46816 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—Continued 

• Time: 8:30 p.m.–10:00 p.m. 

2. Scripps Network Fireworks, Pier 60 Hudson River Safety Zone, 33 

CFR 165.160(5.1).

• Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°44′49′′ N, 

074°01′02′′ W (NAD 1983), approximately 500 yards west of Pier 60, 

Manhattan, New York. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from 

the barge. 

• Date: October 18, 2013. 

• Time: 8:15 p.m.–9:27 p.m. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.160, a vessel may not enter the 

regulated area unless given express 

permission from the COTP or the 

designated representative. 

Spectator vessels may transit outside 

the regulated area but may not anchor, 

block, loiter in, or impede the transit of 

other vessels. The Coast Guard may be 

assisted by other Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement agencies in enforcing 

this regulation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 

552(a). In addition to this notice in the 

Federal Register, the Coast Guard will 

provide mariners with advanced 

notification of enforcement periods via 

the Local Notice to Mariners and marine 

information broadcasts. If the COTP 

determines that the regulated area need 

not be enforced for the full duration 

stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners may be used to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: July 17, 2013. 

G. Loebl, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port New York. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18615 Filed 8–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0658; FRL–9840–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Greeley 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

March 31, 2010, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted to EPA a 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) 

second 10-year maintenance plan for the 

Greeley area for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This limited 

maintenance plan (LMP) addresses 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a 

second 10-year period beyond the 

original redesignation. This action is 

being taken under sections 110 and 

175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

1, 2013 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by 

September 3, 2013. If adverse comment 

is received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0658, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 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– 

0658. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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, EPA Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 

8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46817 

1 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

extended through 2009. Thus, the second 10-year 

period extends through 2019. 

2The Greeley area has never exceeded the 1-hour 

CO standard of 35 ppm. 3Memorandum ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, EPA 

Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air 

Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995 (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘LMP Guidance’’). 

4For a more detailed explanation, see 70 FR 

28234 (May 17, 2005). 

5See Table 1 below. Additionally, according to 

the LMP guidance, an area using the LMP option 

must continue to have a design value ‘‘at or below 

7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the 

redesignation.’’ Table 1, below, demonstrates that 

the area meets this requirement. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the State’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised Greeley 

Maintenance Plan 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

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 Colorado and State 

mean the State of Colorado. 

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:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. 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 

Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

the Greeley area was designated as 

nonattainment and classified as a ‘‘not 

classified’’ CO area because it had been 

designated as nonattainment before 

November 15, 1990, but had not 

violated the CO NAAQS in 1988 and 

1989 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). 

On September 16, 1997, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted to EPA a request to 

redesignate the Greeley CO 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

CO NAAQS. Along with this request, 

the Governor submitted a CAA section 

175A(a) maintenance plan which 

demonstrated that the area would 

maintain the CO NAAQS for the first 10 

years following our approval of the 

redesignation request. We approved the 

State’s redesignation request and 10- 

year maintenance plan on March 10, 

1999 (64 FR 11775). 

On June 20, 2003, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted to EPA a revised 

Greeley CO maintenance plan to justify 

removal of Colorado’s motor vehicle 

emissions inspection program and 

oxygenated fuels program from the plan; 

the revised plan demonstrated 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

Greeley area through 2015 without the 

motor vehicle emissions inspection 

program and oxygenated fuels program. 

At that time, the State also submitted 

revisions to Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation 

No. 11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection Program,’’ and AQCC 

Regulation No. 13, ‘‘Oxygenated Fuels 

Program,’’ to effectuate the removal of 

both of these programs from the SIP for 

the Greeley area. The 2003 maintenance 

plan submittal also included 

transportation conformity budgets for 

various years through 2015. We 

approved all of these changes into the 

SIP on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48650). 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA section 

175A(b) requires the state to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, 

covering a second 10-year period.1 This 

second 10-year maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued maintenance of 

the applicable NAAQS during this 

second 10-year period. To fulfill this 

requirement of the Act, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted the 

second 10-year Greeley CO maintenance 

plan (hereafter, ‘‘revised Greeley 

Maintenance Plan’’) to us on March 31, 

2010. With this action, we are approving 

the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan. 

The 8-hour CO NAAQS—9.0 ppm—is 

attained when such value is not 

exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 

50.8(a)(1). The Greeley area has attained 

the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1988 to the 

present.2 In October 1995, EPA issued 

guidance that provided nonclassifiable 

CO nonattainment areas the option of 

using a less rigorous ‘‘limited 

maintenance plan’’ (LMP) option to 

demonstrate continued attainment and 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS.3

According to this guidance, areas that 

can demonstrate design values at or 

below 7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance 

levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for 

eight consecutive quarters qualify to use 

an LMP. The area qualified for and used 

EPA’s LMP option for the first 10-year 

maintenance plan (64 FR 11775, March 

10, 1999), but the State was not able to 

use the LMP option for the plan revision 

that it submitted in 2003.4 For the 

revised Greeley Maintenance Plan the 

State again used the LMP option to 

demonstrate continued maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS in the Greeley area. We 

have determined that the Greeley area 

qualifies for the LMP option for this 

plan revision because the maximum 

design value for the most recent eight 

consecutive quarters with certified data 

at the time the State adopted the plan 

(years 2007 and 2008) was 2.4 ppm.5

III. What was the State’s Process? 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that a state provide reasonable notice 

and public hearing before adopting a 

SIP revision and submitting it to us. 

The Colorado AQCC held a public 

hearing for the revised Greeley 

Maintenance Plan on December 17, 

2009. The AQCC adopted the revised 

maintenance plan directly after the 

hearing. The Governor’s designee 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46818 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6 Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to 

occur on winter weekdays. 

7The TSD for the revised Greeley Maintenance 

Plan can be found in the docket for this action. 

8See ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests To 

Redesignate Areas To Attainment,’’ from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, EPA, September 4, 1992. 

9A State-only enhanced inspection and 

maintenance program is already required for the 

Greeley area as part of the State’s ‘‘Ozone Action 

Plan.’’ However, this existing program is not 

federally enforceable, and could be discontinued by 

the State without regard to the Greeley CO 

maintenance plan. 

submitted the revised plan to EPA on 

March 31, 2010. 

We have evaluated the SIP revision 

and have determined that the State met 

the requirements for reasonable notice 

and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. On September 30, 

2010, by operation of law under CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(B), the SIP revision 

was deemed to have met the minimum 

‘‘completeness’’ criteria found in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Greeley Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

an LMP for CO: Emission Inventory, 

Maintenance Demonstration, 

Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment, Contingency 

Plan, and Conformity Determinations. 

Below, we describe our evaluation of 

each of these elements as it pertains to 

the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Greeley Maintenance 

Plan contains an emission inventory for 

the base year 2007. The emission 

inventory is a list, by source category, of 

the air contaminants directly emitted 

into the Greeley CO maintenance area 

on a typical winter day in 2007.6 The 

data in the emission inventory were 

developed using EPA-approved 

emissions modeling methods. The State 

provided a more detailed description of 

the 2007 inventory in its Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for the revised 

Greeley Maintenance Plan.7 Included in 

this inventory are commercial cooking, 

fuel combustion, highway vehicle 

exhaust, oil and gas sources, non-road 

mobile sources, railroads, structure 

fires, woodburning, and non-oil-and-gas 

point sources. The revised maintenance 

plan and TSD contain detailed emission 

inventory information that was prepared 

in accordance with EPA guidance and is 

acceptable to us.8

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

EPA considers the maintenance 

demonstration requirement to be 

satisfied for areas that qualify for and 

are using the LMP option. As mentioned 

above, a maintenance area is qualified to 

use the LMP option if that area’s 

maximum 8-hour CO design value for 

eight consecutive quarters does not 

exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO 

NAAQS). EPA maintains that if an area 

begins the maintenance period with a 

design value no greater than 7.65 ppm, 

the applicability of prevention of 

significant deterioration requirements, 

the control measures already in the SIP, 

and federal measures should provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

Therefore, EPA does not require areas 

using the LMP option to project 

emissions over the maintenance period. 

Because CO design values in the Greeley 

area are consistently well below the 

LMP threshold (See Table 1 below), the 

State has adequately demonstrated that 

the Greeley area will maintain the CO 

NAAQS into the future. 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR CO DESIGN

VALUES FOR GREELEY, COLORADO

Design value (ppm) * Year 

3.7 ..................................................... 2004 

2.8 ..................................................... 2005 

3.3 ..................................................... 2006 

2.4 ..................................................... 2007 

2.2 ..................................................... 2008 

2.1 ..................................................... 2009 

2.3 ..................................................... 2010 

1.5 ..................................................... 2011 

1.6 ..................................................... 2012 

* Design Values were derived from the EPA 

AirData Web site (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/). 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Greeley Maintenance 

Plan, the State commits to continuing 

operation of an air quality monitoring 

network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 

58 to verify continued attainment of the 

CO NAAQS. The State also commits to 

conducting an annual review of the air 

quality surveillance system in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58.10. 

Additionally, the plan indicates that if 

measured mobile source parameters 

change significantly over time, the State 

will perform appropriate studies to 

determine whether additional and/or resited monitors are necessary. We are 

approving these commitments as 

satisfying the relevant requirements. 

D. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of an area. To 

meet this requirement, the State has 

indentified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

As stated in the revised Greeley 

Maintenance Plan, the contingency 

measures will be triggered by a violation 

of the CO NAAQS. No more than 60 

days after notification from the Colorado 

Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) 

that a violation of the CO NAAQS has 

occurred, the North Front Range 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(NFRMPO), in conjunction with the 

APCD, AQCC, and local governments, 

will initiate a subcommittee process to 

begin evaluating potential contingency 

measures. The subcommittee will 

present recommendations within 120 

days of notification, and the 

recommended contingency measures 

will be presented to the AQCC within 

180 days of notification. The AQCC will 

then hold a public hearing to consider 

the contingency measures 

recommended by the subcommittee 

along with any other contingency 

measures the AQCC believes may be 

appropriate to effectively address the 

violation. The necessary contingency 

measures will be adopted and 

implemented within one year after a 

violation occurs. 

The potential contingency measures 

that are identified in the revised Greeley 

CO maintenance plan include, but are 

not limited to: (1) A federally 

enforceable enhanced vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program; 9

(2) a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program, 

as set forth in AQCC Regulation Number 

13 as of September 2009; (3) reestablishing nonattainment new source 

review permitting for stationary sources; 

and (4) wood burning restrictions. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised 

Greeley Maintenance Plan are sufficient 

and meet the requirements of section 

175A(d) of the CAA. 

E. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 

176(c)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at 

40 CFR part 93 requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to SIPs and establish 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they 

conform. To effectuate its purpose, the 

conformity rule requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46819 

10Further information concerning EPA’s 

interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in 

the preamble to EPA’s November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193– 

62196). 11LMP Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995. 12As required by our transportation conformity 

adequacy process, we made a finding in a March 

4, 2011 letter to the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE) that the revised 

Greeley Maintenance Plan was adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. This finding 

was based substantially on the fact that the Greeley 

CO maintenance area meets the LMP criteria, and 

is therefore not required to project future emissions. 

In a Federal Register notice dated August 2, 2011, 

we notified the public of our finding that the 

revised Greeley Maintenance Plan was adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes (see 76 FR 

46288). This adequacy determination became 

effective on August 17, 2011. 

the Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) are consistent with the 

motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) 

contained in the control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance area.10

Under the LMP guidance, emissions 

budgets generally are treated as not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period. While EPA’s LMP 

guidance does not exempt an area from 

the need to affirm conformity, it 

explains that the area may demonstrate 

conformity without submitting a MVEB. 

According to the LMP guidance, it is 

unreasonable to expect that an LMP area 

will experience so much growth in that 

period that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS would result.11 However, the 

CO maintenance plan for Greeley that 

we approved in 2005 (70 FR 48650) 

contains MVEBs for 2010 through 2014 

(62 tons per day of CO), and for 2015 (60 

tons per day of CO), and the State did 

not revise or remove these MVEBs from 

the SIP. Under our conformity 

regulations, consistency with those 

MVEBs must continue to be 

demonstrated as long as such years are 

within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan. See 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(2)(i) and (d)(2).12

When those years are no longer 

within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan, there will no longer 

be a need to demonstrate conformity 

with any MVEB for the Greeley CO 

maintenance area, for the reasons 

described in our LMP guidance. From 

that point forward, all actions that 

require conformity determinations for 

the Greeley CO maintenance area under 

our conformity rule provisions will be 

considered to have already satisfied the 

regional emissions analysis and ‘‘budget 

test’’ requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 

because of our approval of the Greeley 

CO LMP. 

However, since LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, certain aspects of 

transportation conformity 

determinations still will be required for 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, RTPs, TIPs and 

transportation projects still will have to 

demonstrate that they are fiscally 

constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet 

the criteria for consultation and 

Transportation Control Measure (TCM) 

implementation in the conformity rule 

provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 

93.113, respectively). In addition, 

projects in LMP areas still will be 

required to meet the applicable criteria 

for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy 

‘‘project level’’ conformity 

determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 

CFR 93.123), which must also 

incorporate the latest planning 

assumptions and models available (40 

CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, 

respectively). 

Our approval of the revised Greeley 

Maintenance Plan affects future CO RTP 

and TIP conformity determinations 

prepared by NFRMPO, the Colorado 

Department of Transportation, the 

Federal Highway Administration and 

the Federal Transit Administration. 

V. Final Action 

We are approving the revised Greeley 

Maintenance Plan submitted on March 

31, 2010. This maintenance plan meets 

the applicable CAA requirements, and 

we have determined it is sufficient to 

provide for maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS over the course of the second 

10-year maintenance period out to 2019. 

We are publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register publication, 

we are publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal to 

approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective October 1, 2013 without 

further notice unless we receive adverse 

comments by September 3, 2013. If we 

receive adverse comments, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. We will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it 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). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 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 rule 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. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 1, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See Clean Air 

Act section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 16, 2013. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.349 is amended by 

adding paragraph (p) to read as follows: 

§ 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide 

* * * * * 

(p) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Greeley, as adopted by the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission on 

December 17, 2009 and submitted by 

the Governor’s designee on March 31, 

2010. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18439 Filed 8–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 120907427–3652–02] 

RIN 0648–BC51 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Reef 

Fish Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement management measures 

described in a framework action to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the Reef 

Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico 

(FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Council). This final rule revises the 

vermilion snapper recreational bag 

limit, revises the yellowtail snapper 

stock annual catch limit (ACL), and 

removes the requirement for reef fish 

vessels to have onboard and use a 

venting tool when releasing reef fish. 

The purpose of this rule is to help 

achieve optimum yield (OY) and 

prevent overfishing of vermilion and 

yellowtail snapper, reduce the 

unnecessary burden to fishers 

associated with venting reef fish, and 

minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

framework action, which includes an 

environmental assessment, regulatory 

impact review, and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis, may be 

obtained from the Southeast Regional 

Office Web site at http:// 

sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/ 

GrouperSnapperandReefFish.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, 

NMFS, telephone 727–824–5305; email: 

Peter.Hood@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef 

fish fishery of the Gulf is managed 

under the FMP. The FMP was prepared 

by the Council and is implemented 

through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

On May 7, 2013, NMFS published a 

proposed rule for the framework action 

and requested public comment (78 FR 

26607). The proposed rule and the 

framework action outline the rationale 

for the actions contained in this final 

rule. A summary of the actions 

implemented by this final rule is 

provided below. 

Management Measures Contained in 

This Final Rule 

Through this final rule, NMFS 

establishes a 10-vermilion snapper 

recreational bag limit within the 20-fish 

aggregate reef fish bag limit, increases 

the Gulf yellowtail snapper ACL from 

725,000 lb (328,855 kg), round weight, 

to 901,125 lb (408,743 kg), round 

weight, and removes the requirement to 

have onboard and use venting tools 

when releasing reef fish. All weights 

discussed in this final rule are in round 

weight. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES