[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68570-68575]
[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.

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (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,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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).

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.

    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


Conference Call Record for the proposed Clean Power Plan
Date:  June 11, 2014
EPA Participants:
   * Reid Harvey
   * Chris Sherry
   * Julia Miller
   * Ryan Sims
   * Denise Mulholland
RGGI Participants:
CT
Jaimeson Sinclair, Wendy Jacobs
DE
Pam Knotts, Morgan Ellis, Valerie Gray
ME
John Brautigam, Eric Kennedy
MD
Chris Beck, Scott Zacharko, Danielle Schwarzmann, Kevin Lucas, Diane Franks, Kristen Ahearn, Miles Mitchell, Luke Wisniewski, Marissa Paslick, Kathy Kinsey
MA
Rachel Evans, Bill Lamkin, Will Space, Seth Federspiel, Paul Lopes
NH
Joe Fontaine, Craig Wright
NY
Lois New, Jon Binder, Jim Austin, Dave Coup, Jared Snyder
RI
Frank Stevenson, Dena Gonsalves
VT
Brian Woods, Kevin Fink, Mary Jo Krolewski
Georgetown Climate Center
Gabe Pacyniak, Kate Zyla
RGGI, Inc.
Nicole Singh, Katie Ho, Lisa DeVito, Anna Ngai

Topic:  How state goals were calculated; how to convert from rate to mass in a region; state plan process; and what happens when new sources come online.
Material:  No material was provided.