63104 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: August 8, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 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 UU—Vermont 

■ 2. In § 52.2370(c), the table ‘‘EPA 

Approved Vermont Regulations’’ is 

amended by revising the state citation 

entries for Table 2 and Table 3 to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VERMONT REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Table 2 .................................... Table 2—PSD increments ..... 7/5/2014 9/14/2016, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Added increment thresholds 

for PM2.5. 

Table 3 .................................... Table 3—Levels of significant 

impact.

7/5/2014 9/14/2016, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Added levels for PM2.5. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–21881 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0042; FRL–9952–09– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Lamar 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

May 13, 2013, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted to the 

EPA a revised maintenance plan for the 

Lamar 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 EPA is approving 

the revised maintenance plan with the 

exception of one aspect of the plan’s 

contingency measures. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0042. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, 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 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. The 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: 

James Hou, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6210, 

hou.james@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Lamar area was designated 

nonattainment for PM10 and classified 

as moderate by operation of law upon 

enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, 

56705, 56736 (November 6, 1991). EPA 

approved Colorado’s nonattainment area 

SIP for the Lamar PM10 nonattainment 

area on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29732). 

On May 13, 2013, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted the 

second 10-year update of the PM10

maintenance plan for the Lamar area to 

the EPA. On June 1, 2016, the EPA 

published a proposed rulemaking in 

which we proposed to approve the 10- 

year update because it demonstrates 

continued maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS through 2025. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter 

during the public comment period, 

which was submitted anonymously. 

Comment: Given the high number of 

high wind occurrences, and given the 

consistently windy nature of the Lamar 

area, the EPA cannot rely on the 

Exceptional Events Rule (EER) to ignore 

PM10 exceedances. In doing so, the EPA 

is failing to provide environmental 

justice for people in rural areas, by 

failing to provide them with clean air. 

Response: 55 exceedances between 

two monitors over the course of 14 years 

were reported by the City of Lamar. The 

EPA notes that high wind events do not 

have to be rare to be considered an 

exceptional event. Quoting from the 

‘‘Interim Guidance on the Preparation of 

Demonstrations in Support of Requests 

to Exclude Ambient Air Quality Data 

Affected by High Winds Under the 

Exceptional Events Rule,’’ U.S. EPA 

May 2013 page 20, it states, 

The EPA will use a weight-of-evidence 

approach to assess each demonstration and 

comparison of the concentrations during 

event(s) in question with historical 

concentration data on a case-by-case basis. 

The EPA acknowledges that natural events, 

such as high wind dust events, can recur and 

still be eligible for exclusion under the EER. 

Therefore, events do not necessarily have to 

be rare to satisfy this element. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 63105 

Of the 34 out of 55 flagged PM10 high 

wind monitored values, which the EPA 

has concurred with, each event has met 

the criteria set forth under the EER. 

Having satisfied these requirements, and 

having obtained concurrence from the 

EPA, we find that the exclusion of these 

data from regulatory decisions is 

appropriate. Additionally, the EPA’s 

review and concurrence with the 34 of 

55 flagged PM10 high wind monitored 

values is consistent with the EER, and 

such analysis is applied uniformly 

throughout the state. 

III. Final Action 

We are approving the revised Lamar 

PM10 Maintenance Plan that was 

submitted to us on May 13, 2013, with 

one exception. We are not acting on the 

submitted update to the Natural Events 

Action Plan (NEAP), as the NEAP is not 

part of the SIP. We are approving the 

remainder of the revised maintenance 

plan because it demonstrates 

maintenance through 2025 as required 

by CAA section 175A(b), retains the 

control measures from the initial PM10

maintenance plan that the EPA 

approved on October 25, 2005, and 

meets other CAA requirements for a 

section 175A maintenance plan. We are 

excluding from use in determining that 

Lamar continues to attain the PM10

NAAQS, exceedances of the PM10

NAAQS that were recorded at the Lamar 

Power Plant PM10 monitor on February 

9, 2002; March 7, 2002; May 21, 2002; 

June 20, 2002; April 5, 2002; May 22, 

2008; January 19, 2009; April 3, 2011; 

and November 5, 2011, because the 

exceedances meet the criteria for 

exceptional events caused by high wind 

natural events. 

Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 

exclude from use in determining that 

Lamar continues to attain the PM10

NAAQS, exceedances of the PM10

NAAQS that were recorded at the 

Municipal Complex PM10 monitor on 

May 21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 5, 

2005; January 19, 2009; February 8, 

2013; March 18, 2012; April 2, 2012; 

April 9, 2013; May 1, 2013; May 24, 

2013; May 25, 2013; May 28, 2013; 

December 24, 2013; February 16, 2014; 

March 11, 2014; March 15, 2014; March 

18, 2014; March 29, 2014; March 30, 

2014; March 31, 2014; April 23, 2014; 

April 29, 2014; November 10, 2014; 

April 1, 2015; and April 2, 2015, 

because the exceedances meet the 

criteria for exceptional events caused by 

high wind natural events. We are also 

approving the revised maintenance 

plan’s 2025 transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emission budget for PM10

of 764 lbs/day. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For this reason, 

these actions: 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have federalism implications 

as specified in Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP does not apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

Country, the final rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

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 November 14, 2016. 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. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 26, 2016. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–21755 Filed 9–13–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES