Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41307 

(5 days for Priority Mail Express, 10 

days for COD), unless the sender 

specifies fewer days on the piece. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an amendment to 39 

CFR part 111 to reflect these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16523 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0389; FRL–9832–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Can ̃on City 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 

approving State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Colorado. On June 18, 2009, the 

Governor of Colorado’s designee 

submitted to EPA a revised maintenance 

plan for the Can ̃ on City area for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 10 microns (PM10), which was 

adopted by the State on November 20, 

2008. As required by Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 175A(b), this revised 

maintenance plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 standard for a 

second 10-year period beyond the area’s 

original redesignation to attainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is 

also taking final action approving the 

revised maintenance plan’s 2020 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budget for PM10. This action 

is being taken under sections 110 and 

175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 9, 2013 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by August 9, 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–2010–0389, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-Mail: ostigaard.crystal@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, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 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–2010– 

0389. 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, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 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, 8:00 a.m. to 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 initials APCD mean or refer to the 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. 

(iii) The initials AQCC mean or refer to the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. 

(iv) The initials AQS mean or refer to the 

EPA Air Quality System database. 

(v) The words Colorado and State mean or 

refer to the State of Colorado. 

(vi) The initials CDOT mean or refer to the 

Colorado Department of Transportation. 

(vii) The initials CDPHE mean or refer to 

the Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment. 

(viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(ix) The initials FHWA mean or refer to the 

Federal Highway Administration. 

(x) The initials FTA mean or refer to the 

Federal Transit Administration. 

(xi) The initials MVEB mean or refer to 

motor vehicle emissions budget. 

(xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

(xiii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (coarse particulate matter). 

(xiv) The initials RTP mean or refer to the 

Regional Transportation Plan. 

(xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(xvi) The initials TIP mean or refer to the 

Transportation Improvement Program. 

(xvii) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

technical support document. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41308 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

described in CAA section 175A extended through 

2010. Thus, the second 10-year period extends 

through 2020. 

2An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard, 150 mg/ 

m3, after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in five or greater are to be rounded 

up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3 would not 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 

mg/m3; whereas, a recorded value of 155 mg/m3

would be an exceedance since it would be rounded 

to 160 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, 

section 1.0. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the state’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised Can ̃ on 

City PM10 Maintenance Plan 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

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 

The Can ̃ on City area was designated 

nonattainment for PM10 and classified 

as moderate by operation of law upon 

enactment of the CAA Amendments of 

1990. See 56 FR 56694, 56705, 56736 

(November 6, 1991). EPA approved 

Colorado’s nonattainment area SIP for 

the Can ̃ on City PM10 nonattainment area 

on December 23, 1993 (58 FR 68036) 

and its PM10 contingency measures SIP 

for the area on December 14, 1994 (59 

FR 64332). 

On September 22, 1997, the Governor 

of Colorado submitted a request to EPA 

to redesignate the Can ̃ on City moderate 

PM10 nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. Along with 

this request, the State submitted a 

maintenance plan, which demonstrated 

that the area was expected to remain in 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS through 

2015. EPA approved the Can ̃ on City 

maintenance plan and redesignation to 

attainment on May 30, 2000 (65 FR 

34399). 

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 update of the PM10

maintenance plan to EPA on June 18, 

2009 (hereafter, ‘‘revised Can ̃ on City 

PM10 Maintenance Plan’’). 

As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level 

of the national primary and secondary 

24-hour ambient air quality standards 

for PM10 is 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3). An area attains the 24- 

hour PM10 standard when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with 

a 24-hour concentration in excess of the 

standard (referred to herein as 

‘‘exceedance’’), as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, is equal to or less than one, 

averaged over a three-year period.2 See 

40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Table 1 below shows the maximum 

monitored 24-hour PM10 values for the 

Can ̃on City PM10 maintenance area for 

2004 through 2012. The table reflects 

that the values for the Can ̃on City area 

are well below the PM10 NAAQS 

standard of 150 mg/m3. 

TABLE 1—CAN ̃ON CITY PM10

MAXIMUM 24-HOUR VALUES

[Based on data from City Hall, 128 Main 

Street, AQS Identification Number 08–043– 

0003] 

Year 

Maximum 

value 

(μg/m3) 

2004 .................................... * 17 

2005 .................................... 33 

2006 .................................... 54 

2007 .................................... 31 

2008 .................................... 54 

2009 .................................... 38 

2010 .................................... 31 

2011 .................................... 71 

2012 .................................... 61 

* Only operated Oct.–Dec. 2004. 

Table 2 below shows the estimated 

number of exceedances for the Can ̃ on 

City PM10 maintenance area for the 

three-year periods of 2004 through 2006, 

2005 through 2007, 2006 through 2008, 

2007 through 2009, 2008 through 2010, 

2009 through 2011, and 2010 through 

2012. The table reflects continuous 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—CAN ̃ON CITY PM10

ESTIMATED EXCEEDANCES

[Based on data from City Hall, 128 Main 

Street, AQS Identification Number 08–043– 

0003] 

Design value period 

3-Year 

estimated 

number of 

exceedances 

2004–2006 .......................... 0 

2005–2007 .......................... 0 

2006–2008 .......................... 0 

2007–2009 .......................... 0 

2008–2010 .......................... 0 

2009–2011 .......................... 0 

2010–2012 .......................... 0 

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 EPA. 

The Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) held a public 

hearing for the revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan on November 20, 

2008. The AQCC approved and adopted 

the revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan during this hearing. 

The Governor’s designee submitted the 

revised plan to EPA on June 18, 2009. 

We have evaluated the revised 

maintenance plan and have determined 

that the State met the requirements for 

reasonable public notice and public 

hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA. On December 18, 2009, by 

operation of law under CAA section 

110(k)(1)(B), the revised maintenance 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41309 

plan was deemed to have met the 

minimum ‘‘completeness’’ criteria 

found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Can ̃on City PM10 Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

a maintenance plan for PM10: Emission 

Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, 

Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment, Contingency 

Plan, and Transportation Conformity 

Requirements: Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budget for PM10. Below, we describe our 

evaluation of these elements as they 

pertain to the revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan includes two 

inventories of daily PM10 emissions for 

the Can ̃ on City area, one for 2006 and 

one for 2020. The Air Pollution Control 

Division (APCD) developed these 

emission inventories using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods 

and updated transportation and 

demographics data. Each emission 

inventory is a list, by source category, of 

the air contaminants directly emitted 

into the Can ̃ on City PM10 maintenance 

area. A more detailed description of the 

2006 and 2020 inventories and 

information on model assumptions and 

parameters for each source category are 

contained in the State’s PM10

maintenance plan Technical Support 

Document (TSD). Included in both 

inventories are agriculture, highway 

vehicle exhaust, railroads, road dust, 

commercial cooking, construction, fuel 

combustion, non-road sources, structure 

fires, woodburning, and stationary 

sources. We find that Colorado has 

prepared adequate emission inventories 

for the area. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

The revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan uses emission rollforward modeling to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS through 2020. Using the 2006 

and 2020 emissions inventories, the 

State first determined the projected 

growth in PM10 emissions from the 2006 

base year to the 2020 maintenance year. 

The State estimated that emissions 

would increase from 2,149.0 pounds per 

day in 2006 to 2,736.6 pounds per day 

in 2020. This represents an increase of 

27.3 percent. 

The State then applied this percentage 

increase to the design day concentration 

of 56 mg/m3, which was the highest 24- 

hour maximum PM10 value recorded in 

Can ̃on City from 2005–2007. This 

resulted in an estimated maximum 24- 

hour PM10 concentration in 2020 of 71.3 

mg/m3. This is well below the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3. 

At EPA’s request, the State provided 

supplemental emissions inventories in 

April of 2011. These inventories differ 

from those in the revised Can ̃ on City 

PM10 Maintenance Plan in two respects. 

First, they reflect potential point source 

emissions, not just projected actual 

point source emissions. Second, they 

reflect annual emissions, not daily. 

EPA requested this information from 

the State because the original 

maintenance plan reviewed the 

emissions inventories for projected 

actual point source emissions and 

potential point source emissions for 

demonstration of maintenance, 

however, the June 18, 2009 maintenance 

plan did not contain the inventory for 

potential point source emissions. 

Therefore, for a complete review of the 

second 10-year maintenance plan by 

EPA this information was needed. 

To further assess the State’s 

maintenance demonstration, we 

conducted an additional roll-forward 

analysis using information from these 

inventories. We compared the projected 

annual inventory for 2020 of 540.85 tons 

per year of PM10 from all source 

categories (which is based on potential 

emissions from point sources) to the 

annual inventory for 2006 for all source 

categories of 392.11 tons per year of 

PM10 (which is based on actual 

emissions from point sources) to arrive 

at a projected increase in area emissions 

of 37.9% between 2006 and 2020. We 

then applied this percentage increase to 

the same design day concentration of 56 

mg/m3 that the State used. Doing so, we 

calculated a projected maximum 24- 

hour PM10 concentration in 2020 of 

77.22 mg/m3. This value is also well 

below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 

mg/m3 and confirms the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. Thus, the 

State has adequately demonstrated that 

the Can ̃ on City area will maintain the 

PM10 NAAQS through 2020. 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

continue to operate an air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 to verify continued 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. This 

includes the continued operation of a 

PM10 monitor in the Can ̃ on City area, 

which the State will rely on to track 

PM10 emissions in the maintenance 

area. The State also commits to conduct 

an annual review of the air quality 

surveillance system in accordance with 

40 CFR 58.20(d) to determine whether 

the system continues to meet the 

monitoring objectives presented in 

appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. 

Additionally, the State commits to track 

and document PM10 mobile source 

parameters and new and modified 

stationary source permits. If these and 

the resulting emissions change 

significantly over time, the APCD will 

perform appropriate studies to 

determine: (1) whether additional and/ 

or re-sited monitors are necessary, and 

(2) whether mobile and stationary 

source emissions projections are on 

target. 

Based on the above, we are taking 

final action approving these 

commitments as satisfying the relevant 

requirements. These commitments are 

similar to those we approved in the 

original maintenance plan. 

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 

identified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

As stated in the revised Can ̃ on City 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, the 

contingency measures will be triggered 

by a violation of the PM10 NAAQS. 

However, the maintenance plan notes 

that an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS 

may initiate a voluntary, local process 

by Can ̃ on City and the APCD to identify 

and evaluate potential contingency 

measures. 

Can ̃ on City, in coordination with the 

APCD, AQCC, and the Colorado 

Department of Transportation (CDOT) 

will initiate a process to begin 

evaluating potential contingency 

measures no more than 60 days after 

notification from APCD that a violation 

of the PM10 NAAQS has occurred. The 

AQCC will then hold a public hearing 

to consider the contingency measures 

recommended by Can ̃ on City, APCD and 

CDOT along with any other contingency 

measures the AQCC believes may be 

appropriate to effectively address the 

violation. The State commits to adopt 

and implement any necessary 

contingency measures within one year 

after a violation occurs. 

The State identifies the following as 

potential contingency measures in the 

revised Can ̃ on City PM10 Maintenance 

Plan: (1) Increased street sweeping 

requirements; (2) expanded, mandatory 

use of alternative de-icers; (3) more 

stringent street sand specifications; (4) 

road paving requirements; (5) 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41310 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3 ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004 Final 

Transportation Conformity Rule, Conformity 

Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing 

and New Air Quality Standards’’ (EPA420–B–04– 

012 July, 2004). 4 In a Federal Register notice dated August 2, 

2011, we notified the public of our finding (see 76 

FR 46288). This adequacy determination became 

effective on August 17, 2011. 

woodburning restrictions; (6) reestablishing new source review 

permitting requirements for stationary 

sources; and (7) other emission control 

measures appropriate for the area based 

on consideration of cost effectiveness, 

PM10 emission reduction potential, 

economic and social considerations, or 

other factors. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised Can ̃ on 

City PM10 Maintenance Plan are 

sufficient and meet the requirements of 

section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

E. Transportation Conformity 

Requirements: Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budget for PM10

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 

requires that transportation plans, 

programs, and projects conform to SIPs 

and establishes the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they conform. 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. To 

effectuate its purpose, the conformity 

rule requires a demonstration that 

emissions from the Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) are consistent with the motor 

vehicle emissions budget(s) (MVEB(s)) 

contained in a control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An 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. 

Further 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). 

The revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan contains a single 

MVEB of 1,613 lbs/day of PM10 for the 

year 2020, the maintenance year. Once 

the State submitted the revised plan 

with the 2020 MVEB to EPA for 

approval, 40 CFR 93.118 required that 

EPA determine whether the MVEB was 

adequate. 

Our criteria for determining whether 

a SIP’s MVEB is adequate for conformity 

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated 

August 15, 1997 (see 62 FR 43780). Our 

process for determining adequacy is 

described in our July 1, 2004 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments (see 69 FR 40004) and in 

relevant guidance.3 We used these 

resources in making our adequacy 

determination described below. 

On March 15, 2011, EPA announced 

the availability of the revised Can ̃ on 

City PM10 Maintenance Plan, and the 

PM10 MVEB, on EPA’s transportation 

conformity adequacy Web site. EPA 

solicited public comment on the MVEB, 

and the public comment period closed 

on April 14, 2011. We did not receive 

any comments. This information is 

available at EPA’s conformity Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm#canon. 

By letter to the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE) dated May 4, 2011, EPA found 

that the revised Can ̃ on City PM10

Maintenance Plan and the 2020 PM10

MVEB were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes.4 However, we 

noted in our letter that the revised 

Can ̃on City PM10 Maintenance Plan did 

not discuss the PM10 MVEB for 2015 of 

7,439 lbs/day from the original PM10

maintenance plan that EPA approved in 

2000 (see 65 FR 34399, May 30, 2000). 

According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the 

EPA-approved 2015 PM10 MVEB must 

continue to be used for analysis years 

2015 through 2019 (as long as such 

years are within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan), unless the State 

elects to submit a SIP revision to revise 

the 2015 PM10 MVEB and EPA approves 

the SIP revision. This is because the 

revised Can ̃on City PM10 Maintenance 

Plan did not revise the previouslyapproved 2015 PM10 MVEB nor 

establish a new MVEB for 2015. 

Accordingly, the MVEB ‘‘. . . for the 

most recent prior year . . .’’ (i.e., 2015) 

from the original maintenance plan 

must continue to be used (see 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(iv)). 

We note that there is a considerable 

difference between the 2020 and 2015 

budgets—1,613 lbs/day versus 7,439 

lbs/day. This is largely an artifact of 

changes in the methods, models, and 

emission factors used to estimate mobile 

source emissions. The 2020 MVEB is 

consistent with the State’s 2020 

emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust 

and road dust, and, thus, is consistent 

with the State’s maintenance 

demonstration for 2020. 

The discrepancy between the 2015 

and 2020 MVEBs is not a significant 

issue for several reasons. As a practical 

matter, the 2020 MVEB of 1,613 lbs/day 

of PM10 would be controlling for any 

conformity determination involving the 

relevant years because conformity 

would have to be shown to both the 

2015 MVEB and the 2020 MVEB. Also, 

for any maintenance plan, such as the 

revised Can ̃ on City PM10 Maintenance 

Plan, that only establishes a MVEB for 

the last year of the maintenance plan, 40 

CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) requires that the 

demonstration of consistency with the 

budget be accompanied by a qualitative 

finding that there are no factors that 

would cause or contribute to a new 

violation or exacerbate an existing 

violation in the years before the last year 

of the maintenance plan. Therefore, 

when a conformity determination is 

prepared which assesses conformity for 

the years before 2020, the 2020 MVEB 

and the underlying assumptions 

supporting it would have to be 

considered. Finally, 40 CFR 93.110 

requires the use of the latest planning 

assumptions in conformity 

determinations. Thus, the most current 

motor vehicle and road dust emission 

factors would need to be used, and we 

expect the analysis would show greatly 

reduced PM10 motor vehicle and road 

dust emissions from those calculated in 

the first maintenance plan. In view of 

the above, EPA is approving the 2020 

PM10 MVEB of 1,613 lbs/day. 

V. Final Action 

We are approving the revised Can ̃ on 

City PM10 Maintenance Plan that was 

submitted to us on June 18, 2009. We 

are approving the revised maintenance 

plan because it demonstrates 

maintenance through 2020 as required 

by CAA section 175A(b), retains the 

control measures from the initial PM10

maintenance plan that EPA approved in 

May of 2000, and meets other CAA 

requirements for a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Our approval 

includes approval of the revised 

maintenance plan’s 2020 transportation 

conformity MVEB for PM10 of 1,613 lbs/ 

day. 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41311 

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 as meeting Federal 

requirements, 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 is not economically 

significant. 

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. 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. 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 September 9, 

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 section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: June 20, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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 52.332 is amended by 

adding paragraph (q) to read as follows: 

§ 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(q) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, PM10 Revised 

Maintenance Plan for Can ̃ on City, as 

adopted by the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission on November 20, 

2008, State effective on December 30, 

2008, and submitted by the Governor’s 

designee on June 18, 2009. The revised 

maintenance plan satisfies all applicable 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16506 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0805; FRL–9832–4] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Indiana; Approval of 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ SIP With Respect to 

Source Impact Analysis Provisions for 

the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

taking final action to approve portions 

of submissions made by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) to address the 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of 

the CAA, often referred to as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ state implementation 

plan (SIP). Specifically, we are 

finalizing the approval of portions of 

IDEM’s submissions intended to meet 

certain requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA with respect to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient 

air quality standards (2006 PM2.5

NAAQS). Among other provisions, these 

sections of the CAA require states to 

perform source impact analyses as part 

of their prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) programs. EPA is 

finalizing approval of Indiana’s 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES