Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34399

Developed, Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit

Act. Only certain sections of the

submittal are approved.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Ohio Administrative Code:

amended rules, OAC 3745–101–02,

OAC 3745–101–03 (A), (B), (C), (D), (G),

(H), (I), (J), (K), (L), except (E) and (F),

OAC 3745–101–05, OAC 3745–101–06,

OAC 3745–101–07 (A), (B), (C) except

for (C)(1)(a) and (C)(2)(a), (D), (E), (F),

(G), (H), (I), (J), OAC 3745–101–08, OAC

3745–101–09, OAC 3745–101–10, OAC

3745–101–11, OAC 3745–101–12 except

for (A)(2), OAC 3745–101–13 except

(A)(1), OAC 3745–101–14, OAC 3745–

101–15, OAC 3745–101–17, OAC 3745–

101–18, OAC 3745–101–19, effective on

February 16, 1999.

(B) No action is being taken on: OAC

3745–101–04.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–13334 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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 (PM10) 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 PM10

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS), requests redesignation to

attainment and includes a maintenance

plan for the area demonstrating

maintenance of the PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 standards. We are also

approving the maintenance plan for the

Canon City PM10 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 PM10 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.

34400 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 PM10. 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 PM10.

B. Does the Canon City Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan Meet the

CAA Requirements?

i. Attainment of the PM10 NAAQS

A State must demonstrate that an area

has attained the PM10 NAAQS through

submittal of ambient air quality data

from an ambient air monitoring network

representing maximum PM10

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 PM10

monitoring site in the Canon City PM10

nonattainment area. Colorado submitted

ambient air quality data from the

monitoring site which demonstrates that

the area has attained the PM10 NAAQS.

This air quality data was quality-assured

and placed in AIRS. Only one

exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS

was measured which occurred in 1988.

Since that time, no exceedances of the

24-hour or the annual PM10 NAAQS

have been measured. Officially, the

State relied on the years 1993—1995 to

show that the Canon City area had

attained the PM10 NAAQS. The area has

continued to attain the PM10 NAAQS

since 1995. We believe that Colorado

has adequately demonstrated, through

ambient air quality data, that the PM10

NAAQS has been attained in the Canon

City area.

ii. State Implementation Plan Approval

Those States containing initial

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

were required to submit a SIP by

November 15, 1991 which demonstrated

attainment of the PM10 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 PM10 SIP for Canon City

on December 23, 1993 (58 FR 68036) as

meeting those moderate PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10

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

PM10 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 PM10 SIP for Canon City.

The State’s rollback approach takes the

design day PM10 value for 1989/1990 of

93 μg/m3, 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 μ/m3. Since this is

below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150

μ/m3, 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

PM10 NAAQS have ever occurred in

Canon City and since the maintenance

demonstration clearly shows

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS in Canon City through the year

2015, it is reasonable and adequate to

assume that protection of the 24-hour

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10. 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 PM10

nonattainment area. We approved this

submittal on December 23, 1993 (58 FR

68036).

b. Part D Requirements. Before a PM10

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 PM10 nonattainment areas.

The requirements of sections 172(c)

and 189(a) regarding attainment of the

PM10 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 PM10 SIP (58 FR 68036), our

December 14, 1994 approval of PM10

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 EPAapproved 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.)

34402 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 PM10 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

PM10 nonattainment area, after

providing for more than 30 days of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 PM10 NAAQS would

require revisions of the existing SIP. We

identified Canon City as a PM10 ‘‘Group

I’’ area of concern, i.e., an area with a

strong likelihood of violating the PM10

NAAQS and requiring a substantial SIP

revision. The Canon City area was

among several Group I PM10 areas, all of

which were designated and classified as

moderate PM10 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 PM10

nonattainment areas were required to

submit most elements of their PM10

SIPs. (See sections 172(c), 188, and 189

of the Act.) Some provisions, such as

PM10 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 PM10 nonattainment area on

December 23, 1993 (58 FR 68036) and

PM10 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

PM10 nonattainment area to attainment

for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS along with a

maintenance plan for the area.

Colorado’s submittal was not approved

at that time because we promulgated

new standards for PM10 on September

18, 1997 and at the time of this

redesignation request, we were

transitioning from the 1987 PM10

standard to the new PM10 standard.

Areas were to be designated under the

new PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 standard.

Because of the Court ruling, we are

continuing to implement the preexisting PM10 standard, and are

therefore approving redesignations to

qualified PM10 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 preexisting 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.

34404 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 81.306 Colorado.

* * * * *

COLORADO—PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

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 E1⁄2, NENW,

NESW, SENW, SESW quarters of sections

20, 29, 32; and the W1⁄2 of sections 23, 26,

and 35; Township 19S—Range 70W: All of

sections 3, 4, 9, 10; E1⁄2, NENW, NESW,

SENW, SESW quarters of sections 5 and 8;

W1⁄2 of sections 2 and 11.

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–13332 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL–6705–4]

Removal of the Maximum Contaminant

Level Goal for Chloroform From the

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is removing the zero

MCLG for chloroform from its National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(NPDWRs) in accordance with a recent

order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is

May 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

and earlier rulemakings concerning the

NPDWRs for disinfectants and

disinfection byproducts (D/DBPs),

including the proposal, public

comments in response to the proposal,

other major supporting documents, and

the index to the docket are available in

the Water Docket, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,

East Tower Basement, Washington, DC

20460. For information on how to access

docket materials, please call the docket

at (202) 260–3027 between 9 a.m. and

3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time,

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries, contact Jennifer

McLain at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607),

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)

260–0431. For general questions, please

contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline,

(800) 426–4791, Monday through Friday

from 9 a.m. to 5:30 Eastern Standard

Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

In December, 1998 EPA promulgated

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWRs) for disinfectants

and disinfection byproducts (D/DBPs)