping period specified in Section IV.H.
In Section VI.A.3.f, the State eliminated a reference to new
sources submitting an averaging plan, as the section refers only to
existing sources.
Previously, the State had proposed an increase in the emission
limit for petroleum refining and refineries processing 1,000 or more
barrels per day of oil (Sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.4.g.(ii)). The
existing emission limit of 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day
was revised to 0.7 lbs per barrel per day. EPA disapproved the
relaxation of these limits in a previous action (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26,
2011). In the August 8, 2006 submittal, the State reinstated the
language that existed in the SIP prior to the previous proposed
revision.
The State added Section VI.B.4.i to Regulation 1 that addressed
emission limitations for new cement manufacturing sources. The emission
limitation reflects verbatim the emission limitations for existing
cement manufacturing found within Section VI.A.3.f with the exception
that new sources must submit an emission limit averaging plan with
their construction permit application. Revisions to section VI.B.4.i
regarding cement manufacturing incorporated the revised averaging times
found in section VI.A.3.f and stated that records showing compliance
with the emission standard specified in Section VI.A.3.f are to be
maintained by the owner for a period of two or five years dependent
upon the conditions stated in the source's operating permit.
The State reinstated Section VI.B.5, which specifies that new
sources of SO2, not specifically regulated in other sections
of Regulation 1 are limited in their emissions to no more than two tons
per day of SO2 or must utilize Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) as determined by the State. EPA previously
disapproved the removal of Section VI.B.5 (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).
Section VIII. Restrictions on Use of Oil as a Backup Fuel
In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the reference to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and
Gates Rubber Company as sources using oil as a backup fuel is deleted
since the sources no longer operate in the Denver, Colorado
metropolitan area.
Section IX. Emission Regulations Concerning Areas Which Are
Nonattainment for Carbon Monoxide
The State added the attainment/maintenance nomenclature as a
revision to Section IX. Prior to the revision, refinery fluidized bed
catalytic cracking units emitting annually 1,000 or more tons of CO
located in nonattainment areas were subject to an emission limitation
of 500 parts per million by volume of CO averaged over a one hour
period. The State revised this provision to include cracking units in
attainment/maintenance units.
IV. EPA Analysis of State's Submittals
We have evaluated Colorado's August 8, 2006 submittal regarding
revisions to the State's Regulation 1. EPA had corresponded to the
State regarding the State's proposed revisions prior to their State
adoption on July 21, 2005. In our letters dated March 19, 2001 and
August 8, 2001 to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, we expressed our
concern regarding a number of issues we are proposing action on today.
Military Exercises Using Smoke at Fort Carson Facilities
In our March 19, 2001 letter, we expressed concern that the
elimination of the three kilometer buffer smoke between where smoke
could be released and the military property boundary would not be
sufficient to provide assurance that the smoke would not drift over the
military boundary and impact public health. The State and United States
Army alleviated our concerns when both parties agreed to a number of
additional measures to prevent obscurants from crossing the boundary.
These included assessing atmospheric dispersion conditions prior to the
use of the obscurants, the posting of observers, developing procedures
beforehand for the use of obscurants and placing authority to terminate
the use of obscurants in the hands of military personnel directly
involved in the military exercise where the obscurant is being used.
We do not consider the elimination of the three kilometer buffer
zone a relaxation of previous SIP conditions since the buffer zone
provision was replaced with new provisions that, at a minimum,
compensate for the removal of previous conditions. We are proposing
approval of the revision.
Fuel Burning Units
Prior to its revision, Section III.A.1.d stated that if two or more
fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a pound per million heat input
(BTU) basis. The State revised this so that the maximum allowable
emission rate shall be calculated on a lb per hour basis. In our July
5, 2005 letter, we expressed that it was unclear why the regulation was
changed. We suggested to the State that a testing protocol be developed
to determine compliance with the revised emission rate. The State did
not develop a testing protocol to determine compliance, and did not
explain the basis for the change. It is unclear how the change is
consistent with the emissions limits provided for individual fuel
burning units, which are expressed in lbs per million BTU, and whether
the change constitutes a relaxation of the provision. Given the lack of
a testing protocol for compliance, the apparent inconsistency with the
limits for individual fuel burning units, and the possible relaxation
of the provision, EPA proposes to disapprove the revision to Section
III.A.1.d.
Process Design, Averaging Times, and Recordkeeping Requirements
The State revised Section III.C.1.a to clarify the applicability of
provisions to manufacturing process equipment. We propose to approve
this revision, which confirms the State's existing practice. However,
we note that the submittal does not show the same change to Section
III.C.1.b, in which the reference to process weight remains. The State
should revise III.C.1.b correspondingly.
EPA noted in our August 8, 2001 letter that the averaging time for
all SO2 emissions standards should be a three hour rolling
average. EPA reasoned that section VI.A applies to different types of
sources with varying sulfur in fuel content. A 24 hour sampling period
is too long to assess the amount of SO2 being emitted when
the sulfur in fuel can vary over shorter periods. The State expanded
the applicability of the default averaging period, a three hour rolling
average, in section VI.A.1. EPA proposes approval of this revision.
The State also revised the recordkeeping provisions to require
records be retained for a longer period than two years if other
applicable regulations require it. We are approving the State's
clarification of the recordkeeping requirements.
SO2 Emission Rates for Petroleum Refining and New Sources
The State had proposed a SO2 emission limit relaxation
in Sections VI.B.4.e and g pertaining, respectively, to petroleum
refineries and to shale oil refineries that process 1,000 or more
[[Page 49395]]
barrels of oil per day. We had expressed concern in our August 8, 2001
letter to the State telling the State that we viewed this as a
relaxation to the SIP. Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (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 Act. The State was asked to submit an analysis indicating whether
the relaxation would interfere with the SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or the SO2 increments.
The State responded to EPA's concern by attempting to model
compliance with the NAAQS using the proposed SO2 emission
limits of 0.7 lbs per barrel of oil processed per day. In the State's
July 21, 2005 Statement of Basis that accompanied the August 8, 2006
submittal, the State said that modeling with the revised emission
limitations resulted in violations of the NAAQS. The State decided that
the previous emission limitation of 0.3 lbs per barrel of oil processed
per day should be reinstated to protect the NAAQS, because the modeling
did not support the relaxation of the standard. EPA proposes to approve
the reinstatement of the previous limits in Sections VI.B.4.e and g.
The State did add requirements in Section VI.B.5 that new sources
not regulated elsewhere in Regulation 1 for SO2 emissions
would be limited to not more than two tons of SO2 per day or be
required to utilize BACT. In a previous submission, the State had
deleted Section VI.B.5. EPA disapproved that submission (76 FR 4540).
The August 8, 2006 submission restores the language that existed (and
continues to exist) in the SIP and therefore makes no change (other
than renumbering) to the provisions. EPA therefore proposes to approve
this submission.
Renumbering and Deletion of Former Sources
The renumbering of the sections does not modify any substantive
provision of the SIP. EPA therefore proposes to approve it. However,
EPA does not view the renumbering as resubmitting provisions that have
already been approved for inclusion into the SIP, or that previously
have been disapproved, but were not modified in any way other than
renumbering. In particular, EPA's proposed approval of the renumbering
does not constitute approval of existing director's discretion
provisions that were not substantively modified in this submission, or
of director's discretion provisions that were previously disapproved
and that were not substantively modified in this submission (see, for
example, 76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011).
In Section VIII.A., Applicability, the reference to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and
Gates Rubber Company as sources using oil as a backup fuel was deleted
since the sources no longer operate in the Denver, Colorado
metropolitan area. EPA is proposing to approve the deleted reference to
these sources.
V. 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 that are proposed for approval in
this action do not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. For the most part, the revisions do
not make substantive changes that relax the stringency of the Colorado
SIP. As discussed above, the substantive changes to the provisions for
the use of military obscurants, taken as a whole, provide at least
equivalent stringency to the existing provisions. Therefore, the
portions of the revisions proposed for approval satisfy section 110(l)
requirements.
VI. Proposed Action
We are not acting on purported revisions made to Section II.C.
regarding the State's Open Burning regulation. Upon review of the
revisions, the language was unchanged from a previous revision the
State had made to its Open Burning regulations under the Smoke and
Opacity section of Regulation 1. EPA approved this revision in an
earlier action (76 FR 4540, January 26, 2011). EPA therefore considers
that no revision was submitted for Section II.C.
What EPA Is Proposing To Approve
We are proposing approving the new numbering scheme for Regulation
1. As discussed above, this proposed approval does not constitute
approval of any renumbered provisions that were not substantively
modified. We propose to approve the State's incorporation by reference
into the SIP of EPA test method 9.
We are also proposing for approval the use of obscurants by the
United States Army for military exercises at Fort Carson and PCMS under
the prescribed conditions stated in Section II.D. The use of design
rates for determining allowable emissions rates for manufacturing
processes as defined in Section III.C.1.a of Regulation 1 is proposed
for approval.
The revision to the default averaging time for existing sources of
SO2 (Section VI.A.1) is proposed for approval. The
modification to recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Section
VI.A.5 is also proposed for approval. The reinstatement of Section
VI.B.5, requirements for new sources of SO2 emissions not
regulated elsewhere in Regulation 1, is proposed for approval.
EPA proposes to approve the deletion of the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site and the Gates Rubber Company in Section
VIII.A. Minor grammatical revisions made throughout the revisions are
also being proposed for approval. The State's use of the term
``attainment/maintenance'' area in Sections I.A., III.B.2.a, IV.D.2,
and IX is proposed for approval.
What EPA Is Disapproving
EPA is proposing to disapprove the revision to Section III.A.1.d
regarding the maximum allowable emission rate for multiple fuel units.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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
[[Page 49396]]
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.
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: July 28, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-20282 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P