Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78797 

Reduction Act of 1995 for 60 days, until 

February 11, 2014. The Agency believes 

that a 60-day extension allows adequate 

time for interested persons to submit 

comments without significantly 

delaying rulemaking on these important 

issues. 

II. Request for Comments 

Interested persons may submit either 

electronic comments regarding this 

document to http://www.regulations.gov 

or written comments to the Division of 

Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It 

is only necessary to send one set of 

comments. Identify comments with the 

docket number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document. Received 

comments may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 

will be posted to the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Dated: December 20, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30881 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0834; FRL–9904–90– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Pagosa Springs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

March 31, 2010, the Governor of 

Colorado’s designee submitted to EPA a 

revised maintenance plan for the Pagosa 

Springs area for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 10 

microns (PM10). The State adopted the 

revised maintenance plan on November 

19, 2009. As required by Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 175A(b), this revised 

maintenance plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 standard for a 

second 10-year period beyond the area’s 

original redesignation to attainment for 

the PM10 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

approve the revised maintenance plan 

with the exception of one aspect of the 

plan’s contingency measures. EPA’s 

proposed approval includes the revised 

maintenance plan’s 2021 transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budget for PM10. In proposing to 

approve the revised maintenance plan, 

we are proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Pagosa Springs 

continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS, 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS that 

were recorded at the Pagosa Springs 

PM10 monitor on March 22, 2009, April 

3, 2009, April 5, 2010, April 28, 2010, 

April 29, 2010, May 11, 2010, and May 

22, 2010 because the exceedances meet 

the criteria for exceptional events 

caused by high wind natural events. 

This action is being taken under 

sections 110 and 175A of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket number EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0834, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: olson.kyle@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• 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– 

0834. 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, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 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: Kyle 

Olson, Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6002, 

olson.kyle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 initials APCD mean or refer to the 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. 

iii. The initials AQCC mean or refer to the 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78798 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 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 August 14, 

2001. See 66 FR 32556. Therefore, the first 

maintenance plan was required to show 

maintenance through 2011. 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 Pagosa Springs 

area, the second 10-year period ends in 2021. 

2An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard, 150 mg/ 

m3, after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e., 

values ending in five or greater are to be rounded 

up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3 would not 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 

mg/m3; whereas, a recorded value of 155 mg/m3

would be an exceedance since it would be rounded 

to 160 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, 

section 1.0. 

3The State flagged the exceedance of 188 mg/m3

from April 25, 2009 as being caused by an 

exceptional event but, due to an administrative 

oversight, did not demonstrate that it was caused 

by an exceptional event by the June 30, 2012 

regulatory deadline (see 40 CFR 50.14). Thus, EPA 

was unable to concur on the flag for that 

exceedance. In addition, it is thought that the 

exceedance of 182 mg/m3 was recorded during a 

regional dust storm on April 8, 2009 but that the 

site operator mistakenly gave the filter a date of 

April 6, 2009. Since this supposition could not be 

proved, the State was unable to flag the April 6 

exceedance of 182 mg/m3. 

iv. The words CMB mean or refer to chemical 

mass balance. 

v. The words Colorado and State mean or 

refer to the State of Colorado. 

vi. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

vii. The initials MVEB mean or refer to motor 

vehicle emissions budget. 

viii. The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

ix. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (coarse particulate matter). 

x. The initials RTP mean or refer to the 

Regional Transportation Plan. 

xi. The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

xii. The initials TIP mean or refer to the 

Transportation Improvement Program. 

xiii. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

technical support document. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the State’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised Pagosa 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http://

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. 

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 

The Pagosa Springs area was 

designated nonattainment for PM10 and 

classified as moderate by operation of 

law upon enactment of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, 

56705, 56736 (November 6, 1991). EPA 

approved Colorado’s nonattainment area 

SIP for the Pagosa Springs PM10

nonattainment area on May 19, 1994 (59 

FR 26126). 

On May 10, 2000, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Pagosa Springs moderate 

PM10 nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. Along with 

this request, the State submitted a 

maintenance plan, which demonstrated 

that the area was expected to remain in 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS through 

2012. EPA approved the Pagosa Springs 

maintenance plan and redesignation to 

attainment on June 15, 2001 (66 FR 

32556). 

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 update of the PM10

maintenance plan to EPA on March 31, 

2010 (hereafter, ‘‘revised Pagosa Springs 

PM10 Maintenance Plan’’). 

As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level 

of the national primary and secondary 

24-hour ambient air quality standards 

for PM10 is 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3). An area attains the 24- 

hour PM10 standard when the expected 

number of days per calendar year with 

a 24-hour concentration in excess of the 

standard (referred to herein as 

‘‘exceedance’’), as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, is equal to or less than one, 

averaged over a three-year period.2 See 

40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Table 1 below shows the maximum 

monitored 24-hour PM10 values for the 

Pagosa Springs PM10 maintenance area 

for 1998 through 2012, excluding seven 

values the State flagged as being caused 

by exceptional events. The table reflects 

that most of the values for the Pagosa 

Springs area were below the PM10

NAAQS of 150 mg/m3. In 2000 the area 

experienced an exceedance measured at 

165 mg/m3, and in 2009 exceedances 

measured at 182 and 188 mg/m3.3 These 

exceedances did not cause a violation of 

the PM10 NAAQS. 

40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an exceptional 

event as an event which affects air 

quality, is not reasonably controllable or 

preventable, is an event caused by 

human activity that is unlikely to recur 

at a particular location or a natural 

event, and is determined by the 

Administrator in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. 

Exceptional events do not include 

stagnation of air masses or 

meteorological inversions, 

meteorological events involving high 

temperatures or lack of precipitation, or 

air pollution relating to source 

noncompliance. 40 CFR 50.14(b) states 

that EPA shall exclude data from use in 

determinations of exceedances and 

NAAQS violations where a state 

demonstrates to EPA’s satisfaction that 

an exceptional event caused a specific 

air pollution concentration in excess of 

one or more NAAQS at a particular air 

quality monitoring location and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78799 

4As noted above, it is believed that these two 

exceedances were impacted by regional dust storms 

in Pagosa Springs in 2009. Also, as noted above, 

exceedances that occurred on March 22 and April 

3, 2009 were flagged by Colorado as exceptional 

events and received concurrence from EPA. 

Colorado also flagged a value of 100 mg/m3 that was 

recorded on March 29, 2009. A dust storm on that 

date caused one exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS 

elsewhere in western Colorado. However, the 100 

mg/m3 value in Pagosa Springs was not eligible for 

consideration under EPA’s exceptional events rule 

because it was not an exceedance of the NAAQS. 

The highest two samples in 2009 not identified by 

Colorado to be impacted by regional dust storms 

were samples of 75 and 73 mg/m3. 

5The 117 mg/m3 value recorded on March 31, 

2010 was flagged by Colorado as impacted by a 

regional dust storm. Since it was not an exceedance 

of the NAAQS, it was not eligible for consideration 

under EPA’s exceptional events rule. 

otherwise satisfies the requirements of 

section 50.14. 

On March 29 and 30, 2012, the State 

submitted exceptional events packages 

for two exceedances of the PM10

NAAQS in Pagosa Springs that 

measured 255 mg/m3 on March 22, 2009, 

and 225 mg/m3 on April 3, 2009. On 

June 28, 2013, the State submitted four 

exceptional events packages for five 

exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS in 

Pagosa Springs that measured 349 mg/m3

on April 5, 2010, 181 mg/m3 on April 28, 

2010, 162 mg/m3 on April 29, 2010, 200 

mg/m3 on May 11, 2010, and 187 mg/m3

on May 22, 2010. The Colorado Air 

Pollution Control Division (APCD) 

flagged these seven exceedances as 

exceptional events in EPA’s Air Quality 

System, which is EPA’s repository for 

ambient air quality data. EPA concurred 

on the APCD’s flags in August, 

September, and November of 2013 

because the State successfully 

demonstrated that the exceedances were 

caused by natural high wind 

exceptional events blowing desert dust 

from upwind natural desert areas of 

Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and 

southwest Colorado into the Pagosa 

Springs area. Thus, we are proposing to 

exclude from use in determining that 

Pagosa Springs continues to attain the 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS the exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS that were 

recorded at the Pagosa Springs PM10

monitor on the seven dates listed above. 

See 40 CFR 50.14(b) and (c)(2)(ii). 

TABLE 1—PAGOSA SPRINGS PM10 MAXIMUM 24-HOUR VALUES (THERE ARE TWO 2001 VALUES DUE TO THE MONITOR

BEING MOVED THAT YEAR FROM THE TOWN HALL TO HIGH SCHOOL LOCATION) BASED ON DATA FROM TOWN HALL

AND HIGH SCHOOL MONITORING SITES, AQS IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 08–007–0001 

Year Maximum value 

(μg/m3) 

2nd Maximum 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Monitoring site 

1998 ................................................................................................. 66 66 Town Hall. 

1999 ................................................................................................. 138 82 Town Hall. 

2000 ................................................................................................. 165 87 Town Hall. 

2001 ................................................................................................. 123 121 Town Hall. 

2001 ................................................................................................. 66 61 High School. 

2002 ................................................................................................. 107 82 High School. 

2003 ................................................................................................. 123 111 High School. 

2004 ................................................................................................. 79 61 High School. 

2005 ................................................................................................. 82 77 High School. 

2006 ................................................................................................. 122 53 High School. 

2007 ................................................................................................. 102 59 High School. 

2008 ................................................................................................. 149 74 High School. 

2009 ................................................................................................. 4 188 4 182 High School. 

2010 ................................................................................................. 5 117 73 High School. 

2011 ................................................................................................. 109 81 High School. 

2012 ................................................................................................. 147 93 High School. 

Table 2 below shows the estimated 

number of exceedances for the Pagosa 

Springs PM10 maintenance area for the 

three-year periods of 1998 through 2000, 

1999 through 2001, 2000 through 2002, 

2001 through 2003, 2002 through 2004, 

2003 through 2005, 2004 through 2006, 

2005 through 2007, 2006 through 2008, 

2007 through 2009, 2008 through 2010, 

2009 through 2011, and 2010 through 

2012. To attain the standard, the threeyear average number of expected 

exceedances (values greater than 150 mg/ 

m3) must be less than or equal to one. 

The table reflects continuous attainment 

of the PM10 NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—PAGOSA SPRINGS PM10 ESTIMATED EXCEEDANCES BASED ON

DATA FROM TOWN HALL AND HIGH

SCHOOL MONITORING SITES, AQS 

IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 08–007– 

0001 

Design value period 

3-Year estimated 

number of 

exceedances 

1998–2000 .................. 0 

1999–2001 .................. 0 

2000–2002 .................. 0 .33 

2001–2003 .................. 0 

2002–2004 .................. 0 

2003–2005 .................. 0 

2004–2006 .................. 0 

2005–2007 .................. 0 

2006–2008 .................. 0 

2007–2009 .................. 0 .7 

2008–2010 .................. 0 .7 

2009–2011 .................. 0 .7 

2010–2012 .................. 0 

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 EPA. 

The Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) held a public 

hearing for the revised Pagosa Springs 

PM10 Maintenance Plan on November 

19, 2009. The AQCC approved and 

adopted the revised Pagosa Springs 

PM10 Maintenance Plan during this 

hearing. The Governor’s designee 

submitted the revised plan to EPA on 

March 31, 2010. 

We have evaluated the revised 

maintenance plan and have determined 

that the State met the requirements for 

reasonable public 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 revised maintenance 

plan was deemed to have met the 

minimum ‘‘completeness’’ criteria 

found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6Based on EPA guidance, the State determined 

the design day concentration to be the third highest 

24-hour maximum PM10 value recorded in the 

Pagosa Springs area from 2006–2008. It was 

recorded in 2007. 

7Total emissions in 2007 were 184.3 tons/year, 

while total emissions were projected to be 236.1 

tons/year in 2015 and 282.1 tons/year in 2021; these 

values are nearly collinear. Updating the roll 

forward for growth from a 2011 monitored value to 

2021 requires a projection of the growth in 

emissions from 2011 to 2021. Linear emissions 

growth from 2007 to 2011 is (282.1 tons/year— 

184.3 tons/year)*(2011–2007)/(2021–2007), or 27.9 

tons, bringing 2011 emissions to (184.3 + 27.9) = 

212.2 tons. Growth from 2011 to 2021, therefore, is 

(282.1 tons/year—212.24 tons/year)/212.2 tons/year 

* 100% = 32.9%. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Pagosa Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan 

The following are the key elements of 

a maintenance plan for PM10: Emission 

Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, 

Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment, Contingency 

Plan, and Transportation Conformity 

Requirements/Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budget for PM10. Below, we describe our 

evaluation of these elements as they 

pertain to the revised Pagosa Springs 

PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan includes three 

inventories of daily PM10 emissions for 

the Pagosa Springs area, one for 2007 as 

the base year, one interim inventory for 

2015, and one inventory for 2021 as the 

maintenance year. The APCD developed 

these emission inventories using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods 

and updated transportation and 

demographics data. Each emission 

inventory lists estimated PM10

emissions for individual source 

categories within the Pagosa Springs 

PM10 maintenance area. A more detailed 

description of the 2007, 2015 and 2021 

inventories and information on model 

assumptions and parameters for each 

source category are contained in the 

State’s PM10 maintenance plan 

Technical Support Document (TSD). 

The inventories include the following 

source categories: Commercial cooking, 

construction, fuel combustion, nonroad, structure fires, wood burning, 

unpaved road dust, paved road dust, 

highway vehicles, and agriculture. We 

find that Colorado has prepared 

adequate emission inventories for the 

area. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

The revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan uses emission rollforward modeling combined with 

chemical mass balance (CMB) analysis 

to demonstrate maintenance of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS through 2021. The 

State’s CMB analysis examined the 

chemical composition of material on 

filters from Pagosa Springs air quality 

monitors to determine the relative 

contribution from the following source 

categories: Geologic, burning, nitrate, 

sulfate, and unknown. The State 

collected CMB data on five days in 

1994, 2006, and 2008 when ambient 

PM10 concentrations exceeded 100 mg/

m3. The State then averaged the data for 

the source categories to create a ‘‘design 

day apportionment’’ for each category, 

as follows: Geologic—79.0%; burning— 

7.3%; nitrate—1.0%; sulfate—1.6%; and 

unknown—11.1%. After subtracting 

background (8 mg/m3) from the design 

day concentration (102 mg/m3),6 the 

State applied the CMB apportionments 

to apportion the design day 

concentration by source category. For 

example, the State apportioned 74.3 mg/ 

m3 of a total of 94 mg/m3 to the geologic 

source category (94 mg/m3 x 0.790 = 74.3 

mg/m3). 

Using assumptions about the 

inventory source categories that 

contributed to the CMB categories, the 

State applied the percent change in 

emissions for the relevant inventory 

source categories between 2007 and 

2021 to ‘‘roll-forward’’ the CMB 

apportionments to 2021. For example, 

the State determined that the inventory 

source categories of unpaved road dust, 

paved road dust, and highway vehicles 

contribute all of the geologic emissions 

accounted for in the CMB analysis. The 

State’s inventories reflect that emissions 

from these source categories are 

estimated to grow by 54.9% between 

2007 and 2021. Applying this growth 

factor, the State estimated that the 74.3 

mg/m3 of PM10 resulting from geologic 

materials would grow to 115.1 mg/m3 in 

2021. 

Applying this methodology, the State 

projected a total concentration of PM10

in 2021 of 146.3 mg/m3, which includes 

background. This value is below the 

PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3 and, thus, is 

consistent with maintenance. 

To account for new data acquired 

since the submission of the State’s Plan, 

we evaluated the 2010–2012 data in 

AQS to determine whether maintenance 

would be demonstrated using a more 

recent design value as a starting point. 

Excluding the exceedances in 2010 that 

were caused by high wind exceptional 

events, the third high concentration in 

2010–2012 was 109 mg/m3, which was 

recorded on March 21, 2011. As noted, 

the State’s emissions inventories 

contain emissions estimates for 2007, 

2015, and 2021. An examination of 

these inventories reveals that total 

emissions in 2015 represent a point on 

a line of near linear growth from 2007 

to 2021. 

Acknowledging that the State’s 

analysis is complete, we used a simpler 

total emissions roll-forward analysis 

rather than the CMB-apportioned 

analysis the State used in projecting 

2006–2008 data in order to estimate 

emissions growth from 2011 to 2021 and 

ensure that growth in emissions would 

result in PM10 remaining below the 

NAAQS. We did this to evaluate future 

maintenance in light of the somewhat 

higher 2010–2012 design value, 

compared to the 2006–2008 design 

value Colorado evaluated. The total 

emissions roll-forward approach 

produces a higher projected 

concentration than does the State’s 

CMB-apportioned method. We first 

removed the 8 mg/m3 background 

concentration from the 109 mg/m3, 

which left 101 mg/m3. Next, relying on 

the linear growth in emissions, we 

estimated 2011 emissions would grow 

32.9 percent by 2021.7 Using this factor, 

we projected the 101 mg/m3 from 2011 

forward to 2021 to arrive at a 

concentration of 134.2 mg/m3. We then 

added the 8 mg/m3 of background to this 

value to predict a total concentration in 

2021 of 142.2 mg/m3. This value is 

below the PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3

and, thus, is consistent with 

maintenance. 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

continue to operate an air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and the EPA-approved 

Colorado Monitoring SIP Element to 

verify continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS. This includes the continued 

operation of a PM10 monitor in the 

Pagosa Springs area, which the State 

will rely on to track PM10 emissions in 

the maintenance area. We are proposing 

to approve this commitment 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 

identified contingency measures along 

with a schedule for the development 

and implementation of such measures. 

The revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan indicates that, upon 

notification of an exceedance of the 

PM10 NAAQS, the APCD and local 

government staff in the Pagosa Springs 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 78801 

8 ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004 Final 

Transportation Conformity Rule, Conformity 

Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing 

and New Air Quality Standards’’ (EPA420–B–04– 

012 July, 2004). 

9 In a Federal Register notice dated August 2, 

2011, we notified the public of our finding (see 76 

FR 46288). This adequacy determination became 

effective on August 17, 2011. 

area will develop appropriate 

contingency measures intended to 

prevent or correct a violation of the 

PM10 standard. According to the plan, 

notification to EPA and local 

governments of any exceedance will 

occur no later than 45 days and the 

process will be completed within six 

months of the notification. Upon a 

violation, a public hearing process at the 

State and local level will begin. The 

AQCC may endorse or approve local 

measures, or it may adopt State 

enforceable measures. The revised 

Pagosa Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan 

states that contingency measures will be 

adopted and fully implemented within 

one year of a violation. 

The State identifies the following as 

potential contingency measures in the 

revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan: (1) Increased street 

sweeping requirements; (2) additional 

road paving requirements; (3) more 

stringent street sand specifications; (4) 

voluntary or mandatory coal and/or 

wood burning curtailment; (5) bans on 

all coal and/or wood burning; (6) 

expanded use of alternative de-icers; (7) 

re-establishing new source review 

permitting requirements for stationary 

sources; (8) transportation control 

measures designed to reduce vehicle 

miles traveled; and (9) other emission 

control measures appropriate for the 

area based on the following 

considerations: cost effectiveness, PM10

emission reduction potential, economic 

and social concerns, and/or other 

factors. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised Pagosa 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan are 

sufficient and meet the requirements of 

section 175A(d) of the CAA, with the 

exception of ‘‘voluntary coal and/or 

wood burning curtailment.’’ While we 

have not required that potential 

contingency measures be effective 

without further action by the State, we 

interpret the CAA as requiring measures 

that will be enforceable. Voluntary 

measures may not be widely 

implemented and, thus, cannot be relied 

on to ensure prompt emission 

reductions to correct a violation. Thus, 

we are proposing to disapprove the 

listing of ‘‘voluntary coal and/or wood 

burning curtailment’’ as a potential 

contingency measure. 

E. Transportation Conformity 

Requirements: Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budget for PM10

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 

requires that transportation plans, 

programs, and projects conform to SIPs 

and establishes the criteria and 

procedures for determining whether or 

not they conform. 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. 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(s) (MVEB(s)) 

contained in a control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An 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. 

Further 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). 

The revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan contains a single 

MVEB of 946 lbs/day of PM10 for the 

year 2021, the maintenance year. Once 

the State submitted the revised plan 

with the 2021 MVEB to EPA for 

approval, 40 CFR 93.118 required that 

EPA determine whether the MVEB was 

adequate. 

Our criteria for determining whether 

a SIP’s MVEB is adequate for conformity 

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated 

August 15, 1997 (see 62 FR 43780). Our 

process for determining adequacy is 

described in our July 1, 2004 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments (see 69 FR 40004) and in 

relevant guidance.8 We used these 

resources in making our adequacy 

determination described below. 

On November 22, 2010, EPA 

announced the availability of the 

revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan, and the PM10 MVEB, 

on EPA’s transportation conformity 

adequacy Web site. EPA solicited public 

comment on the MVEB, and the public 

comment period closed on December 

22, 2010. We did not receive any 

comments. This information is available 

at EPA’s conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/reg8sips.htm#co 

By letter to the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment dated 

March 17, 2011, EPA found that the 

revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan and the 2021 PM10

MVEB were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes.9 However, we 

noted in our letter that the revised 

Pagosa Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan 

did not discuss the PM10 MVEB for 2012 

of 7,486 lbs/day from the original PM10

maintenance plan that EPA approved in 

2001 (see 66 FR 32556, June 15, 2001). 

According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the 

EPA-approved 2012 PM10 MVEB must 

continue to be used for analysis years 

2012 through 2020 (as long as such 

years are within the timeframe of the 

transportation plan), unless the State 

elects to submit a SIP revision to revise 

the 2012 PM10 MVEB and EPA approves 

the SIP revision. The revised Pagosa 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan did not 

revise the previously-approved 2012 

PM10 MVEB nor establish a new MVEB 

for 2012. Accordingly, the MVEB ‘‘ . . . 

for the most recent prior year . . . ’’ 

(i.e., 2012) from the original 

maintenance plan must continue to be 

used (see 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii) and 

(b)(2)(iv)). 

We note that there is a considerable 

difference between the 2021 and 2012 

budgets—946 lbs/day versus 7,486 lbs/ 

day. This is largely an artifact of 

changes in the methods, models, and 

emission factors used to estimate mobile 

source emissions. The 2021 MVEB is 

consistent with the State’s 2021 

emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust 

and road dust, and, thus, is consistent 

with the State’s maintenance 

demonstration for 2021. 

The discrepancy between the 2012 

and 2021 MVEBs is not a significant 

issue for several reasons. As a practical 

matter, the 2021 MVEB of 946 lbs/day 

of PM10 would be controlling for any 

conformity determination involving the 

relevant years because conformity 

would have to be shown to both the 

2012 MVEB and the 2021 MVEB. Also, 

for any maintenance plan like the 

revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan that only establishes 

a MVEB for the last year of the 

maintenance plan, 40 CFR 

93.118(b)(2)(i) requires that the 

demonstration of consistency with the 

budget be accompanied by a qualitative 

finding that there are no factors that 

would cause or contribute to a new 

violation or exacerbate an existing 

violation in the years before the last year 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
78802 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of the maintenance plan. Therefore, 

when a conformity determination is 

prepared which assesses conformity for 

the years before 2021, the 2021 MVEB 

and the underlying assumptions 

supporting it would have to be 

considered. Finally, 40 CFR 93.110 

requires the use of the latest planning 

assumptions in conformity 

determinations. Thus, the most current 

motor vehicle and road dust emission 

factors would need to be used, and we 

expect the analysis would show greatly 

reduced PM10 motor vehicle and road 

dust emissions from those calculated in 

the first maintenance plan. In view of 

the above, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2021 PM10 MVEB of 946 lbs/day. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

revised Pagosa Springs PM10

Maintenance Plan that was submitted to 

us on March 31, 2010, with one 

exception. We are proposing to 

disapprove the listing of ‘‘voluntary coal 

and/or wood burning curtailment’’ as a 

potential contingency measure in 

section 5.F.3 of the revised Pagosa 

Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan. We are 

proposing to approve the remainder of 

the revised maintenance plan because it 

demonstrates maintenance through 2021 

as required by CAA section 175A(b), 

retains the control measures from the 

initial PM10 maintenance plan that EPA 

approved on June 15, 2001, and meets 

other CAA requirements for a section 

175A maintenance plan. We are 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Pagosa Springs 

continues to attain the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS exceedances of the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at the 

Pagosa Springs PM10 monitor on March 

22, 2009, April 3, 2009, April 5, 2010, 

April 28, 2010, April 29, 2010, May 11, 

2010, and May 22, 2010 because they 

meet the criteria for exceptional events 

caused by high wind natural events. We 

are also proposing to approve the 

revised maintenance plan’s 2021 

transportation conformity MVEB for 

PM10 of 946 lbs/day.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not propose to impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• 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 

USC 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 

USC 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 USC 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; 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 proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

would not be 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: December 16, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31110 Filed 12–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 405 

[CMS–6055–P] 

RIN 0938–AS03 

Medicare Program; Right of Appeal for 

Medicare Secondary Payer 

Determination Relating to Liability 

Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), 

No Fault Insurance, and Workers’ 

Compensation Laws and Plans 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement provisions of the 

Strengthening Medicare and Repaying 

Taxpayers Act of 2012 (SMART Act) 

which require us to provide a right of 

appeal and an appeal process for 

liability insurance (including selfinsurance), no-fault insurance, and 

workers’ compensation laws or plans 

when Medicare pursues a Medicare 

Secondary Payer (MSP) recovery claim 

directly from the liability insurance 

(including self-insurance), no fault 

insurance, or workers’ compensation 

law or plan. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided, no later than 5 

p.m. on February 25, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–6055–P. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed). 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions under the ‘‘More Search 

Options’’ tab. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address only: 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Attention: CMS–6055– 

P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244– 

8013. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS