Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 34935 

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 November 25, 

2005. See 70 FR 61563. Therefore, the first 

maintenance plan was required to show 

maintenance through 2015. 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 Lamar area, the 

second 10-year period ends in 2025. 

twelve hour advance notice is given by 

calling the number posted at the bridge. 

Dated: May 18, 2016. 

K.C. Kiefer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First 

Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12929 Filed 5–31–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0042; FRL–9947–09– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Lamar 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Colorado. On May 13, 2013, the 

Governor of Colorado’s designee 

submitted to the EPA a revised 

maintenance plan for the Lamar area for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10). 

EPA is proposing to approve the revised 

maintenance plan with the exception of 

one aspect of the plan’s contingency 

measures. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2015–0042 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Hou, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6210, 

hou.james@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 Lamar 

PM10 Maintenance Plan 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (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 on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to the 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: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

The Lamar 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 Lamar PM10 nonattainment area on 

June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29732). 

On July 31, 2002, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Lamar 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 

2015. EPA approved the Lamar 

maintenance plan and redesignation to 

attainment on October 25, 2005 (70 FR 

61563). 

Eight years after an area is 

redesignated to attainment, the CAA 

section 175A(b) requires the state to 

submit a subsequent maintenance plan 

to the 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 the EPA on May 

13, 2013 (hereafter, ‘‘revised Lamar 

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 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34936 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

‘‘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 

Lamar PM10 maintenance area for 2001 

through 2015, excluding 34 values the 

State flagged as being caused by 

exceptional events. The table reflects 

that most of the values for the Lamar 

area were below the PM10 NAAQS of 

150 mg/m3. In 2008 the area experienced 

an exceedance measured at 367 mg/m3; 

in 2009 exceedances measured at 233 

mg/m3 and 171 mg/m3; and in 2015 an 

exceedance measured at 423mg/m3. 

Notably, the 2015 exceedance was 

flagged as an exceptional event due to 

natural high winds, but concurrence 

was not requested by Colorado at the 

time of this proposal. This exceedance 

did not cause a violation of the PM10

NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—LAMAR PM10 MAXIMUM 24-HOUR VALUES

[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08–099–0001 and 08–099–0002] 

Year 

Maximum 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

2nd maximum 

concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Monitoring site 

2001 .............................................. 133 111 Power Plant. 

2002 .............................................. 141 125 Power Plant. 

2003 .............................................. 132 120 Power Plant. 

2004 .............................................. 93 82 Municipal Complex. 

2005 .............................................. 116 110 Power Plant. 

2006 .............................................. 136 127 Power Plant 

2007 .............................................. 93 82 Power Plant. 

2008 .............................................. 367 123 Power Plant. 

2009 .............................................. 233 171 Power Plant. 

2010 .............................................. 136 131 Power Plant. 

2011 .............................................. 122 115 Municipal Complex. 

2012 .............................................. 147 133 Power Plant. 

2013 .............................................. 147 141 Municipal Complex. 

2014 .............................................. 129 102 Municipal Complex. 

2015 .............................................. 423 94 Municipal Complex. 

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 the EPA shall exclude data from use 

in determinations of exceedances and 

NAAQS violations where a state 

demonstrates to the 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 otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of section 50.14. 

Throughout the years 2001 to 2014, 

the Lamar area monitors have recorded 

several exceedances of the PM10

NAAQS that have resulted from natural 

high wind exceptional events. The 

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division 

(APCD) flagged a total of 55 exceedances 

as exceptional events in the EPA’s Air 

Quality System, which is the EPA’s 

repository for ambient air quality data. 

Of these 55 flagged exceedances, the 

EPA has concurred on 34. Table 2 

summarizes the exceptional events 

exceedances that the EPA has concurred 

on, due to the State’s successful 

demonstrations that the exceedances 

were caused by natural high wind 

exceptional events. Thus, we are 

proposing to exclude 34 flagged 

exceedances from use in determining 

that Lamar continues to attain the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.14(b) 

and (c)(2)(ii). 

TABLE 2—LAMAR PM10 EPA APPROVED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS

[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08–099–0001 and 08–099–0002] 

Event date Monitoring site 

24-hr PM10

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Data flag 

02/09/02 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 246 High Wind. 

03/07/02 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 246 High Wind. 

05/21/02 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 196 High Wind. 

05/21/02 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 183 High Wind. 

06/20/02 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 181 High Wind. 

06/20/02 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 162 High Wind. 

04/05/05 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 203 High Wind. 

04/05/05 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 164 High Wind. 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 34937 

3On November 21, 2011, the State of Colorado 

requested the removal of the Power Plant monitor 

due to poor citing conditions, as well as serving as 

a redundant monitor to the Lamar Municipal PM10

monitoring site, which is located 0.5 miles to the 

southeast. On August 28, 2012 the EPA concurred 

with the request for removal of the Lamar Power 

Plant PM10 SLAMS site/sampler AQS ID:08–099– 

0001. 

TABLE 2—LAMAR PM10 EPA APPROVED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS—Continued 

[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08–099–0001 and 08–099–0002] 

Event date Monitoring site 

24-hr PM10

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Data flag 

05/22/08 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 227 High Wind. 

01/19/09 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 174 High Wind. 

01/19/09 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 173 High Wind. 

04/03/11 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 169 High Wind. 

11/05/11 ...................................... Power Plant ...................................................................................... 192 High Wind. 

03/18/12 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 242 High Wind. 

04/2/12 ........................................ Municipal .......................................................................................... 163 High Wind. 

02/08/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 159 High Wind. 

04/09/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 1220 High Wind. 

05/01/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 207 High Wind. 

05/24/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 406 High Wind. 

05/25/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 168 High Wind. 

05/28/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 201 High Wind. 

12/24/13 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 168 High Wind. 

02/16/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 153 High Wind. 

03/11/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 387 High Wind. 

03/15/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 173 High Wind. 

03/18/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 299 High Wind. 

03/29/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 263 High Wind. 

03/30/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 264 High Wind. 

03/31/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 223 High Wind. 

04/23/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 350 High Wind. 

04/29/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 321 High Wind. 

11/10/14 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 298 High Wind. 

04/01/15 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 253 High Wind. 

04/02/15 ...................................... Municipal .......................................................................................... 419 High Wind. 

Table 3 below shows the estimated 

number of exceedances for the Lamar 

PM10 maintenance area for the threeyear periods of 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, 2010 

through 2012, 2010 through 2013, 2012 

through 2014, and 2013 through 2015. 

To attain the standard, the three-year 

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 3—LAMAR PM10 ESTIMATED EXCEEDANCES

[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08–099–0001 and 08–099–0002] 

Design value period 

3-Year estimated 

number of 

exceedances at 

power plant monitor 

3-Year estimated 

number of 

exceedances at 

municipal complex 

monitor 

2001–2003 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2002–2004 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2003–2005 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2004–2006 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2005–2007 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2006–2008 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .3 0 

2007–2009 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 0 

2008–2010 ............................................................................................................................................... 1 0 

2009–2011 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .7 0 

2010–2012 ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

2011–2013 3 ............................................................................................................................................. NA 0 

2012–2014 3 ............................................................................................................................................. NA 0 

2013–2015 3 ............................................................................................................................................. NA 0 .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 the 

EPA. 

The Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) held a public 

hearing for the revised Lamar PM10

Maintenance Plan on December 20, 

2012. The AQCC approved and adopted 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34938 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4The PM10 SIP Development Guideline indicates 

that the table look-up method only provides an 

estimation of the PM10 design value, and that more 

accurate design values can be obtained through the 

upper tail data distribution curve fit method. 

Further information regarding the determination of 

the 2012–2014 design value can be found in the 

March 25, 2016 memo from Richard M. Payton to 

the Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan Approval 

Docket. 

5Total emissions in 2010 were 248.0 tons/year, 

while total emissions were projected to be 253.7 

tons/year in 2020 and 259.9 tons/year in 2025; these 

values are nearly collinear. Updating the roll 

forward for growth from a 2014 monitored value to 

2025 requires a projection of the growth in 

emissions from 2014 to 2025. Linear emissions 

growth from 2010 to 2014 is (259.9 tons/

year¥248.0 tons/year)*(2014–2010)/(2025–2010), 

or 3.2 tons/year, bringing 2014 emissions to (248.0 

+ 3.2) = 251.2 tons/year. Growth from 2014 to 2025, 

therefore, is (259.9 tons/year¥251.2 tons/year)/

251.2 tons/year * 100% = 3.5%. 

the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance 

Plan during this hearing. The 

Governor’s designee submitted the 

revised plan to the EPA on May 13, 

2013. 

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 November 13, 2013, 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. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Lamar 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 Lamar PM10

Maintenance Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance 

Plan includes three inventories of daily 

PM10 emissions for the Lamar area, one 

for 2010 as the base year, one interim 

inventory for 2020, and one inventory 

for 2025 as the maintenance year. The 

APCD developed these emission 

inventories using the EPA-approved 

emissions modeling methods and 

updated transportation and 

demographics data. Each emission 

inventory lists estimated PM10

emissions for individual source 

categories within the Lamar PM10

maintenance area. A more detailed 

description of the 2010, 2020 and 2025 

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: Helicopters, 

construction, fuel combustion, railroads, 

structure fires, wood burning, paved 

road dust, unpaved road dust, non-road 

commercial equipment, non-road 

construction and mining equipment, 

non-road industrial equipment, nonroad lawn and garden equipment 

(commercial), non-road lawn and 

garden equipment (residential), nonroad railroad equipment, and highway 

vehicles. We find that Colorado has 

prepared adequate emission inventories 

for the area. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance 

Plan uses emissions roll-forward 

modeling to demonstrate maintenance 

of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS through 

2025. Using assumptions about the 

inventory source categories, the State 

applied the percent change in emissions 

for the relevant inventory source 

categories between 2010 and 2025 to 

‘‘roll-forward’’ the baseline PM10

concentration. For example, the State 

determined that the projected growth of 

the emissions inventory from 2010 to 

2025 is 4.8%. The growth factor was 

applied to the baseline design day PM10

concentration, less the background PM10

concentration, to obtain a projected 

PM10 concentration for the maintenance 

year. Using 2009 to 2011 data from the 

Power Plant Monitor and the Municipal 

Complex Monitor, the calculated PM10

maintenance concentration in the year 

2025 are 140.2 mg/m3 and 125.6 mg/m3, 

respectively. 

To account for new data acquired 

since the submission of the State’s Plan, 

we evaluated the 2012–2014 data in 

AQS to determine whether maintenance 

would be demonstrated using a more 

recent design value as a starting point. 

Excluding the exceedances in 2012, 

2013 and 2014 that were caused by high 

wind exceptional events, the EPA 

employed an upper tail data distribution 

curve fit method 4 and determined the 

2012–2014 design value to be 137.7 mg/ 

m3. As noted, the State’s emissions 

inventories contain emissions estimates 

for 2010, 2020, and 2025. An 

examination of these inventories reveals 

that total emissions in 2020 represent a 

point on a line of near linear growth 

from 2015 to 2025. 

Acknowledging that the State’s 

analysis is complete, we used a rollforward analysis in order to estimate 

emissions growth from 2014 to 2025 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 2012–2014 design value, 

compared to the 2009–2011 design 

value Colorado evaluated. Following the 

same approach as Colorado, we first 

removed the 21 mg/m3 background 

concentration from the 137.7 mg/m3

design value, which left 116.7 mg/m3. 

Next, relying on the linear growth in 

emissions, we estimated 2014 emissions 

would grow 3.5 percent by 2025.5 Using 

this factor, we projected the 116.7 mg/m3

from 2014 forward to 2025 to arrive at 

a concentration of 120.8 mg/m3. We then 

added the 21 mg/m3 of background to 

this value to predict a total 

concentration in 2025 of 141.8 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 Lamar 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 

Lamar area, which the State will rely on 

to track PM10 emissions in the 

maintenance area. At the time of the 

State’s submittal, the EPA had not 

approved the November 21, 2011 

request for removal of the Lamar Power 

Plant monitoring site. On August 28, 

2012, EPA approved this request, and 

the Lamar Power Plant monitoring site 

ceased operations on December 31, 

2012. We are proposing to approve the 

State’s 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 Lamar PM10 Maintenance 

Plan indicates that, upon notification of 

an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS, the 

APCD and local government staff in the 

Lamar area will develop appropriate 

contingency measures intended to 

prevent or correct a violation of the 

PM10 standard. Upon a violation, a 

public hearing process at the State and 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 34939 

6 ‘‘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). 

7 In a Federal Register notice dated October 3, 

2014, we notified the public of our finding (see 79 

FR 59767). This adequacy determination became 

effective on October 20, 2014. 

local level will begin. The AQCC may 

endorse or approve local measures, or it 

may adopt State enforceable measures. 

The revised Lamar 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 Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan: 

(1) Increased street sweeping 

requirements; (2) additional road paving 

requirements; (3) more stringent street 

sand specifications; (4) wood burning 

restrictions; (5) expanded use of 

alternative de-icers; (6) re-establishing 

new source review permitting 

requirements for stationary sources; (7) 

controls at existing 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 Lamar 

PM10 Maintenance Plan are sufficient 

and meet the requirements of section 

175A(d) of the CAA. 

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 the 

EPA’s interpretations regarding MVEBs 

can be found in the preamble to the 

EPA’s November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (see 58 

FR 62193–62196). 

The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance 

Plan contains a single MVEB of 764 lbs/ 

day of PM10 for the year 2025, the 

maintenance year. Once the State 

submitted the revised plan with the 

2025 MVEB to the EPA for approval, 40 

CFR 93.118 required that the 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.6 We used these 

resources in making our adequacy 

determination described below. 

On November 15, 2013 EPA 

announced the availability of the 

revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan, 

and the PM10 MVEB, on the EPA’s 

transportation conformity adequacy 

Web site. The EPA solicited public 

comment on the MVEB, and the public 

comment period closed on December 

16, 2013. We did not receive any 

comments. This information is available 

at the EPA’s conformity Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm#lamar-co. 

By letter to the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment dated 

January 23, 2014, the EPA found that 

the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance 

Plan and the 2025 PM10 MVEB were 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes.7

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

EPA-approved 2015 PM10 MVEB must 

continue to be used for analysis years 

2015 through 2024 (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 2015 PM10 MVEB and the EPA 

approves the SIP revision. The revised 

Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan did not 

revise the previously-approved 2015 

PM10 MVEB nor establish a new MVEB 

for 2015. Accordingly, the MVEB ‘‘. . . 

for the most recent prior year . . .’’ (i.e., 

2015) 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 2025 and 2015 

budgets—764 lbs/day versus 7,534 lbs/ 

day. This is largely an artifact of 

changes in the methods, models, and 

emission factors used to estimate mobile 

source emissions. The 2025 MVEB is 

consistent with the State’s 2025 

emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust 

and road dust, and, thus, is consistent 

with the State’s maintenance 

demonstration for 2025. 

The discrepancy between the 2015 

and 2025 MVEBs is not a significant 

issue for several reasons. As a practical 

matter, the 2025 MVEB of 764 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 

2015 MVEB and the 2025 MVEB. Also, 

for any maintenance plan like the 

revised Lamar 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 

of the maintenance plan. Therefore, 

when a conformity determination is 

prepared which assesses conformity for 

the years before 2025, the 2025 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, the EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2025 PM10 MVEB of 764 

lbs/day. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan 

that was submitted to us on May 13, 

2013, with one exception. We are not 

acting on the submitted update to the 

Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP), as 

the NEAP is not part of the SIP. We are 

proposing to approve the remainder of 

the revised maintenance plan because it 

demonstrates maintenance through 2025 

as required by CAA section 175A(b), 

retains the control measures from the 

initial PM10 maintenance plan that EPA 

approved on October 25, 2005, and 

meets other CAA requirements for a 

section 175A maintenance plan. We are 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
34940 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Lamar continues to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of 

the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at 

the Lamar Power Plant PM10 monitor on 

February 9, 2002; March 7, 2002; May 

21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 5, 2002; 

May 22, 2008; Jan 19, 2009; April 3, 

2011; and November 5, 2011 because 

the exceedances meet the criteria for 

exceptional events caused by high wind 

natural events. Additionally, the EPA is 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Lamar continues to 

attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of 

the PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at 

the Municipal Complex PM10 monitor 

on May 21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 

5, 2005; January 19, 2009; February 8, 

2013; March 18, 2012; April 2, 2012; 

April 9, 2013; May 1, 2013; May 24, 

2013; May 25, 2013; May 28, 2013; 

December 24, 2013; February 16, 2014; 

March 11, 2014; March 15, 2014; March 

18, 2014; March 29, 2014; March 30, 

2014; March 31, 2014; April 23, 2014; 

April 29, 2014; November 10, 2014; 

April 1, 2015; and April 2, 2015 because 

the exceedances meet the criteria for 

exceptional events caused by high wind 

natural events. We are also proposing to 

approve the revised maintenance plan’s 

2025 transportation conformity MVEB 

for PM10 of 764 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, the 

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 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• does not provide the 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

Country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose s 

ubstantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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: May 19, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12804 Filed 5–31–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0011; FRL–9947–18– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Revision and Removal of Stage I and 

II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 

Tennessee through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on February 8, 

2016, for parallel processing. This draft 

SIP revision seeks to lower applicability 

thresholds for certain sources subject to 

Federal Stage I requirements, remove 

the Stage II vapor control requirements, 

and add requirements for 

decommissioning gasoline dispensing 

facilities, as well as requirements for 

new and upgraded gasoline dispensing 

facilities in the Nashville, Tennessee 

Area (hereinafter also known as the 

‘‘Middle Tennessee Area’’). EPA has 

preliminarily determined that 

Tennessee’s February 8, 2016, draft SIP 

revision is approvable because it is 

consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2016–0011 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Sheckler’s phone number is (404) 562– 

9222. She can also be reached via 

electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@

epa.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS