Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 67327 

Dated: November 4, 2013. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26878 Filed 11–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0562; FRL–9902–66– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Revised Transportation 

Conformity Consultation Process 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Colorado on May 11, 2012. The May 11, 

2012 submittal addresses updates to 

Regulation Number 10 ‘‘Criteria for 

Analysis of Conformity’’ of the Colorado 

SIP including revisions to transportation 

conformity requirements, transportation 

conformity criteria and procedures 

related to interagency consultation, and 

enforceability of certain transportation 

related control and mitigation measures. 

The submittal also removes certain 

provisions from the SIP so that federal 

rules will govern conformity of general 

federal actions. EPA is proposing 

approval of the submission in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0562, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0562. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 

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 www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, telephone 

number (303) 312–6479, fax number 

(303) 312–6064, or email russ.tim@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is the State’s process to submit SIP 

revisions to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s May 11, 

2012 Submittal 

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

(i) The word Act or initials 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 NAAQS mean 

national ambient air quality standard. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(v) The words State or Colorado mean 

the State of Colorado, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1A conformity SIP includes a state’s specific 

criteria and procedures for certain aspects of the 

transportation conformity process consistent with 

the federal conformity rule. A conformity SIP does 

not contain motor vehicle emissions budgets, 

emissions inventories, air quality demonstrations, 

or control measures. See EPA’s Guidance for 

Developing Transportation Conformity State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) for further 

background: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf. 

2 ‘‘40 CFR 93 Transportation Conformity Rule 

PM2.5 and PM10 Amendments; Final Rule’’, March 

24, 2010, 75 FR 14260. 

3 ‘‘40 CFR 93 Transportation Conformity Rule 

Restructuring Amendments; Final Rule’’, March 14, 

2012, 77 FR 14979. 

4See: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/policy/420b09001.pdf. 

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. What is the purpose of this action? 

EPA is proposing approval of 

revisions to Colorado’s Regulation 

Number 10, ‘‘Criteria for Analysis of 

Conformity,’’ (hereafter, ‘‘Regulation No. 

10’’) of the Colorado SIP that address 

transportation conformity SIP 

requirements of section 176(c) of the 

CAA and Title 40, part 51.390(b) of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Specifically, a conformity SIP must 

address the following transportation 

conformity requirements: 40 CFR 

93.105, which formalizes the 

consultation procedures; 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written 

commitments to control measures that 

are not included in a metropolitan 

planning organization’s transportation 

plan and transportation improvement 

program (TIP) that must be obtained 

prior to a conformity determination; and 

40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses 

written commitments to mitigation 

measures that must be obtained prior to 

a project-level conformity 

determination.1

EPA notes that the State submitted 

prior SIP revisions to Regulation No. 10 

by a letter dated June 18, 2009. The June 

18, 2009 SIP submittal addressed 

revisions to numerous aspects and 

sections in Regulation No. 10. Those 

prior revisions to Regulation No. 10 are 

contained in the May 11, 2012 revisions 

to Regulation No. 10. In addition to 

further clarifying transportation 

conformity consultation procedures, the 

May 11, 2012 revision responded to 

changes in federal law by removing SIP 

provisions related to general conformity. 

EPA had previously determined that 

the June 18, 2009 revisions to 

Regulation No. 10 were fully 

approvable. As EPA has determined that 

the May 11, 2012 revisions to 

Regulation No. 10 are also fully 

approvable, we are, therefore, only 

acting on the May 11, 2012 Regulation 

No. 10 revisions as they supersede and 

replace the June 18, 2009 revisions. By 

approving these May 11, 2012 revisions 

to Regulation No. 10, EPA will be 

making them part of the federally 

enforceable SIP for Colorado under the 

CAA. EPA also notes that the May 11, 

2012 SIP submission is also intended to 

revise and supersede the conformity SIP 

that was previously approved by EPA in 

2001 (66 FR 48561). 

III. What is the State’s process to 

submit SIP revisions to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

our actions on submissions of revisions 

to a SIP. The CAA requires states to 

observe certain procedural requirements 

in developing SIP revisions for 

submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA requires that each SIP revision be 

adopted after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. This must occur prior to 

the revision being submitted by a state 

to us. 

With regard to the prior June 18, 2009 

revisions to Regulation No. 10, the 

Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) held a public 

hearing for those revisions on November 

20, 2008. There were no public 

comments. The AQCC adopted the 

revisions to Regulation No. 10 directly 

after the hearing. This SIP revision 

became state effective on December 30, 

2008, and was submitted by James B. 

Martin, on behalf of the Governor, to us 

on June 18, 2009. 

For the May 11, 2012 revisions to 

Regulation No. 10, the AQCC held a 

public hearing for those revisions on 

December 15, 2011. There were no 

public comments. The AQCC adopted 

the revisions to Regulation No. 10 

directly after the hearing. This SIP 

revision became state effective on 

January 30, 2012 and was submitted by 

Christopher E. Urbina, on behalf of the 

Governor, to us on May 11, 2012. 

We have evaluated the Governor’s 

May 11, 2012 submittal for Regulation 

No. 10 and have determined that the 

State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By 

operation of law under section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor’s 

May 11, 2012 submittal was deemed 

complete on November 11, 2012. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s May 

11, 2012 Submittal 

EPA has reviewed the revisions to 

Regulation No. 10, which is Colorado’s 

Transportation Conformity Consultation 

(Conformity SIP) element of the SIP, 

that were submitted by the Governor on 

May 11, 2012 and we have found that 

our approval is warranted. We reviewed 

the State’s submittal for consistency 

with the conformity requirements in 40 

CFR 51.390(b), that establish the 

requirements for conformity 

consultation SIPs, and with the 

conformity requirements in 40 CFR 

sections 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 

93.125(c).2 3 We also consulted our 

document ‘‘Guidance for Developing 

Transportation Conformity State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs)’’, EPA– 

420–B–09–001, dated January, 2009.4

Our review and conclusions regarding 

the revisions to Regulation No. 10 are 

detailed in a memorandum in the 

docket and include the following: 

(a) Section I ‘‘Requirement to comply 

with the Federal rule’’. EPA has 

reviewed and finds satisfactory the 

revisions to section I of Regulation No. 

10. Section I states that the consultation 

procedures described in section III 

address the requirements in 40 CFR 

93.105(a) through (e), that the 

provisions in section IV address the 

requirements in 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), 

and that the provisions in section V 

address the requirements in 40 CFR 

93.125(c). 

(b) Section II ‘‘Definitions’’. EPA has 

reviewed and finds acceptable the 

revisions and clarifications that the 

State made to several definitions in 

section II of Regulation No. 10. 

(c) Section III ‘‘Interagency 

Consultation’’. For section III we note 

that 40 CFR 51.390(b) provides that each 

state is required to address three 

specific sections in EPA’s transportation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 67329 

conformity rule in 40 CFR Part 93, 

Subpart A. The relevant provisions that 

are required to be addressed are: 93.105 

(Consultation), 93.122(a)(4)(ii) 

(Procedures for determining regional 

transportation-related emissions), and 

93.125(c) (Enforceability of design 

concept and scope and project-level 

mitigation and control measures). The 

following is a summary of the key 

aspects of Regulation No. 10 to address 

the above requirements, with our 

evaluation and conclusion of each: 

(1) 40 CFR 93.105, ‘‘Consultation,’’ 

contains five subsections, (a) through 

(e). In summary, the general provisions 

of 93.105(a) state that a conformity SIP 

shall include procedures for interagency 

consultation, conflict resolution, and 

public consultation. Subsection 

93.105(b) provides general requirements 

and factors for well defined interagency 

consultation procedures in the 

implementation plan. Organizations 

such as metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO), state and local air 

quality planning agencies, and state and 

local transportation agencies with 

responsibilities for developing, 

submitting or implementing provisions 

of an implementation plan must consult 

with each other. These organizations 

must also consult with local or regional 

offices of EPA, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), and the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 

The provisions of 93.105(c) detail 

specific processes that must be 

addressed in interagency consultation 

procedures. The provisions of 93.105(d) 

require specific procedures for resolving 

conflicts, and the provisions of 

93.105(e) require specific public 

consultation procedures. 

EPA has concluded that the above 

requirements are satisfactorily 

addressed in the revisions to Regulation 

No. 10 in section III ‘‘Interagency 

Consultation’’ which includes; section 

III.A ‘‘Roles and Responsibilities for 

Transportation Conformity 

Determinations and Related SIP 

Development’’, section III.B 

‘‘Establishing a Forum for Regional 

Conformity Consultation’’, section III.C 

‘‘Topics for Consultation’’, section III.D 

‘‘Process for assuming the location and 

design concept and scope of projects 

disclosed to the MPO as required by 

paragraph (E) of this section, but whose 

sponsors have not yet decided these 

features in sufficient detail to perform 

the regional emissions analysis 

according to the requirements of 40 CFR 

93.122’’, section III.E ‘‘Process to ensure 

that plans for construction of regionally 

significant projects which are not 

FHWA/FTA projects (including projects 

for which alternative locations, design 

concept and scope, or the no-build 

options are still being considered), 

including those by recipients of funds 

designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the 

Federal Transit Act, are disclosed on a 

regular basis, and to ensure that any 

changes to those plans are immediately 

disclosed’’, section III.F ‘‘Consultation 

procedures for development of State 

Implementation Plans’’, section III.G 

‘‘Agreements further describing 

consultation procedures’’, and section 

III.H ‘‘Review of Conformity 

Determinations by the public, Air 

Quality Control Commission, and 

resolution of conflicts’’. 

(2) 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) requires 

enforceable written commitments for 

emission reduction credits. Emissions 

reduction credits from any control 

measures that are not included in the 

transportation plan and TIP, and do not 

require a regulatory action in order to be 

implemented, may not be included in 

the emissions analysis unless the 

conformity determination includes 

written commitments for 

implementation from the appropriate 

entities. EPA has concluded that this 

requirement is satisfactorily addressed 

in section IV ‘‘Emission reduction credit 

for certain control measures’’ of 

Regulation No. 10. 

(3) 40 CFR 93.125(c) addresses the 

enforceability of design concept and 

scope and project-level mitigation and 

control measures. Before a conformity 

determination is made, written 

commitments must be obtained for any 

project-level mitigation or control 

measures. EPA has concluded that this 

requirement is satisfactorily addressed 

in section V ‘‘Enforceability of design 

concept and scope and project-level 

mitigation and control measures’’ of 

Regulation No. 10. 

(d) Section VI ‘‘Statements of Basis, 

Specific Statutory Authority, and 

Purpose’’. EPA notes this section VI in 

the State’s regulation merely provides 

information for the State regarding the 

SIP revision and is not necessary for an 

approvable Transportation Conformity 

Consultation SIP element revision 

whose purpose is to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 

176(c)(4)(E) and 40 CFR 51.390. 

Therefore, EPA is not taking any action 

on this section. 

(e) The May 11, 2012 revision 

removes former Part A, ‘‘Determining 

Conformity of General Federal Actions 

to State or Federal Implementation 

Plans,’’ from the SIP. After amendments 

to 40 CFR 51.851 that EPA promulgated 

on April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254), 

provisions governing general conformity 

are now an optional component of a SIP. 

The State’s removal of Part A is thus 

consistent with the 2010 amendments. 

With the removal of Part A from the SIP, 

the federal rules in Subpart B of 40 CFR 

Part 93 will directly govern conformity 

of general federal actions. 

V. Consideration of Section 110(1) of 

the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(1) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. EPA has 

concluded that the above-described 

revisions to Regulation No. 10 will not 

interfere with attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of the May 

11, 2012 SIP revision that was 

submitted by Christopher E. Urbina, 

Executive Director of the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment, and on behalf of the 

Governor of the State of Colorado. The 

May 11, 2012 revision updates sections 

I, II, III, IV, V of Regulation Number 10 

‘‘Criteria for Analysis of Conformity’’ of 

the Colorado SIP so as to meet the 

federal transportation conformity 

consultation requirements under section 

176 of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.390(b), 

40 CFR 93.105(a) through (e), 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c). 

EPA also proposes to approve the 

removal of former Part A, ‘‘Determining 

Conformity of General Federal Actions 

to State or Federal Implementation 

Plans,’’ from the SIP. EPA notes that 

revisions were also made to Colorado’s 

Regulation Number 10, section VI 

‘‘Statements of Basis, Specific Statutory 

Authority, and Purpose’’; however, EPA 

is not taking any action on the revisions 

to this section. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

67330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• 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); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: October 28, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27030 Filed 11–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS