Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2827 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T11–589 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–589 Safety zone; SFOBB 

Demolition Safety Zone, San Francisco, CA. 

(a) Location. This temporary safety 

zone is established in the navigable 

waters of the San Francisco Bay near 

Yerba Buena Island, California as 

depicted in National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Chart 18650. The safety zone will 

encompass the navigable waters around 

the SFOBB within 100 yards beginning 

at Yerba Buena Island and ending at the 

‘‘I’’ Pier. 

(b) Enforcement period. The zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be in effect from 6 a.m. to 

7 p.m. daily from December 31, 2014 

until December 30, 2015. The Captain of 

the Port San Francisco (COTP) will 

notify the maritime community of 

periods during which this zone will be 

enforced via Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 

165.7. 

(c) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, 

State, or local officer designated by or 

assisting the COTP in the enforcement 

of the safety zone. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart 

C, entry into, transiting or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or a designated 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the COTP or a designated 

representative. Persons and vessels may 

request permission to enter the safety 

zone on VHF–23A or through the 24- 

hour Command Center at telephone 

(415) 399–3547. 

Dated: December 16, 2014. 

Gregory G. Stump, 

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

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00915 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2013–0814; FRL–9921–54- 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Steamboat 

Springs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action 

approving State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

Colorado. On May 11, 2012, the 

designee of the Governor of Colorado 

submitted to EPA a revised maintenance 

plan for the Steamboat Springs area for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10). 

The SIP was adopted by the State on 

December 15, 2011. As required by 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A, 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 

approving the revised maintenance 

plan’s 2024 transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) 

for PM10. This action is being taken 

under sections 110 and 175A of the 

CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

23, 2015 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by 

February 20, 2015. 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–2013–0814, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: 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–2013– 

0814. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
2828 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

described in CAA section 175A(a) was required to 

extend for at least 10 years after the redesignation 

to attainment, which was effective on November 24, 

2004. See 69 FR 62210. So the first maintenance 

plan was required to show maintenance at least 

through 2014. CAA section 175A(b) requires that 

the second 10-year maintenance plan maintain the 

NAAQS for ‘‘10 years after the expiration of the 10- 

year period referred to in [section 175A(a)].’’ Thus, 

for the Steamboat Springs area, the second 10-year 

period ends 2024. 

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 EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(ii) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(iii) The initials APCD mean or refer 

to the Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division. 

(iv) The initials AQCC mean or refer 

to the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission. 

(v) The words Colorado and State 

mean or refer to the State of Colorado. 

(vi) The initials MVEB mean or refer 

to motor vehicle emissions budget. 

(vii) The initials NAAQS mean or 

refer to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. 

(viii) The initials PM10 mean or refer 

to particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 10 micrometers (coarse 

particulate matter). 

(ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(x) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

technical support document. 

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 Steamboat Springs area was 

designated unclassifiable for the 1987 

PM10 NAAQS by operation of law upon 

enactment of the CAA Amendments of 

1990. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 

1991. However, in January and February 

of 1991, the EPA notified the Governors 

of those States, including the State of 

Colorado, which recorded violations of 

the PM10 standard after January 1, 1989, 

that EPA believed that those areas 

should be redesignated as 

nonattainment for PM10. In the Federal 

Register published on April 22, 1991 

(56 FR 16274), EPA identified those 

PM10 areas for which the EPA had 

notified the Governors of affected States 

that the area’s PM10 designation should 

be revised to nonattainment. After 

notification, the Governor of each 

affected state was required to submit to 

EPA the redesignation he or she 

considered appropriate for each area. 

The EPA proceeded to redesignate to 

nonattainment 10 areas, including the 

Steamboat Springs area, for PM10 on 

December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67334). EPA 

fully approved Colorado’s 

nonattainment area SIP for the 

Steamboat Springs area on December 31, 

1997 (62 FR 68188). 

On July 31, 2002, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Steamboat Springs 

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 would 

continue to attain the PM10 NAAQS 

through 2015. EPA approved the 

Steamboat Springs maintenance plan 

and redesignation to attainment on 

October 25, 2004 (69 FR 62210). 

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 May 11, 

2012 (hereafter; ‘‘revised Steamboat 

Springs 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2829 

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. 

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 

Steamboat Springs PM10 maintenance 

area for 2004–2014. The table reflects 

that the values for the Steamboat 

Springs area are well below the PM10

NAAQS standard of 150 mg/m3. 

TABLE 1—STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PM10

MAXIMUM 24-HOUR VALUES

[Based on data from Routt County Court 

House site, AQS Identification Number 08– 

107–0003] 

Year Maximum value 

(μg/m3) 

2004 94 

2005 86 

2006 87 

2007 99 

2008 124 

2009 83 

2010 99 

2011 135 

2012 124 

2013 82 

2014 * 84 

* Preliminary 2014 Data only through September 17, 2014. 

Table 2 below shows the estimated 

number of exceedances for the 

Steamboat Springs PM10 maintenance 

area for the three-year periods starting 

in 2004 and ending in 2014. The table 

reflects continuous attainment of the 

PM10 NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PM10

ESTIMATED EXCEEDANCES

[Based on data from Routt County Court 

House site, AQS Identification Number 08– 

107–0003] 

Design value period 

3-Year estimated 

number of 

exceedances 

2004–2006 0 

2005–2007 0 

2006–2008 0 

2007–2009 0 

2008–2010 0 

TABLE 2—STEAMBOAT SPRINGS PM10

ESTIMATED EXCEEDANCES—Continued 

[Based on data from Routt County Court 

House site, AQS Identification Number 08– 

107–0003] 

Design value period 

3-Year estimated 

number of 

exceedances 

2009–2011 0 

2010–2012 0 

2011–2013 0 

2012–2014 * 0 

* Preliminary 2014 Data only through September 17, 2014. 

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 Steamboat 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan on 

December 15, 2011. The AQCC 

approved and adopted the revised 

Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance 

Plan directly after the hearing. The 

Governor’s designee submitted the 

revised plan to EPA on May 11, 2012. 

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 November 11, 2012, by 

operation of law under CAA section 

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

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 

Steamboat Springs 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 MVEB for PM10. Below, we 

describe our evaluation of these 

elements as they pertain to the revised 

Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance 

Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Steamboat Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan includes three 

inventories of daily PM10 emissions for 

the Steamboat Springs area; they are for 

2008, 2016 and 2024. The Air Pollution 

Control Division (APCD) developed 

these emission inventories using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods, 

and updated transportation information, 

demographics data, and reported actual 

emissions for point sources. Each 

emission inventory is a list, by source 

category, of the air contaminants 

directly emitted into the Steamboat 

Springs PM10 maintenance area. A more 

detailed description of the 2008 and 

2024 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 all the inventories are 

emissions data for: commercial cooking; 

construction; fuel combustion; highway 

vehicles; non-road vehicles; railroad; 

road dust; structure fires; woodburning; 

and point sources. We find that 

Colorado has prepared adequate 

emission inventories for the area. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

The revised Steamboat Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan uses emission rollforward modeling to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS through 2024. Using the 2008 

and 2024 emissions inventories, the 

State first determined the projected 

growth in PM10 emissions from the 2008 

base year to the 2024 maintenance year. 

The State estimated that emissions 

would increase from 5,095.9 pounds per 

day in 2008 to 7,308.8 pounds per day 

in 2024. This represents an increase of 

43.4 percent. 

The State then applied this percentage 

increase to the design day concentration 

of 99 mg/m3, which was the third 

highest 24-hour maximum PM10 value 

recorded in Steamboat Springs from 

2008–2010. This resulted in an 

estimated maximum 24-hour PM10

concentration in 2024 of 142 mg/m3. 

This is below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

of 150 mg/m3. 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Steamboat Springs 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, the State 

commits to continue to operate an air 

quality monitoring network in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and the 

EPA-approved Colorado Monitoring SIP 

Element to verify continued attainment 

of the PM10 NAAQS. This includes the 

continued operation of a PM10 monitor 

in the Steamboat Springs area, which 

the State will rely on to track PM10

emissions in the maintenance area. 

Based on the above, we are 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
2830 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / 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 dated October 3, 2014, we 

notified the public of our finding (see 79 FR 59767). 

This adequacy determination became effective on 

October 20, 2014. 

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 Steamboat 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

exceedances trigger one level of 

response and violations trigger another. 

If there is an exceedance, the APCD and 

local government staff will develop 

appropriate contingency measure(s) 

intended to prevent or correct a 

violation of the PM10 standard. The 

APCD and local government staff will 

consider relevant information about 

historical exceedances, meteorological 

conditions related to the exceedance(s), 

and the most recent estimates of growth 

and emissions, and whether the 

exceedance might be attributed to an 

exceptional event. The maintenance 

plan indicates that the State will 

generally notify EPA and local 

governments in the Steamboat Springs 

area within 30 days of the exceedance, 

but in no event later than 45 days. The 

process for exceedances will be 

completed within six months of the 

exceedance notification. 

If a violation of the PM10 NAAQS has 

occurred, a public hearing process at the 

State and local level will begin. If the 

AQCC agrees that the implementation of 

local measures will prevent further 

exceedances or violations, the AQCC 

may endorse or approve the local 

measures without adopting State 

requirements. If, however, the AQCC 

finds locally adopted contingency 

measures to be inadequate, the AQCC 

will adopt State enforceable measures as 

deemed necessary to prevent additional 

exceedances or violations. The State 

commits to adopt and implement any 

necessary contingency measures within 

one year after a violation occurs. Any 

state enforceable measures that are 

adopted will become part of another 

revised maintenance plan, which will 

be submitted to the Colorado Legislature 

and the EPA for approval. 

The State indentifies the following as 

potential contingency measures in the 

revised Steamboat Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan: (1) increased street 

sweeping requirements; (2) road paving 

requirements; (3) more stringent street 

sand specifications; (4) voluntary or 

mandatory woodburning curtailment; 

(5) bans on all woodburning; (6) 

expanded, mandatory use of alternative 

de-icers; (7) re-establishing new source 

review nonattainment area permitting 

requirements for stationary sources; (8) 

transportation control measures 

designed to reduce vehicle miles 

traveled; and (9) other emission control 

measures appropriate for the area based 

on the consideration of cost 

effectiveness, PM10 emission reduction 

potential, economic and social 

considerations, or other factors that the 

State deems appropriate. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised 

Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance 

Plan are sufficient and meet the 

requirements of section 175A(d) of the 

CAA. 

E. Transportation Conformity 

Requirements: MVEB for PM10

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

conformity rule at 40 CFR 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 and the 

Transportation Improvement Program 

are consistent with the MVEB(s) 

contained in a 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. 

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 Steamboat Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan contains a single 

MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day of PM10 for the 

year 2024, the maintenance year. Once 

the State submitted the revised plan 

with the 2024 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 November 15, 2013, EPA 

announced the availability of the 

revised Steamboat Springs 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 December 

16, 2013. 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#steam-spr-co. 

By letter to the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment dated 

January 23, 2014, EPA found that the 

revised Steamboat Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan and the 2024 PM10

MVEB were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes.4 However, we 

noted in our letter that the revised 

Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance 

Plan did not discuss the PM10 MVEB for 

2015 of 21,773 lbs/day from the original 

PM10 maintenance plan that EPA 

approved in 2004 (see 69 FR 62210, 

October 25, 2004). 

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

EPA-approved 2015 PM10 MVEB must 

continue to be used for analysis years 

2015 through 2023 (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 Steamboat Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan did not revise the 

previously approved 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 2024 and 2015 

budgets—1,103 lbs/day versus 21,773 

lbs/day. This is largely an artifact of 

changes in the methods, models, and 

emission factors used to estimate mobile 

source emissions. The 2024 MVEB is 

consistent with the State’s 2024 

emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust 

and road dust, and, thus, is consistent 

with the State’s maintenance 

demonstration for 2024. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2831 

The discrepancy between the 2015 

and 2024 MVEBs is not a significant 

issue for several reasons. As a practical 

matter, the 2024 MVEB of 1,103 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 2024 MVEB. Also, 

for any maintenance plan, such as the 

revised Steamboat Springs 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 2024, the 2024 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 2024 

PM10 MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day. 

V. Final Action 

We are approving the revised 

Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance 

Plan that was submitted to us on May 

11, 2012. We are approving the revised 

maintenance plan because it 

demonstrates maintenance through 2024 

as required by CAA section 175A(b), 

retains the control measures from the 

initial PM10 maintenance plan that EPA 

approved in October of 2004, and meets 

other CAA requirements for a section 

175A maintenance plan. Our approval 

includes approval of the revised 

maintenance plan’s 2024 transportation 

conformity MVEB for PM10 of 1,103 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 

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 

CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by March 23, 2015. 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 CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, PM10, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: December 17, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
2832 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (u) to read as follows: 

§ 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(u) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, PM10 Revised 

Maintenance Plan for Steamboat 

Springs, as adopted by the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission on 

December 15, 2011, State effective on 

January 30, 2012, and submitted by the 

Governor’s designee on May 11, 2012. 

The revised maintenance plan satisfies 

all applicable requirements of the Clean 

Air Act. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00780 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0494; FRL–9921–71– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan Approved by EPA Through Letter 

Notice Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Virginia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) which 

EPA had previously approved through a 

Letter Notice action. The revision will 

allow the Commonwealth of Virginia to 

submit SIP revision requests to EPA via 

electronic submission, with a caveat. 

EPA has approved this revision which 

allows electronic submission of SIP 

revision requests from Virginia. The 

Commonwealth will continue to supply 

additional paper copies as currently 

described in, and in accordance with, 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) until such time as EPA amends 

the Federal regulations to allow sole 

electronic submissions of SIP requests. 

EPA has determined that this action 

falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 

in the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), which authorizes agencies to 

dispense with public participation and 

which allows an agency to make an 

action effective immediately (thereby 

avoiding the 30-day delayed effective 

date otherwise provided for in the 

APA). 

DATES: This action is effective January 

21, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0494. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon McCauley, (215) 814–3376, or by 

email at mccauley.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Virginia 

SIP. On February 11, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

SIP revision requesting that EPA allow 

for the electronic transmission of SIP 

requests from the Commonwealth. EPA 

determined that the revision was a 

minor SIP revision without any 

substantive changes and complied with 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA regulation concerning transmission 

of SIP revisions as long as the 

Commonwealth continued to submit 

paper copies as referenced in 40 CFR 

part 51.103 until such time that EPA has 

implemented planned regulatory 

changes which will allow for sole 

electronic submission of SIP requests. 

EPA had approved this revision with 

the caveat as described above through 

Letter Notice to Virginia dated July 17, 

2014 consistent with the procedures 

outlined in EPA’s Notice of Procedural 

Changes on SIP processing published on 

January 19, 1989 at 54 FR 2214 and 

consistent with the procedures outlined 

in an April 6, 2011 memo from Janet 

McCabe, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Air and 

Radiation, regarding Regional 

Consistency for the Administrative 

Requirements for State Implementation. 

A copy of this memo is included within 

the Docket for this SIP revision. Today’s 

action completes the July 17, 2014 

administrative amendment to the SIP by 

amending 40 CFR 52.2420(c) to include 

new terms for defining certified mail 

and mail by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. 

II. EPA Action 

EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Virginia 

SIP. EPA has determined that today’s 

action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption in the section 553(b)(3)(B) of 

the APA which, upon finding ‘‘good 

cause,’’ authorizes agencies to dispense 

with public participation and section 

553(d)(3) which allows an agency to 

make an action effective immediately 

(thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed 

effective date otherwise provided in the 

APA). With respect to the SIP revision 

described above, today’s administrative 

action simply codifies provisions which 

are already in effect as a matter of law 

in Federal and state programs. Under 

section 553 of the APA, an agency may 

find good cause where procedures are 

‘‘impractical, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Public comment 

for this administrative action is 

‘‘unnecessary’’ because the revisions are 

administrative and non-substantive in 

nature. Immediate notice of this action 

in the Federal Register benefits the 

public by providing the public notice of 

the updated Virginia SIP. Approval of 

these revisions will ensure consistency 

between the Commonwealth and 

Federally-approved rules. EPA has 

determined that these changes will not 

relax the SIP or adversely impact air 

emissions. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES