```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57496-57500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22733]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0475; FRL-9901-06-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for Aspen

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 May 25, 2011, 
the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted to EPA a revised 
maintenance plan for the Aspen 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 December 16, 2010. 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 approving the revised 
maintenance plan's 2023 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 November 18, 2013 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 21, 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-2012-0475, 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-
2012-0475. 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://

[[Page 57497]]

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 CDPHE mean or refer to the Colorado Department of 
Public Health and Environment.
    (vii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (viii) The initials MVEB mean or refer to motor vehicle emissions 
budget.
    (ix) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard.
    (x) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse 
particulate matter).
    (xi) The initials RTP mean or refer to the Regional Transportation 
Plan.
    (xii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xiii) The initials TIP mean or refer to the Transportation 
Improvement Program.
    (xiv) The initials TSD mean or refer to technical support document.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Aspen 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 Aspen 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 fully approved Colorado's nonattainment area SIP for the Aspen area 
on September 14, 1994 (59 FR 47088).
    On November 9, 2001, the Governor of Colorado submitted a request 
to EPA to redesignate the Aspen 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 Aspen maintenance plan and redesignation 
to attainment on May 15, 2003 (68 FR 26212).
    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 25, 2011 (hereafter; ``revised Aspen PM10 
Maintenance Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 July 
14, 2003. See 68 FR 26212. So the first maintenance plan was 
required to show maintenance at least through 2013. 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 Aspen area, the 
second 10-year period ends 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ([mu]g/m\3\). 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

[[Page 57498]]

40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the 
level of the 24-hour standard, 150 [micro]g/m\3\, after rounding to 
the nearest 10 [micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in five or greater 
are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [micro]g/m\3\ 
would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 
[micro]g/m\3\; whereas, a recorded value of 155 [micro]g/m\3\ would 
be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 [micro]g/m\3\. See 
40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 below shows the maximum monitored 24-hour PM10 
values for the Aspen PM10 maintenance area for 2004 through 
2012. The table reflects that the values for the Aspen area are well 
below the PM10 NAAQS standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.

 Table 1--Aspen PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Values Based on Data From 120 Mill
              Street, AQS Identification Number 08-097-0006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Maximum value
                         Year                             ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004..................................................                65
2005..................................................                51
2006..................................................                57
2007..................................................                79
2008..................................................                65
2009..................................................                47
2010..................................................                70
2011..................................................                51
2012..................................................                87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 below shows the estimated number of exceedances for the 
Aspen 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--Aspen PM10 Estimated Exceedances Based on Data From 120 Mill
              Street, AQS Identification Number 08-097-0006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        3-Year estimated
                  Design value period                       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 Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan on 
December 16, 2010. The AQCC approved and adopted the revised Aspen 
PM10 Maintenance Plan directly after the hearing. The 
Governor's designee submitted the revised plan to EPA on May 25, 2011.
    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 25, 
2011, 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 Aspen 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 Motor Vehicle Emission Budget for PM10. Below, we 
describe our evaluation of these elements as they pertain to the 
revised Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan includes three 
inventories of daily PM10 emissions for the Aspen area; they 
are for 2008, 2015 and 2023. The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) 
developed these emission inventories using EPA-approved 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 Aspen PM10 
maintenance area. A more detailed description of the 2008, 2015 and 
2023 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 highway vehicle exhaust, road dust, commercial cooking, 
construction, fuel combustion, non-road sources, structure fires, and 
woodburning. We find that Colorado has prepared adequate emission 
inventories for the area.

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The revised Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan uses emission 
roll-forward modeling to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS through 2023. Using the 2008 and 2023 emissions 
inventories, the State first determined the projected growth in 
PM10 emissions from the 2008 base year to the 2023 
maintenance year. The State estimated that emissions would increase 
from 1,231.2 pounds per day in 2008 to 1,593.0 pounds per day in 2023. 
This represents an increase of 29.4 percent.
    The State then applied this percentage increase to the design day 
concentration of 79 [mu]g/m\3\, which was the highest 24-hour maximum 
PM10 value recorded in Aspen from 2006-2008. This resulted 
in an estimated maximum 24-hour PM10 concentration in 2023 
of 102.2 [mu]g/m\3\. This is well below the 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Aspen 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 Aspen 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 
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 Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan, 
exceedances trigger one level of response and violations trigger 
another. If there is an exceedance, APCD and local government staff 
will develop appropriate contingency measures 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 data, 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 Aspen 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

[[Page 57499]]

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.
    The State indentifies the following as potential contingency 
measures in the revised Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan: (1) 
Increased street sweeping requirements; (2) more stringent street sand 
specifications; (3) reduce the use of street sanding materials only to 
key areas selected by the City of Aspen for safety reasons; (4) re-
implementing the following measures that were removed from the 
federally-approved plan prior to the approval of the first maintenance 
plan (but only if they are not being implemented at the time the 
contingency measures are triggered): Expansion of the bus fleet by 14 
buses, establishment of 400 Park 'n Ride lot spaces and a 250-space 
intercept parking lot, and establishment of intercept lot and cross-
town shuttle services; (5) transportation control measures designed to 
reduce vehicle miles traveled; 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 Aspen 
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 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). 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 Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan contains a 
single MVEB of 1,146 lbs/day of PM10 for the year 2023, the 
maintenance year. Once the State submitted the revised plan with the 
2023 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 2011, EPA announced the availability of the revised 
Aspen 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 
July 20, 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#aspen.
    By letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
Environment (CDPHE) dated August 11, 2011, EPA found that the revised 
Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan and the 2023 PM10 
MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity purposes.\4\ However, 
we noted in our letter that the revised Aspen PM10 
Maintenance Plan did not discuss the PM10 MVEB for 2015 of 
16,244 lbs/day from the original PM10 maintenance plan that 
EPA approved in 2003 (see 68 FR 26212, May 15, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In a Federal Register notice dated May 25, 2012, we notified 
the public of our finding (see 77 FR 31351). This adequacy 
determination became effective on June 11, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the EPA-approved 2015 
PM10 MVEB must continue to be used for analysis years 2015 
through 2022 (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 Aspen 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 2023 
and 2015 budgets--1,146 lbs/day versus 16, 244 lbs/day. This is largely 
an artifact of changes in the methods, models, and emission factors 
used to estimate mobile source emissions. The 2023 MVEB is consistent 
with the State's 2023 emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust and road 
dust, and, thus, is consistent with the State's maintenance 
demonstration for 2023.
    The discrepancy between the 2015 and 2023 MVEBs is not a 
significant issue for several reasons. As a practical matter, the 2023 
MVEB of 1,146 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 2023 
MVEB. Also, for any maintenance plan, like the revised Aspen 
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 2023, the 2023 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 2023 PM10 MVEB of 1,146 
lbs/day.

[[Page 57500]]

V. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Aspen PM10 Maintenance Plan 
that was submitted to us on May 25, 2011. We are approving the revised 
maintenance plan because it demonstrates maintenance through 2023 as 
required by CAA section 175A(b), retains the control measures from the 
initial PM10 maintenance plan that EPA approved in May of 
2003, and meets other CAA requirements for a section 175A maintenance 
plan. Our approval includes approval of the revised maintenance plan's 
2023 transportation conformity MVEB for PM10 of 1,146 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 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. section 801 et seq, as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 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 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: August 28, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (r) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.332  Control strategy: Particulate Matter.

* * * * *
    (r) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, 
PM10 Revised Maintenance Plan for Aspen, as adopted by the 
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 16, 2010, State 
effective on March 1, 2011, and submitted by the Governor's designee on 
May 25, 2011. The revised maintenance plan satisfies all applicable 
requirements of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 2013-22733 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```