```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46521-46525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18438]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0659; FRL-9840-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 
Colorado Springs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado. 
On March 31, 2010, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted to EPA 
a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year maintenance plan 
for the Colorado Springs area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance plan 
(LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period 
beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken under 
sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 30, 2013 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 3, 2013. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0659, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: clark.adam@epa.gov Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. 
Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0659. 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

[[Page 46522]]

viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to 
Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. 
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of 
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through 
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 
8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 
312-7104, clark.adam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Colorado Springs Maintenance 
Plan
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
http://regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Background

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Colorado Springs area was 
designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate'' CO area, 
with a design value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million 
(ppm) (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On August 19, 1998, the Governor 
of Colorado submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Colorado 
Springs CO nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along 
with this request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) 
maintenance plan which demonstrated that the area would maintain the CO 
NAAQS for the first 10 years following EPA's approval of the 
redesignation request. On October 1, 1998, the Governor submitted 
revisions to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation 
No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels Program.'' EPA approved the State's 
redesignation request, the CAA section 175A(a) 10-year maintenance 
plan, and the revisions to AQCC Regulation No. 13 on August 25, 1999 
(64 FR 46279).
    On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revised 
Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan to EPA which changed the 
attainment year from 1993 to 1990, provided a revised projected 
emissions inventory out to 2010, and demonstrated maintenance of the CO 
NAAQS in the Colorado Springs area through 2010. The Governor also 
submitted a transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budget 
(MVEB) for 2010, and revisions to AQCC Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated 
Fuels Program,'' which allowed for the removal of the oxygenated fuels 
program in Colorado Springs. We approved all of these changes into the 
SIP on December 22, 2000 (65 FR 80779).
    On April 12, 2004, the Governor of Colorado submitted to us a 
revised maintenance plan which demonstrated maintenance of the CO NAAQS 
in the Colorado Springs area through 2015 and revised the 2010 
transportation conformity MVEB. The Governor also submitted revisions 
to AQCC Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection 
Program,'' which allowed for the removal of the basic inspection/
maintenance program in El Paso County, including the Colorado Springs 
area. We approved all of these changes into the SIP on September 7, 
2004 (see 69 FR 54019).
    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 Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan (hereafter, 
``revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan'') to us on March 31, 2010. 
With this action, we are approving the revised Colorado Springs 
Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended 
through 2010. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 ppm--is attained when such value is not 
exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Colorado Springs 
area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1990 to the present.\2\ In 
October 1995, EPA issued guidance that

[[Page 46523]]

provided nonclassifiable CO nonattainment areas the option of using a 
less rigorous ``limited maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate 
continued attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS.\3\ According to 
this guidance, areas that can demonstrate design values at or below 
7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance levels of the CO 8-hour NAAQS) for eight 
consecutive quarters qualify to use an LMP. For the revised Colorado 
Springs Maintenance Plan, the State used EPA's LMP option to 
demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Colorado 
Springs area through 2020. We have determined that the Colorado Springs 
area qualifies for the LMP option for this plan revision because the 
area's maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive 
quarters with certified data at the time the State adopted the plan 
(years 2007 and 2008) was 2.3 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 1-hour CO NAAQS of 35 ppm has not been exceeded in the 
Colorado Springs area since 1979.
    \3\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie, 
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air 
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995 (hereafter referred to as ``LMP 
guidance'').
    \4\ See Table 1 below. Additionally, according to the LMP 
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a 
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA 
action on the redesignation.'' Table 1, below, demonstrates that the 
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What was the State's Process?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that a state provide 
reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and 
submitting it to us.
    The AQCC held a public hearing for the revised Colorado Springs 
Maintenance Plan on December 17, 2009. The AQCC adopted the revised 
Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan directly after the hearing. The 
Governor's designee submitted the revised plan to EPA on March 31, 
2010.
    We have evaluated the SIP revision and have determined that the 
State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing 
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. On September 30, 2010, by operation 
of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the SIP revision was deemed to 
have met the minimum ``completeness'' criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of a LMP for CO: Emission 
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification 
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity 
Determinations. Below, we describe our evaluation of each of these 
elements for the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Colorado Springs CO Maintenance Plan contains an 
emission inventory for the base year 2007. The emission inventory is a 
list, by source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into 
the Colorado Springs CO maintenance area on a typical winter day in 
2007.\5\ The data in the emission inventory were developed using EPA-
approved emissions modeling methods. The State provided a more detailed 
description of the 2007 inventory in its Technical Support Document 
(TSD) and the supplemental TSD for the revised Colorado Springs 
Maintenance Plan.\6\ Included in this inventory are aircraft, 
commercial cooking, fuel combustion, highway vehicle exhaust, non-road 
mobile sources, railroads, structure fires, woodburning, and non-oil-
and-gas point sources. The revised maintenance plan and TSD contain 
detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance 
with EPA guidance and is acceptable to us.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on 
winter weekdays.
    \6\ Both the TSD and the Supplemental TSD are available in the 
docket for this action.
    \7\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, EPA, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement to be 
satisfied for areas that qualify for and are using the LMP option. As 
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option 
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive 
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). EPA maintains 
that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design value no 
greater than 7.65 ppm, the applicability of prevention of significant 
deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, 
and federal measures should provide adequate assurance of maintenance 
over the 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, EPA does not require 
areas using the LMP option to project emissions over the maintenance 
period. Because CO design values in the Colorado Springs area are 
consistently well below the LMP threshold (See Table 1 below), the 
State has adequately demonstrated that the Colorado Springs area will 
maintain the CO NAAQS into the future.

     Table 1--8-Hour CO Design Values for Colorado Springs, Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Design Value (ppm)*                          Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1..........................................................       2004
2.7..........................................................       2005
2.4..........................................................       2006
2.1..........................................................       2007
2.3..........................................................       2008
1.9..........................................................       2009
2.1..........................................................       2010
1.5..........................................................       2011
1.4..........................................................       2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Design Values were derived from the EPA AirData Web site (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/).

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan, the State commits 
to continuing operation of an air quality monitoring network in 
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify continued attainment of the CO 
NAAQS. The State also commits to conducting an annual review of the air 
quality surveillance system in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10. 
Additionally, the plan indicates that if measured mobile source 
parameters change significantly over time, the State will perform 
appropriate studies to determine whether additional and/or re-sited 
monitors are necessary. We are approving these commitments as 
satisfying the relevant requirements.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS 
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement, 
the State has indentified appropriate contingency measures along with a 
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
    As stated in the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan, the 
contingency measures will be triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS. 
No more than 60 days after notification from the Colorado Air Pollution 
Control Division (APCD) that a violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred, 
the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG), in conjunction with 
the APCD, AQCC, and local governments will initiate a process to begin 
evaluating potential contingency measures. The PPACG will present 
recommendations within 120 days of notification, and the recommended 
contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days of 
notification. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the

[[Page 46524]]

recommended contingency measures along with any other contingency 
measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address 
the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and 
implemented within one year after a violation occurs.
    The potential contingency measures that are identified in the 
revised Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan include, but are not 
limited to: (1) A basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program, as 
such program existed in AQCC Regulation Number 11 before December 18, 
2003; (2) a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program, as such program existed 
in AQCC Regulation Number 13 before February 17, 2000; (3) re-
establishing nonattainment new source review permitting for stationary 
sources; and (4) wood burning restrictions.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised 
Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the 
requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not 
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or 
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's 
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, 
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. To effectuate 
its purpose, the conformity rule requires a demonstration that 
emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor 
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP 
revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A 
MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant 
relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or 
maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance 
area.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the LMP guidance, emissions budgets generally are treated as 
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While EPA's 
LMP guidance does not exempt an area from the need to affirm 
conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity 
without submitting a MVEB. According to the LMP guidance, it is 
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth 
in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\9\ 
However, under our conformity regulations, consistency with existing 
MVEBs must be demonstrated as long as those MVEBs are within the 
timeframe of the transportation plan. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) and 
(d)(2).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ LMP Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995.
    \10\ As required by our transportation conformity adequacy 
process, we made a finding in a March 4, 2011 letter to the Colorado 
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that the revised 
Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan was adequate for transportation 
conformity purposes. This finding was based substantially on the 
fact that the Colorado Springs CO maintenance area meets the LMP 
criteria, and is therefore not required to project future emissions. 
In a Federal Register notice dated August 2, 2011, we notified the 
public of our finding that the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance 
Plan was adequate for transportation conformity purposes (see 76 FR 
46288). This adequacy determination became effective on August 17, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO maintenance plan for Colorado Springs that we approved in 
2004 (69 FR 54019) contains MVEBs applicable only through 2010. As 2010 
is no longer within the timeframe of the transportation plan, there is 
no longer a need to demonstrate conformity with the 2010 MVEB for the 
Colorado Springs CO maintenance area. For the reasons described in our 
LMP guidance, all actions that would require conformity determinations 
for the Colorado Springs CO maintenance area under our conformity rule 
provisions are considered to have already satisfied the regional 
emissions analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 
because of our approval of the Colorado Springs CO LMP.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain 
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be 
required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, 
for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still 
will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 
93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation and Transportation 
Control Measure (TCM) implementation in the conformity rule provisions 
(40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects 
in LMP areas still will be required to meet the applicable criteria for 
CO hot spot analyses to satisfy ``project level'' conformity 
determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must also 
incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available (40 
CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively).
    Our approval of the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan 
affects future CO RTP and TIP conformity determinations prepared by 
PPACG, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway 
Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan 
submitted on March 31, 2010. This maintenance plan meets the applicable 
CAA requirements, and we have determined it is sufficient to provide 
for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year 
maintenance period out to 2020.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments 
are filed. This rule will be effective September 30, 2013 without 
further notice unless we receive adverse comments by September 3, 2013. 
If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in 
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by

[[Page 46525]]

state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). 
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law 
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final 
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel 
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed 
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an 
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so 
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in 
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Clean Air Act section 
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Judith Wong,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

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 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.349  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (o) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Colorado Springs, as adopted by 
the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 17, 2009 and 
submitted by the Governor's designee on March 31, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2013-18438 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```