[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34399-34404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13332]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO-001-0037a; FRL-6706-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Canon 
City

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 22, 1997, the Governor of the State of Colorado 
submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the purpose of 
establishing a redesignation for the Canon City, Colorado area from 
nonattainment to attainment for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 microns (PM<INF>10</INF>) 
under the 1987 standards. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division's 
(Colorado) submittal, among other things, documents that the Canon City 
area has attained the PM<INF>10</INF> national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS), requests redesignation to attainment and includes a 
maintenance plan for the area demonstrating maintenance of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS for ten years. EPA is approving the redesignation 
request and maintenance plan because the State has met the applicable 
requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Subsequent to this 
approval, the Canon City area will be designated attainment for the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. This action is being taken under sections 107, 
110, and 175A of the Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 2000, without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 29, 2000. 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: Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, 
Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, 
Colorado, 80202. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202. Copies of the 
state documents relevant to this action are available for public 
inspection at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Rosenberg, EPA, Region VIII, 
(303) 312-6436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Final Action
    What Action is EPA Taking in This Direct Final Rule?
II. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
    A. What Requirements Must Be Followed for Redesignations to 
Attainment?
    B. Does the Canon City Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan Meet the CAA Requirements?
    C. Have the Transportation Conformity Requirements Been Met?
    D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting This 
Action?
III. Background
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA's Final Action

What Action Is EPA Taking in This Direct Final Rule?

    We are approving the Governor's submittal of September 22, 1997, 
that requests a redesignation for the Canon City nonattainment area to 
attainment for the 1987 PM<INF>10</INF> standards. We are also 
approving the maintenance plan for the Canon City PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area, which was submitted with the State's September 22, 
1997 redesignation request. We are approving this request and 
maintenance plan because Colorado has adequately addressed all of the 
requirements of the Act for redesignation to attainment applicable to 
the Canon City PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. Upon the effective 
date of this action, the Canon City area's designation status under 40 
CFR part 81 will be revised to attainment.
    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 should adverse 
comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 31, 2000, without 
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by June 29, 
2000.
    If we receive such comments, then we will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We 
will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no 
such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will 
be effective on July 31, 2000, and no further action will be taken on 
the proposed rule.

II. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

A. What Requirements Must Be Followed for Redesignations to Attainment?

    In order for a nonattainment area to be redesignated to attainment, 
the following conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act must be 
met:
    (i) We must determine that the area has attained the NAAQS;
    (ii) The applicable implementation plan for the area must be fully 
approved under section 110(k) of the Act;
    (iii) We must determine that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable 
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable reductions;
    (iv) We must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
    (v) The State containing such area must meet all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

[[Page 34400]]

    Our September 4, 1992 guidance entitled ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' outlines how to assess 
the adequacy of redesignation requests against the conditions listed 
above.
    On September 22, 1997, the Governor of Colorado submitted a 
revision to the SIP for the Canon City area and a request that we 
redesignate the area to attainment for PM<INF>10</INF>. The following 
is a brief discussion of how Colorado's redesignation request and 
maintenance plan meets the requirements of the Act for redesignation of 
the Canon City area to attainment for PM<INF>10</INF>.

B. Does the Canon City Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan Meet 
the CAA Requirements?

i. Attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS
    A State must demonstrate that an area has attained the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS through submittal of ambient air quality data 
from an ambient air monitoring network representing maximum 
PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations. The data, which must be quality assured 
and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), 
must show that the average annual number of expected exceedances for 
the area is less than or equal to 1.0, pursuant to 40 CFR 50.6. In 
making this showing, three consecutive years of complete air quality 
data must be used.
    The State operates one PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring site in the Canon 
City PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. Colorado submitted ambient air 
quality data from the monitoring site which demonstrates that the area 
has attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. This air quality data was 
quality-assured and placed in AIRS. Only one exceedance of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS was measured which occurred in 1988. Since that 
time, no exceedances of the 24-hour or the annual PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS 
have been measured. Officially, the State relied on the years 1993--
1995 to show that the Canon City area had attained the PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS. The area has continued to attain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS since 
1995. We believe that Colorado has adequately demonstrated, through 
ambient air quality data, that the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS has been 
attained in the Canon City area.
ii. State Implementation Plan Approval
    Those States containing initial moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas were required to submit a SIP by November 15, 1991 
which demonstrated attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS by December 
31, 1994. To approve a redesignation request, the SIP for the area must 
be fully approved under section 110(k) and must satisfy all 
requirements that apply to that area. We approved the PM<INF>10</INF> 
SIP for Canon City on December 23, 1993 (58 FR 68036) as meeting those 
moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment plan requirements that were due 
to EPA on November 15, 1991.
iii. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Measures
    The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in 
air quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable. 
However, Canon City is a unique case in which no area-specific 
PM<INF>10</INF> control measures were needed to bring the area into 
attainment (or to ensure continued attainment), even when growth in 
emissions through 1997 was considered, because the monitored ambient 
PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations were (and still are) so far below the 
NAAQS. Colorado's September 22, 1997 submittal did cite several State-
wide regulations, including SIP-approved regulations for particulates 
(Regulation No. 1), new source review permitting (Regulation No. 3), 
and residential wood burning (Regulation No. 4), as being responsible 
for the improvement in air quality in Canon City. Thus, we believe the 
Canon City area satisfies this requirement.
iv. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A of the Act
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act requires that, for a nonattainment 
area to be redesignated to attainment, we must fully approve a 
maintenance plan which meets the requirements of section 175A of the 
Act. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the relevant 
NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after our approval of the 
redesignation. Eight years after our approval of a redesignation, the 
State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating attainment 
for the 10 years following the initial 10 year period. The maintenance 
plan must also contain a contingency plan to ensure prompt correction 
of any violation of the NAAQS. (See sections 175A(b) and (d).) Our 
September 4, 1992 guidance outlines 5 core elements that are necessary 
to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area seeking 
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Those elements, as well 
as guidelines for subsequent maintenance plan revisions, are as 
follows:
    a. Attainment Inventory. The maintenance plan should include an 
attainment emission inventory to identify the level of emissions in the 
area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. An emissions inventory 
was developed and submitted with the moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment plan for the Canon City area on April 9, 1992. As 
detailed in the TSD for EPA's December 23, 1993 approval of the 
moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment plan for Canon City, the plan 
contained a comprehensive emissions inventory for mobile source 
emissions (including re-entrained road dust), residential wood and coal 
combustion emissions, and stationary source emissions for wintertime 
emissions in the base year of 1990. The Canon City area was in 
attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in 1990, based on three 
complete years of data. Thus, we believe Colorado has prepared an 
adequate attainment inventory for the area.
    b. Maintenance Demonstration. A State may generally demonstrate 
maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a 
pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment 
inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and 
emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. Colorado chose 
the modeling approach. The maintenance demonstration for the Canon City 
area uses emissions rollback, which was the same level of modeling used 
in the original attainment demonstration for the moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Canon City. The State's rollback approach takes 
the design day PM<INF>10</INF> value for 1989/1990 of 93 <greek-m>g/
m<SUP>3</SUP>, subtracts the background concentration, and divides the 
remainder by the total design day actual emissions for 1989/1990. This 
ratio is then applied to 2015 projected emissions to calculate the 
projected concentration without background. The background value is 
then added back in to give the total 2015 projected concentration of 
141 <greek-m>/m<SUP>3</SUP>. Since this is below the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS of 150 <greek-m>/m<SUP>3</SUP>, the maintenance 
plan demonstrates maintenance. Although EPA would normally insist on 
some interim year projections between 2000 and 2015, EPA has no reason 
to believe that total emissions will be greater than the 2015 
projections in any of the interim years. The State applied simple, 
environmentally conservative, growth rates to all source categories 
other than stationary sources, and stationary sources were projected at 
allowable emissions. Thus, total emissions in all years before 2015 
should be less than 2015 total emissions.
    Since no violations of the annual PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS have ever 
occurred in Canon City and since the maintenance demonstration clearly 
shows maintenance of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in Canon City 
through the year 2015, it is reasonable and adequate to assume that 
protection of the 24-hour

[[Page 34401]]

standard will be sufficient to protect the annual standard as well. 
Thus, EPA believes the State has adequately demonstrated that the Canon 
City area will maintain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS for at least the next 
ten years.
    c. Monitoring Network. Once a nonattainment area has been 
redesignated to attainment, the State must continue to operate an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The maintenance 
plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality 
monitors that will provide such verification. Colorado operates one 
PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring site in the Canon City area. We approve this 
site annually, and any future change would require discussion with us. 
In its September 22, 1997 submittal, Colorado committed to continue to 
operate the PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring station in Canon City, in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    d. Verification of Continued Attainment. The State's maintenance 
plan submittal should indicate how the State will track the progress of 
the maintenance plan. This is necessary due to the fact that the 
emissions projections made for the maintenance demonstration depend on 
assumptions of point and area source growth. Colorado has committed in 
the Canon City maintenance plan to analyze the three most recent 
consecutive years of ambient air quality data on an annual basis to 
verify continued attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in Canon City. 
In addition, they committed to conduct periodic emission inventory 
reviews every three years to determine if any adjustments to the 
assumptions used in the maintenance demonstration need to be made. The 
first such report will be submitted to us in October 2001 for the year 
2000.
    e. Contingency Plan. Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a 
maintenance plan also include contingency provisions, as necessary, to 
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 
redesignation of the area. For the purposes of section 175A, a State is 
not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take 
effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance 
plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is an enforceable 
part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures are adopted 
expeditiously once they are triggered. The plan should discuss the 
measures to be adopted and a schedule and procedure for adoption and 
implementation. The State should also identify the specific indicators, 
or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency plan 
will be implemented.
    The Canon City contingency plan will be triggered upon our 
determination that a PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS violation has occurred in 
Canon City. The Canon City contingency plan provides that, within one 
month of our determination that a violation has occurred, Colorado and 
the Canon City and Fremont County governments and other interested 
parties will convene a contingency plan subcommittee. The subcommittee 
will identify the cause(s) of the violation within one month of 
convening. The subcommittee will then select one of the following 
potential contingency measures for the area to bring to the Colorado 
Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) for adoption: street sweeping 
requirements, road paving requirements, street sand specifications, 
woodburning curtailment, use of liquid de-icers, re-establishing 
nonattainment new source review requirements, or other measures as 
deemed appropriate. The Canon City contingency plan provides that the 
contingency measures should become effective within 10 months of our 
determination that a violation has occurred in the Canon City area. In 
a letter dated April 24, 2000, from Margie Perkins, Director, Colorado 
Air Pollution Control Division, to Richard Long, Director, EPA Region 
VIII Air and Radiation Program, Colorado commits to adopt and implement 
contingency measures for the Canon City area within one year of a 
violation of either the 24-hour or annual PM<INF>10</INF> standard. EPA 
relies on this commitment in approving the Canon City contingency plan.
    f. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions. In accordance with 
section 175A(b) of the Act, the State of Colorado is required to submit 
a revision to the maintenance plan eight years after the redesignation 
of the Canon City area to attainment for PM<INF>10</INF>. This revision 
is to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years 
following the first ten year period. The State committed in the Canon 
City redesignation request to submit a revised maintenance plan in 
2006. EPA notes that the State chose 2006 based on an assumption that 
EPA would approve the redesignation request in 1998. Because EPA is 
approving the redesignation request in 2000, the State must submit the 
revised maintenance plan in 2008. See section 175A(b) of the Act.
v. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the Act
    In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, section 
107(d)(3)(E) requires that it must have met all applicable requirements 
of section 110 and part D of the Act. We interpret this to mean that, 
for a redesignation request to be approved, the State must have met all 
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to, or at the time 
of, submitting a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of a 
redesignation request, we don't need to consider other requirements of 
the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete 
redesignation request.
    a. Section 110 Requirements. Section 110(a)(2) contains general 
requirements for nonattainment plans. For purposes of redesignation, 
the Colorado SIP was reviewed to ensure that all applicable 
requirements under the amended Act were satisfied. These requirements 
were met with the Colorado's April 9, 1992 submittal for the Canon City 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. We approved this submittal on 
December 23, 1993 (58 FR 68036).
    b. Part D Requirements. Before a PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area 
may be redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the 
applicable requirements of part D. Subpart 1 of part D establishes the 
general requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, subpart 4 
of part D establishes specific requirements applicable to 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas.
    The requirements of sections 172(c) and 189(a) regarding attainment 
of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, and the requirements of section 172(c) 
regarding reasonable further progress, imposition of RACM, the adoption 
of contingency measures, and the submission of an emission inventory, 
have been satisfied through our December 23, 1993 approval of the Canon 
City PM<INF>10</INF> SIP (58 FR 68036), our December 14, 1994 approval 
of PM<INF>10</INF> contingency measures for the area (59 FR 64332), and 
the demonstration that the area is now attaining the NAAQS.
    Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR 51.396) require that states 
adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas 
designated nonattainment or subject to an EPA-approved maintenance 
plan, we have decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an 
applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in 
EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. (See 
61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)

[[Page 34402]]

    We approved the requirements of the part D new source review permit 
program for the Canon City area on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42506). Once 
the Canon City area is redesignated to attainment, the prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of the Act will 
apply. We must ensure that the State has made any needed modifications 
to its PSD regulations so that Colorado's PSD regulations will apply in 
the Canon City area after redesignation. Colorado's PSD regulations, 
which we approved as meeting all applicable Federal requirements, apply 
to any area designated as unclassifiable or attainment and, thus, will 
become fully effective in the Canon City area upon redesignation of the 
area to attainment.

C. Have the Transportation Conformity Requirements Been Met?

    Under our transportation conformity regulations, States are to 
define the mobile vehicle emissions budget to which Federal 
transportation plans must demonstrate conformity. The emissions budget 
is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the 
attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the 
NAAQS.
    Colorado had previously adopted mobile source emissions budgets for 
the years 1994 and 1997 of 4981 lb/day and 5130 lb/day, respectively. 
In the Canon City maintenance plan, Colorado indicated that it would 
adopt a new mobile source emissions budget of 7439 lb/day for the year 
1997 and beyond. This value is equivalent to the year 2015 projected 
emissions for mobile sources. EPA believes use of this value as a 
budget for years before 2015 is acceptable because the available safety 
margin in years before 2015 is adequate to support such a budget. This 
is because pre-2015 projected emissions for source categories other 
than mobile sources are lower than 2015 projected emissions for these 
other source categories. EPA's approval of 7439 lb/day as the budget 
means that this value must be used for conformity determinations for 
all years after 1997, including 2015 (the end of the maintenance 
period) and beyond. After promulgation of approval of this 
redesignation request, the State indicated that it would revise its 
regulation entitled ``Ambient Air Standards for the State of Colorado'' 
to include this emissions budget for the years 1997 through 2015.
    On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Environmental Defense 
Fund v. the Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637, that we must 
make an affirmative determination that the submitted motor vehicle 
emission budgets contained in SIPs are adequate before they are used to 
determine the conformity of Transportation Improvement Programs or Long 
Range Transportation Plans. In response to the court decision, we are 
making most submitted SIP revisions containing a control strategy plan 
available for public comment and responding to these comments before 
announcing our adequacy determination. (We do not perform adequacy 
determinations for SIP revisions that only create new emission budgets 
for years in which an EPA-approved SIP already establishes a budget, 
because these new budgets cannot be used for conformity until they are 
approved by EPA.) We make SIP revisions available for comment by 
posting notification of their availability on our web site (currently, 
these notifications are posted at www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm). The adequacy process is discussed in greater detail in a 
May 14, 1999 memorandum from Gay MacGregor entitled ``Conformity 
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court 
Decision,'' also available on our web site (www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm).
    As noted above, the Canon City maintenance plan was submitted to 
EPA on September 22, 1997. After the court decision, EPA conducted an 
adequacy review of all SIP submissions that had been received prior to 
the decision but not yet acted on. However, EPA did not conduct an 
adequacy review of the Canon City maintenance plan, because the 
Colorado AQCC voted on April 15, 1999 to request that the Governor 
withdraw this plan. The AQCC later rescinded its request that the plan 
be withdrawn, and EPA reviewed the emission budget in this plan for 
adequacy using the criteria located at 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    This notice also serves as our determination that the emission 
budget in the maintenance plan of 7439 pounds per day of 
PM<INF>10</INF> is adequate for conformity purposes. As a result of 
this adequacy finding, the Colorado Department of Transportation and 
the Federal Highway Administration are required to use this budget in 
future conformity analyses, even if EPA withdraws this direct final 
rule. This adequacy determination will be in effect as of the 
publication date of this direct final rule, and will remain in effect 
unless and until EPA disapproves the maintenance plan. EPA will not be 
publishing a separate notice in the Federal Register documenting this 
adequacy determination.
    Notice of the availability of this SIP was posted on our adequacy 
web site on January 26, 2000, and a 30-day comment period for adequacy 
was provided following the procedures described in the May 14, 1999 Gay 
MacGregor memorandum referenced above. No comments were received. 
Interested parties can still comment on the Canon City mobile source 
emissions budget in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 
accompanies this Federal Register document. If EPA receives adverse 
comments with respect to the adequacy of the Canon City emissions 
budget or any other aspect of our approval of this SIP by the time the 
comment period closes on the proposed rule, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time.

D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting This Action?

    The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission. 
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan 
submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public 
hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that each 
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act 
must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
    We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and 
therefore warrants further review and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 
57 FR 13565, April 16, 1992). Our completeness criteria for SIP 
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. We attempt to 
make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a 
submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law 
under section 110(k)(1)(B) if a completeness determination is not made 
within six months after receipt of the submission.
    Copies of the proposed changes were made available to the public 
and the AQCC held a public hearing on October 17, 1996 to entertain 
public comment on the redesignation request and maintenance plan for 
the Canon City PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area, after providing for 
more than 30 days of

[[Page 34403]]

public notice. Colorado did not receive any adverse comments and 
therefore, the redesignation request and maintenance plan were 
subsequently adopted by the AQCC on October 17, 1996. The request was 
formally submitted to us for approval on September 22, 1997. We did not 
issue a completeness or an incompleteness finding for the September 22, 
1997 submittal. Thus, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B), the submittal 
was deemed administratively and technically complete by operation of 
law on March 22, 1997 (six months after the date of receipt). We have 
evaluated the Governor's submittal and have determined that the State 
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

III. Background

    To implement our 1987 revisions to the particulate matter NAAQS, on 
August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), we categorized areas of the nation into 
three groups based on the likelihood that protection of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS would require revisions of the existing SIP. We 
identified Canon City as a PM<INF>10</INF> ``Group I'' area of concern, 
i.e., an area with a strong likelihood of violating the PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS and requiring a substantial SIP revision. The Canon City area was 
among several Group I PM<INF>10</INF> areas, all of which were 
designated and classified as moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
areas by operation of law upon enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (November 15, 1990). See 56 FR 56694 at 56705-56706 
(November 6, 1991).
    By November 15, 1991, States containing initial moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas were required to submit most 
elements of their PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs. (See sections 172(c), 188, and 
189 of the Act.) Some provisions, such as PM<INF>10</INF> contingency 
measures required by section 172(c)(9) of the Act and nonattainment new 
source review (NSR) provisions, were due at later dates. In order for a 
nonattainment area to be redesignated to attainment, the above 
mentioned conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act must be met. We 
approved Colorado's SIP for the Canon City PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area on December 23, 1993 (58 FR 68036) and 
PM<INF>10</INF> contingency measures for the area on December 14, 1994 
(59 FR 64332).
    On September 22, 1997, the Governor of Colorado submitted a request 
to redesignate the Canon City moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment 
area to attainment for the 1987 PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS along with a 
maintenance plan for the area. Colorado's submittal was not approved at 
that time because we promulgated new standards for PM<INF>10</INF> on 
September 18, 1997 and at the time of this redesignation request, we 
were transitioning from the 1987 PM<INF>10</INF> standard to the new 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard. Areas were to be designated under the new 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard by July 2000 and for that reason we were 
encouraging areas to withdraw any redesignation requests for the pre-
existing standard. The AQCC had voted to withdraw the Canon City 
redesignation request and maintenance plan due to the fact that Canon 
City would have been designated attainment by July 2000 under the 1997 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard. (Colorado's request for withdrawal had not 
yet been officially sent to us by the Governor and so we are able to 
process the original redesignation request and maintenance plan now.) 
On May 18, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit in American Trucking Associations, Inc. et al., v. United 
States Environmental Protection Agency vacated the 1997 PM<INF>10</INF> 
standard. Because of the Court ruling, we are continuing to implement 
the pre-existing PM<INF>10</INF> standard, and are therefore approving 
redesignations to qualified PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    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. 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 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, 
this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will 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), because it 
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 (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. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
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). This rule will be effective July 31, 2000 unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by June 29, 2000.

[[Page 34404]]

    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 July 31, 2000. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control.

    Dated: May 18, 2000.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    40 CFR part 52, subpart TT of chapter I, title 40 is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart TT

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


Sec. 52.332  Moderate PM-10 nonattainment area plans.

* * * * *
    (i) On September 22, 1997, the State of Colorado submitted a 
maintenance plan for the Canon City PM10 nonattainment area and 
requested that the area be redesignated to attainment for the PM10 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An April 24, 2000 letter from 
Margie Perkins, Director, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, to 
Richard Long, Director, EPA Region VIII Air and Radiation Program, was 
sent to clarify the requirements of the contingency plan section of the 
Canon City maintenance plan. The redesignation request and maintenance 
plan satisfy all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


    2. In Sec. 81.306, the table entitled ``Colorado--PM-10'' is 
amended by revising the entry under Fremont County for ``Canon City 
Area'' to read as follows:


Sec. 81.306  Colorado.

* * * * *

                                                                     Colorado--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Designation                                               Classification
         Designated area          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date                          Type                          Date                         Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Fremont County
  Canon City Area................  July 31, 2000....................  Attainment.............
    Township 18S--Range 70W: All
     of sections 21, 22, 27, 28,
     33, and 34; the E\1/2\,
     NENW, NESW, SENW, SESW
     quarters of sections 20, 29,
     32; and the W\1/2\ of
     sections 23, 26, and 35;
     Township 19S--Range 70W: All
     of sections 3, 4, 9, 10; E\1/
     2\, NENW, NESW, SENW, SESW
     quarters of sections 5 and
     8; W\1/2\ of sections 2 and
     11.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-13332 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U