Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46521 

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 action 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 Act, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 2, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(127) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(127) On April 23, 2008 and March 

25, 2013, the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources submitted a request 

to revise Wisconsin’s air permitting 

program to exempt certain small sources 

of air pollution from construction 

permitting requirements. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 406.02 Definitions. NR 406.02(1) 

‘‘Clean fuel’’, and NR 406.02(1m) 

‘‘Facility’’, as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register May 

2007, No. 617, effective June 01, 2007. 

(B) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 406.04 Direct sources exempt from 

construction permit requirements. NR 

406.04(1)(zh), NR 406.04(1q), NR 

406.04(4)(h), NR 406.04(4)(i), and NR 

406.04(4)(j), as published in the 

Wisconsin Administrative Register May 

2007, No. 617, effective June 01, 2007. 

(C) Wisconsin Administrative Code, 

NR 410.03 Application fee. NR 

410.03(1)(d), and NR 410.03(1)(f), as 

published in the Wisconsin 

Administrative Register May 2007, No. 

617, effective June 1, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18417 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0659; FRL–9840–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second 10-Year Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Colorado Springs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

March 31, 2010, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted to EPA a 

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

second 10-year maintenance plan for the 

Colorado Springs area for the carbon 

monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

limited maintenance plan (LMP) 

addresses maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS for a second 10-year period 

beyond the original redesignation. This 

action is being taken under sections 110 

and 175A of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 30, 2013 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by September 3, 2013. If 

adverse comment is received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0659, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

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

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0659. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

46522 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In this case, the initial maintenance period 

extended through 2010. Thus, the second 10-year 

period extends through 2020. 2The 1-hour CO NAAQS of 35 ppm has not been 

exceeded in the Colorado Springs area since 1979. 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 

8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the State’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised Colorado 

Springs Maintenance Plan 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words Colorado and State 

mean the State of Colorado. 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

the Colorado Springs area was 

designated as nonattainment and 

classified as a ‘‘moderate’’ CO area, with 

a design value of less than or equal to 

12.7 parts per million (ppm) (56 FR 

56694, November 6, 1991). On August 

19, 1998, the Governor of Colorado 

submitted to EPA a request to 

redesignate the Colorado Springs CO 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

CO NAAQS. Along with this request, 

the Governor submitted a CAA section 

175A(a) maintenance plan which 

demonstrated that the area would 

maintain the CO NAAQS for the first 10 

years following EPA’s approval of the 

redesignation request. On October 1, 

1998, the Governor submitted revisions 

to Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 13, 

‘‘Oxygenated Fuels Program.’’ EPA 

approved the State’s redesignation 

request, the CAA section 175A(a) 10- 

year maintenance plan, and the 

revisions to AQCC Regulation No. 13 on 

August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46279). 

On May 10, 2000, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted a revised Colorado 

Springs CO maintenance plan to EPA 

which changed the attainment year from 

1993 to 1990, provided a revised 

projected emissions inventory out to 

2010, and demonstrated maintenance of 

the CO NAAQS in the Colorado Springs 

area through 2010. The Governor also 

submitted a transportation conformity 

motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) 

for 2010, and revisions to AQCC 

Regulation No. 13, ‘‘Oxygenated Fuels 

Program,’’ which allowed for the 

removal of the oxygenated fuels 

program in Colorado Springs. We 

approved all of these changes into the 

SIP on December 22, 2000 (65 FR 

80779). 

On April 12, 2004, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted to us a revised 

maintenance plan which demonstrated 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 

Colorado Springs area through 2015 and 

revised the 2010 transportation 

conformity MVEB. The Governor also 

submitted revisions to AQCC Regulation 

No. 11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection Program,’’ which allowed for 

the removal of the basic inspection/ 

maintenance program in El Paso 

County, including the Colorado Springs 

area. We approved all of these changes 

into the SIP on September 7, 2004 (see 

69 FR 54019). 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, CAA section 

175A(b) requires the state to submit a 

subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, 

covering a second 10-year period.1 This 

second 10-year maintenance plan must 

demonstrate continued maintenance of 

the applicable NAAQS during this 

second 10-year period. To fulfill this 

requirement of the Act, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted the 

second 10-year Colorado Springs CO 

maintenance plan (hereafter, ‘‘revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan’’) to 

us on March 31, 2010. With this action, 

we are approving the revised Colorado 

Springs Maintenance Plan. 

The 8-hour CO NAAQS—9.0 ppm—is 

attained when such value is not 

exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 

50.8(a)(1). The Colorado Springs area 

has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS 

from 1990 to the present.2 In October 

1995, EPA issued guidance that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46523 

3Memorandum ‘‘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’’). 

4See 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. 

5 Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to 

occur on winter weekdays. 

6Both the TSD and the Supplemental TSD are 

available in the docket for this action. 

7See ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, EPA, September 4, 1992. 

provided nonclassifiable CO 

nonattainment areas the option of using 

a less rigorous ‘‘limited maintenance 

plan’’ (LMP) option to demonstrate 

continued attainment and maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS.3 According to this 

guidance, areas that can demonstrate 

design values at or below 7.65 ppm 

(85% of exceedance levels of the CO 8- 

hour NAAQS) for eight consecutive 

quarters qualify to use an LMP. For the 

revised Colorado Springs Maintenance 

Plan, the State used EPA’s LMP option 

to demonstrate continued maintenance 

of the CO NAAQS in the Colorado 

Springs area through 2020. We have 

determined that the Colorado Springs 

area qualifies for the LMP option for this 

plan revision because the area’s 

maximum design value for the most 

recent eight consecutive quarters with 

certified data at the time the State 

adopted the plan (years 2007 and 2008) 

was 2.3 ppm.4

III. What was the State’s Process? 

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

that a state provide reasonable notice 

and public hearing before adopting a 

SIP revision and submitting it to us. 

The AQCC held a public hearing for 

the revised Colorado Springs 

Maintenance Plan on December 17, 

2009. The AQCC adopted the revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan 

directly after the hearing. The 

Governor’s designee submitted the 

revised plan to EPA on March 31, 2010. 

We have evaluated the SIP revision 

and have determined that the State met 

the requirements for reasonable notice 

and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. On September 30, 

2010, by operation of law under CAA 

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

was deemed to have met the minimum 

‘‘completeness’’ criteria found in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

a LMP for CO: Emission Inventory, 

Maintenance Demonstration, 

Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment, Contingency 

Plan, and Conformity Determinations. 

Below, we describe our evaluation of 

each of these elements for the revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Colorado Springs CO 

Maintenance Plan contains an emission 

inventory for the base year 2007. The 

emission inventory is a list, by source 

category, of the air contaminants 

directly emitted into the Colorado 

Springs CO maintenance area on a 

typical winter day in 2007.5 The data in 

the emission inventory were developed 

using EPA-approved emissions 

modeling methods. The State provided 

a more detailed description of the 2007 

inventory in its Technical Support 

Document (TSD) and the supplemental 

TSD for the revised Colorado Springs 

Maintenance Plan.6 Included in this 

inventory are aircraft, commercial 

cooking, fuel combustion, highway 

vehicle exhaust, non-road mobile 

sources, railroads, structure fires, 

woodburning, and non-oil-and-gas point 

sources. The revised maintenance plan 

and TSD contain detailed emission 

inventory information that was prepared 

in accordance with EPA guidance and is 

acceptable to us.7

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

EPA considers the maintenance 

demonstration requirement to be 

satisfied for areas that qualify for and 

are using the LMP option. As mentioned 

above, a maintenance area is qualified to 

use the LMP option if that area’s 

maximum 8-hour CO design value for 

eight consecutive quarters does not 

exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO 

NAAQS). EPA maintains that if an area 

begins the maintenance period with a 

design value no greater than 7.65 ppm, 

the applicability of prevention of 

significant deterioration requirements, 

the control measures already in the SIP, 

and federal measures should provide 

adequate assurance of maintenance over 

the 10-year maintenance period. 

Therefore, EPA does not require areas 

using the LMP option to project 

emissions over the maintenance period. 

Because CO design values in the 

Colorado Springs area are consistently 

well below the LMP threshold (See 

Table 1 below), the State has adequately 

demonstrated that the Colorado Springs 

area will maintain the CO NAAQS into 

the future. 

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

Design Value (ppm)* Year 

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

2.7 ................................................. 2005 

2.4 ................................................. 2006 

2.1 ................................................. 2007 

2.3 ................................................. 2008 

1.9 ................................................. 2009 

2.1 ................................................. 2010 

1.5 ................................................. 2011 

1.4 ................................................. 2012 

* Design Values were derived from the EPA 

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

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Colorado Springs 

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

continuing operation of an air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR Part 58 to verify continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS. The State 

also commits to conducting an annual 

review of the air quality surveillance 

system in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10. Additionally, the plan indicates 

that if measured mobile source 

parameters change significantly over 

time, the State will perform appropriate 

studies to determine whether additional 

and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. 

We are approving these commitments as 

satisfying the relevant requirements. 

D. Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires 

that a maintenance plan include 

contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of an area. To 

meet this requirement, the State has 

indentified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

As stated in the revised Colorado 

Springs Maintenance Plan, the 

contingency measures will be triggered 

by a violation of the CO NAAQS. No 

more than 60 days after notification 

from the Colorado Air Pollution Control 

Division (APCD) that a violation of the 

CO NAAQS has occurred, the Pikes 

Peak Area Council of Governments 

(PPACG), in conjunction with the 

APCD, AQCC, and local governments 

will initiate a process to begin 

evaluating potential contingency 

measures. The PPACG will present 

recommendations within 120 days of 

notification, and the recommended 

contingency measures will be presented 

to the AQCC within 180 days of 

notification. The AQCC will then hold 

a public hearing to consider the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

46524 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8Further 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). 

9LMP Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995. 

10As required by our transportation conformity 

adequacy process, we made a finding in a March 

4, 2011 letter to the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE) that the revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan was adequate 

for transportation conformity purposes. This 

finding was based substantially on the fact that the 

Colorado Springs CO maintenance area meets the 

LMP criteria, and is therefore not required to project 

future emissions. In a Federal Register notice dated 

August 2, 2011, we notified the public of our 

finding that the revised Colorado Springs 

Maintenance Plan was adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes (see 76 FR 46288). This 

adequacy determination became effective on August 

17, 2011. 

recommended contingency measures 

along with any other contingency 

measures the AQCC believes may be 

appropriate to effectively address the 

violation. The necessary contingency 

measures will be adopted and 

implemented within one year after a 

violation occurs. 

The potential contingency measures 

that are identified in the revised 

Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan 

include, but are not limited to: (1) A 

basic vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program, as such program 

existed in AQCC Regulation Number 11 

before December 18, 2003; (2) a 2.7% 

oxygenated gasoline program, as such 

program existed in AQCC Regulation 

Number 13 before February 17, 2000; (3) 

re-establishing nonattainment new 

source review permitting for stationary 

sources; and (4) wood burning 

restrictions. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan are 

sufficient and meet the requirements of 

section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

E. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 

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

40 CFR part 93 requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to SIPs and establish 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they 

conform. To effectuate its purpose, the 

conformity rule requires a 

demonstration that emissions from the 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 

the Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) are consistent with the 

motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) 

contained in the control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is 

defined as the level of mobile source 

emissions of a pollutant relied upon in 

the attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to attain or maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS in the 

nonattainment or maintenance area.8

Under the LMP guidance, emissions 

budgets generally are treated as not 

constraining for the length of the 

maintenance period. While EPA’s LMP 

guidance does not exempt an area from 

the need to affirm conformity, it 

explains that the area may demonstrate 

conformity without submitting a MVEB. 

According to the LMP guidance, it is 

unreasonable to expect that an LMP area 

will experience so much growth in that 

period that a violation of the CO 

NAAQS would result.9 However, under 

our conformity regulations, consistency 

with existing MVEBs must be 

demonstrated as long as those MVEBs 

are within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan. See 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(2)(i) and (d)(2).10

The CO maintenance plan for 

Colorado Springs that we approved in 

2004 (69 FR 54019) contains MVEBs 

applicable only through 2010. As 2010 

is no longer within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan, there is no longer a 

need to demonstrate conformity with 

the 2010 MVEB for the Colorado Springs 

CO maintenance area. For the reasons 

described in our LMP guidance, all 

actions that would require conformity 

determinations for the Colorado Springs 

CO maintenance area under our 

conformity rule provisions are 

considered to have already satisfied the 

regional emissions analysis and ‘‘budget 

test’’ requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 

because of our approval of the Colorado 

Springs CO LMP. 

However, since LMP areas are still 

maintenance areas, certain aspects of 

transportation conformity 

determinations still will be required for 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects. Specifically, for such 

determinations, RTPs, TIPs and 

transportation projects still will have to 

demonstrate that they are fiscally 

constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet 

the criteria for consultation and 

Transportation Control Measure (TCM) 

implementation in the conformity rule 

provisions (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 

93.113, respectively). In addition, 

projects in LMP areas still will be 

required to meet the applicable criteria 

for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy 

‘‘project level’’ conformity 

determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 

CFR 93.123), which must also 

incorporate the latest planning 

assumptions and models available (40 

CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, 

respectively). 

Our approval of the revised Colorado 

Springs Maintenance Plan affects future 

CO RTP and TIP conformity 

determinations prepared by PPACG, the 

Colorado Department of Transportation, 

the Federal Highway Administration, 

and the Federal Transit Administration. 

V. Final Action 

We are approving the revised 

Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan 

submitted on March 31, 2010. This 

maintenance plan meets the applicable 

CAA requirements, and we have 

determined it is sufficient to provide for 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the 

course of the second 10-year 

maintenance period out to 2020. 

We are publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register publication, 

we are publishing a separate document 

that will serve as the proposal to 

approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective September 30, 2013 without 

further notice unless we receive adverse 

comments by September 3, 2013. If we 

receive adverse comments, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. We will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46525 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

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

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 30, 

2013. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See Clean Air Act section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 16, 2013. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows: 

PART 52 [AMENDED] 

■ 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 (o) to read as follows: 

§ 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide. 

* * * * * 

(o) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 

Colorado Springs, as adopted by the 

Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission on December 17, 2009 and 

submitted by the Governor’s designee 

on March 31, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18438 Filed 7–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 1820 

[LLNM910000–L102000000.PH0000] 

RIN 1004–AE33 

Application Procedures, Execution and 

Filing of Forms: Correction of State 

Office Address for Filings and 

Recordings, Including Proper Offices 

for Recording of Mining Claims; New 

Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas/Kansas 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

regulations pertaining to execution and 

filing of forms in order to reflect the 

new address of the New Mexico/ 

Oklahoma/Texas/Kansas State Office of 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

All filings and other documents relating 

to public lands in the States of New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas 

must be filed at the new address of the 

State Office. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 1, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or 

suggestions to the Chief, Office of 

Communications (912), Bureau of Land 

Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, 

NM 87502–0115. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Hummel, 505–954–2018. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days 

a week, to leave a message for Ms. 

Hummel. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES