56164 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

environmental impacts. Examples 

include but are not limited to: 

(i) Decommissioning a road that is no 

longer a National Forest System Road to 

a more natural state by restoring natural 

contours and removing construction 

fills, loosening compacted soils, 

revegetating the roadbed and removing 

ditches and culverts to reestablish 

natural drainage patterns; (ii) Restoring 

an unauthorized trail to a natural state 

by reestablishing natural drainage 

patterns, stabilizing slopes, 

reestablishing vegetation, and installing 

water bars; and 

(ii) Installing boulders, logs, and 

berms on an unauthorized road segment 

to promote naturally regenerated grass, 

shrub, and tree growth. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 30, 2013. 

Robert Bonnie, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and 

Environment. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22151 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0708; FRL–9900–86– 

Region8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Fort 

Collins 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

May 25, 2011, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted to EPA a 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) 

second 10-year maintenance plan for the 

Fort Collins area for the carbon 

monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

limited maintenance plan (LMP) 

addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for a second 10-year period 

beyond the original redesignation. This 

action is being taken under sections 110 

and 175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 12, 2013 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by October 15, 2013. If 

adverse comment is received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0708, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

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

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0708. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA Region 

8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the state’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised Fort 

Collins CO Maintenance Plan 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words Colorado and State 

mean the State of Colorado. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http://

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 56165 

1The oxygenated fuels and motor vehicle 

inspection programs were discontinued effective 

January 1, 2004. 

2 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

described in CAA section 175A(a) was required to 

extend for at least 10 years after the redesignation 

to attainment, which was effective on September 

22, 2003. See 68 FR 43316. So the first maintenance 

plan was required to show maintenance at least 

through 2013. CAA section 175A(b) requires that 

the second 10-year maintenance plan maintain the 

NAAQS for ‘‘10 years after the expiration of the 10- 

year period referred to in [section 175A(a)].’’ Thus, 

for the Fort Collins area, the second 10-year period 

ends in 2023. 

3The Fort Collins area has never exceeded the 1- 

hour CO standard of 35 ppm. 

4Memorandum ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan 

Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas’’ from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, EPA 

Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air 

Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995 (hereafter referred 

to as ‘‘LMP Guidance’’). 

5See Table 1 below. Additionally, according to 

the LMP guidance, an area using the LMP option 

must continue to have a design value ‘‘at or below 

7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA action on the 

redesignation.’’ Table 1, below, demonstrates that 

the area meets this requirement. 

6 Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to 

occur on winter weekdays. 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

the Fort Collins area was designated as 

nonattainment and classified as a 

‘‘moderate’’ CO area, with a design 

value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts 

per million (ppm) (56 FR 56694, 

November 6, 1991). On August 9, 2002, 

the Governor of Colorado submitted to 

EPA a request to redesignate the Fort 

Collins CO nonattainment area to 

attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along 

with this request, the Governor 

submitted a CAA section 175A(a) 

maintenance plan which established an 

attainment year of 1992, and 

demonstrated that the area would 

maintain the CO NAAQS through 2015. 

The State also submitted revisions to 

Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 11, 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection 

Program,’’ and AQCC Regulation No. 13, 

‘‘Oxygenated Fuels Program,’’ which 

removed as federally-enforceable SIP 

control measures both the inspection/

maintenance and oxygenated fuels 

programs in Fort Collins.1 EPA 

approved the State’s redesignation 

request, CAA section 175A(a) 

maintenance plan, base year emissions 

inventory, and revisions to AQCC 

Regulations No. 11 and 13 on July 22, 

2003 (68 FR 43316). 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA 

Section 175A(b) requires the state to 

submit a subsequent maintenance plan 

to EPA, covering a second 10-year 

period.2 This second 10-year 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued maintenance of the 

applicable NAAQS during this second 

10-year period. To fulfill this 

requirement of the Act, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted the 

second 10-year Fort Collins CO 

maintenance plan (hereafter, ‘‘revised 

Fort Collins Maintenance Plan’’) to us 

on May 25, 2011. With this action, we 

are approving the revised Fort Collins 

Maintenance Plan. 

The 8-hour CO NAAQS—9.0 ppm—is 

attained when such value is not 

exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 

50.8(a)(1). The Fort Collins area has 

attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 

1992 to the present.3 In October 1995, 

EPA issued guidance that provided 

nonclassifiable CO nonattainment areas 

the option of using a less rigorous 

‘‘limited maintenance plan’’ (LMP) 

option to demonstrate continued 

attainment and maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS.4 According to this guidance, 

areas that can demonstrate design 

values at or below 7.65 ppm (85% of 

exceedance levels of the CO 8-hour 

NAAQS) for eight consecutive quarters 

qualify to use a LMP. For the revised 

Fort Collins Maintenance Plan, on 

which we are finalizing action, the State 

used the LMP option to demonstrate 

continued maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS in the Fort Collins area through 

2023. We have determined that the Fort 

Collins area qualifies for the LMP option 

for this plan revision, since the area’s 

maximum design value for the most 

recent eight consecutive quarters with 

certified data at the time the State 

adopted the plan (years 2008 and 2009) 

was 3.0 ppm.5

III. What was the state’s process? 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that a state provide reasonable notice 

and public hearing before adopting a 

SIP revision and submitting it to us. 

The Colorado AQCC held a public 

hearing for the revised Fort Collins 

Maintenance Plan on December 16, 

2010. The AQCC adopted the revised 

Fort Collins Maintenance Plan directly 

after the hearing. The Governor’s 

designee submitted the revised plan to 

EPA on May 25, 2011. 

We have evaluated the SIP revision 

and have determined that the State met 

the requirements for reasonable notice 

and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. On November 25, 

2011, by operation of law under CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(B), the SIP revision 

was deemed to have met the minimum 

‘‘completeness’’ criteria found in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Fort Collins Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

an LMP for CO: Emission Inventory, 

Maintenance Demonstration, 

Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment, Contingency 

Plan, and Conformity Determinations. 

Below, we describe our evaluation of 

each of these elements as it pertains to 

the revised Fort Collins Maintenance 

Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Fort Collins Maintenance 

Plan contains an emissions inventory 

for the base year 2008. The emission 

inventory is a list, by source category, of 

the air contaminants directly emitted 

into the Fort Collins CO maintenance 

area on a typical winter day in 2008.6

The data in the emission inventory were 

developed using EPA-approved 

emissions modeling methods. A more 

detailed description of the 2008 

inventory is documented in the Fort 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56166 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7The TSD for the revised Fort Collins 

Maintenance Plan can be found in the docket for 

this action. 

8See ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, EPA, September 4, 1992. 

9A State-only enhanced inspection and 

maintenance program is already required for the 

Fort Collins area as part of the State’s ‘‘Ozone 

Action Plan.’’ However, this existing program is not 

federally enforceable, and could be discontinued by 

the State without regard to the Fort Collins CO 

maintenance plan. 

10Further information concerning EPA’s 

interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in 

the preamble to EPA’s November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193– 

62196). 

11LMP Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995. 

Collins CO maintenance plan Technical 

Support Document (TSD).7 Included in 

this inventory are commercial cooking, 

fuel combustion, highway vehicle 

exhaust, non-road mobile sources, 

railroads, structure fires, woodburning, 

point sources, and emissions from a 

heliport. The revised maintenance plan 

and TSD contain detailed emission 

inventory information that was prepared 

in accordance with EPA guidance, and 

is acceptable to us.8

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

EPA considers the maintenance 

demonstration requirement to be 

satisfied for areas that qualify for and 

are using the LMP option. As mentioned 

above, a maintenance area is qualified to 

use the LMP option if that area’s 

maximum 8-hour CO design value for 

eight consecutive quarters does not 

exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO 

NAAQS). EPA maintains that if an area 

begins the maintenance period with a 

design value no greater than 7.65 ppm, 

the applicability of prevention of 

significant deterioration requirements, 

the control measures already in the SIP, 

and federal measures should provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

Therefore, EPA does not require areas 

using the LMP option to project 

emissions over the maintenance period. 

Because CO design values in the Fort 

Collins area are consistently well below 

the LMP threshold (See Table 1 below), 

the State has adequately demonstrated 

that the Fort Collins area will maintain 

the CO NAAQS into the future. 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR CO DESIGN VALUES FOR FORT COLLINS, COLORADO

Design value (ppm) * Year 

3.1 ......................................... 2004 

2.4 ......................................... 2005 

2.7 ......................................... 2006 

2.4 ......................................... 2007 

3.0 ......................................... 2008 

1.8 ......................................... 2009 

1.7 ......................................... 2010 

1.3 ......................................... 2011 

1.7 ......................................... 2012 

* Design Values were derived from the EPA 

AirData Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ 

airdata/). 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Fort Collins 

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

continuing operation of an air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR Part 58 to verify continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS. The State 

also commits to conducting an annual 

review of the air quality surveillance 

system in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10. Additionally, the plan indicates 

that if measured mobile source 

parameters change significantly over 

time, the State will perform appropriate 

studies to determine whether additional 

and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. 

We are approving these commitments as 

satisfying the relevant requirements. 

D. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of an area. To 

meet this requirement, the State has 

indentified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

As stated in the revised Fort Collins 

Maintenance Plan, the contingency 

measures will be triggered by a violation 

of the CO NAAQS. No more than 60 

days after notification from the Colorado 

Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) 

that a violation of the CO NAAQS has 

occurred, the North Front Range 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(NFRMPO), in conjunction with the 

APCD, AQCC, and local governments, 

will initiate a subcommittee process to 

begin evaluating potential contingency 

measures. The subcommittee will 

present recommendations within 120 

days of notification, and the 

recommended contingency measures 

will be presented to the AQCC within 

180 days of notification. The AQCC will 

then hold a public hearing to consider 

the contingency measures 

recommended by the subcommittee 

along with any other contingency 

measures the AQCC believes may be 

appropriate to effectively address the 

violation. The necessary contingency 

measures will be adopted and 

implemented within one year after a 

violation occurs. 

The potential contingency measures 

that are identified in the revised Fort 

Collins maintenance plan include, but 

are not limited to: (1) A federally 

enforceable enhanced vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program; 9

(2) a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program, 

as set forth in AQCC Regulation Number 

13 as of September 2009; (3) reestablishing nonattainment new source 

review permitting for stationary sources; 

and (4) wood burning restrictions. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised Fort 

Collins Maintenance Plan are sufficient 

and meet the requirements of section 

175A(d) of the CAA. 

E. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 

176(c)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at 

40 CFR part 93 requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to SIPs and establish 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they 

conform. To effectuate its purpose, the 

conformity rule requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 

the Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) are consistent with the 

motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) 

contained in the control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance area.10

Under the LMP guidance, emissions 

budgets generally are treated as not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period. While EPA’s LMP 

guidance does not exempt an area from 

the need to affirm conformity, it 

explains that the area may demonstrate 

conformity without submitting a MVEB. 

According to the LMP guidance, it is 

unreasonable to expect that a LMP area 

will experience so much growth in that 

period that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS would result.11 However, the 

CO maintenance plan for Fort Collins 

that we approved in 2003 (68 FR 43316) 

contains MVEBs for 2010 through 2014 

(98 tons per day of CO), and for 2015 (94 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 56167 

12As required by our transportation conformity 

adequacy process, we made a finding in an August 

9, 2011 letter to the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE) that the revised 

Fort Collins Maintenance Plan was adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. This finding 

was based substantially on the fact that the Fort 

Collins CO maintenance area meets the LMP 

criteria, and is therefore not required to project 

future emissions. In a Federal Register notice dated 

May 25, 2012, we notified the public of our finding 

that the revised Fort Collins Maintenance Plan was 

adequate for transportation conformity purposes 

(see 77 FR 31351). This adequacy determination 

became effective on June 11, 2012. 

tons per day of CO), and the State did 

not revise or remove these MVEBs from 

the SIP. Under our conformity 

regulations, consistency with those 

MVEBs must continue to be 

demonstrated as long as such years are 

within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan. See 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(2)(i) and (d)(2).12

When those years are no longer 

within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan, there will no longer 

be a need to demonstrate conformity 

with any MVEB for the Fort Collins CO 

maintenance area, for the reasons 

described in our LMP guidance. From 

that point forward, all actions that 

require conformity determinations for 

the Fort Collins CO maintenance area 

under our conformity rule provisions 

will be considered to have already 

satisfied the regional emissions analysis 

and ‘‘budget test’’ requirements in 40 

CFR 93.118 because of our approval of 

the Fort Collins CO LMP. 

However, since LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, certain aspects of 

transportation conformity 

determinations still will be required for 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects 

still will have to demonstrate that they 

are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) 

and meet the criteria for consultation 

and Transportation Control Measure 

(TCM) implementation in the 

conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 

93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, 

respectively). In addition, projects in 

LMP areas still will be required to meet 

the applicable criteria for CO hot spot 

analyses to satisfy ‘‘project level’’ 

conformity determinations (40 CFR 

93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must 

also incorporate the latest planning 

assumptions and models available (40 

CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, 

respectively). 

Our approval of the revised Fort 

Collins Maintenance Plan affects future 

CO RTP and TIP conformity 

determinations prepared by NFRMPO, 

the Colorado Department of 

Transportation, the Federal Highway 

Administration, and the Federal Transit 

Administration. 

V. Final Action 

We are approving the revised Fort 

Collins Maintenance Plan submitted on 

May 25, 2011. This maintenance plan 

meets the applicable CAA requirements, 

and we have determined it is sufficient 

to provide for maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS over the course of the second 

10-year maintenance period out to 2023. 

We are publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register publication, 

we are publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal to 

approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective November 12, 2013 without 

further notice unless we receive adverse 

comments by October 15, 2013. If we 

receive adverse comments, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. We will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq, as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
56168 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 12, 

2013. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See CAA section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 26, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.349 is amended by 

adding paragraph (q) to read as follows: 

§ 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide. 

* * * * * 

(q) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Fort 

Collins, as adopted by the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission on 

December 16, 2010 and submitted by 

the Governor’s designee on May 25, 

2011. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21987 Filed 9–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0386; FRL–9900–71- 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; West Virginia’s Redesignation 

for the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Associated 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a 

redesignation request and State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of West Virginia. 

The West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) 

requested that the West Virginia portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area (‘‘ParkersburgMarietta Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) be 

redesignated as attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). In this 

rulemaking action, EPA is approving the 

1997 annual PM2.5 redesignation request 

for the West Virginia portion of the 

Area. EPA is also approving the 

maintenance plan SIP revision that the 

State submitted in conjunction with its 

redesignation request. The maintenance 

plan provides for continued attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 

years after redesignation of the West 

Virginia portion of the Area. The 

maintenance plan includes an 

insignificance determination for the 

onroad motor vehicle contribution of 

PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) for the West Virginia 

portion of the Area for purposes of 

transportation conformity. EPA is also 

approving West Virginia’s insignificance 

determination for transportation 

conformity. In addition, EPA is also 

finding that the Area continues to attain 

the standard. This rulemaking action 

approving the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS redesignation request, 

maintenance plan, and insignificance 

determination for transportation 

conformity for the West Virginia portion 

of the Area is based on EPA’s 

determination that the Area has met the 

criteria for redesignation to attainment 

specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0386. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Parkersburg-Marietta Area is 

composed of Wood County and a 

portion of Pleasants County in West 

Virginia (West Virginia portion of the 

Area) and Washington County in Ohio. 

On December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73560), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West 

Virginia. Pursuant to sections 

107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the CAA, EPA 

proposed approval of West Virginia’s 

redesignation request, a SIP revision 

that establishes a maintenance plan for 

the West Virginia portion of the Area 

that provides for continued attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for at 

least 10 years after redesignation, and 

the insignificance determination for 

transportation conformity for the West 

Virginia portion of the Area. The formal 

SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP 

on March 5, 2012. In a separate action, 

EPA approved the base year emissions 

inventory on December 12, 2012 (77 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES