71550 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: November 25, 2013. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28667 Filed 11–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0833; FRL–9903–25– 

Region–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado Second Ten-Year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Telluride 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

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 Telluride area for the 24- 

hour National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), 

which was adopted 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. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve the revised 

maintenance plan’s 2021 transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budget for PM10. Also, we are proposing 

to exclude from use in determining that 

Telluride continues to attain the PM10

NAAQS exceedances of the PM10

NAAQS that were recorded at the 

Telluride PM10 monitor on April 5, 2010 

and April 16, 2013, because they 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 December 30, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0833, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostigaard.crystal@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, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. 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– 

0833. 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: 

Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6602, 

ostigaard.crystal@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. 

(iv) The initials AQS mean or refer to 

the EPA Air Quality System database. 

(v) The words Colorado and State 

mean or refer to the State of Colorado. 

(vi) The initials CDOT mean or refer 

to the Colorado Department of 

Transportation. 

(vii) The initials CDPHE mean or refer 

to the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment. 

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

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 71551 

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. So the first maintenance 

plan was required to show maintenance at least 

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 Telluride 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. 

(ix) The initials MVEB mean or refer 

to motor vehicle emissions budget. 

(x) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. 

(xi) The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (coarse particulate matter). 

(xii) The initials RTP mean or refer to 

the Regional Transportation Plan. 

(xiii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(xiv) The initials TIP mean or refer to 

the Transportation Improvement 

Program. 

(xv) 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 Telluride 

PM10 Maintenance Plan 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

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 Telluride 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 partially/

conditionally approved Colorado’s 

nonattainment area SIP for the Telluride 

PM10 nonattainment area on September 

19, 1994 (59 FR 47807) and fully 

approved the SIP on October 4, 1996 (61 

FR 51784). On May 10, 2000, the 

Governor of Colorado submitted a 

request to EPA to redesignate the 

Telluride moderate PM10 nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 1987 24-hour 

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 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS through 2012. 

EPA approved the Telluride 

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 Telluride 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 

Telluride PM10 maintenance area for 

2004 through 2012, excluding one value 

that the State flagged as being caused by 

an exceptional event. The table reflects 

that the values for the Telluride area 

were well below the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS standard of 150 mg/m3. 

However, on April 5, 2010, the area 

experienced an exceedance measured at 

354 mg/m3. The State flagged this value 

as a high wind exceptional event in 

EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), which 

is EPA’s repository for ambient air 

quality data. 

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 5.14(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 

otherwise satisfies the requirements of 

section 50.14. 

The State submitted an exceptional 

event package on June 28, 2013 

requesting EPA’s concurrence on the 

flag for the April 5, 2010 exceedance. 

EPA completed its review of the 

exceptional events package for 

Telluride’s 2010 exceedance and 

concurred on the flag on August 21, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71552 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Copies of the State’s June 28, 2013 exceptional 

events package and our concurrence documents are 

included in the docket for this action. 

4Copies of the State’s October 3, 2013 exceptional 

events package and our concurrence documents are 

included in the docket for this action. 

2013 because the State successfully 

demonstrated that the exceedance on 

April 5, 2010 was caused by a natural 

high wind exceptional event due to 

blowing desert dust from upwind 

natural desert areas of Arizona, Utah, 

and southwest Colorado into the 

Telluride area.3 Thus, we are proposing 

to exclude from use in determining that 

Telluride continues to attain the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS the exceedance of 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS that was 

recorded at the Telluride PM10 monitor 

on April 5, 2010. See 40 CFR 50.14(b) 

and (c)(2)(ii). With the exclusion of this 

data point, the highest value in 2010 is 

133 mg/m3, which is well below the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS standard. 

Additionally, EPA reviewed 2013 data 

from AQS (this data has not yet been 

quality assured by Colorado) and found 

a high wind exceptional event of 265 

mg/m3 at the Telluride monitor on April 

16, 2013. The State submitted the 

exceptional events package for this 

exceedance on October 3, 2013, and 

EPA concurred on the package on 

November 1, 2013, because the State 

successfully demonstrated that the 

exceedance on April 16, 2013 was 

caused by a natural high wind 

exceptional event blowing desert dust 

from upwind natural desert areas of 

Arizona, Utah, and southwest Colorado 

into the Telluride area.4 Thus, we are 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Telluride continues to 

attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS the 

exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

that was recorded at the Telluride PM10

monitor on April 16, 2013. 

TABLE 1—TELLURIDE PM10 MAXIMUM

24-HOUR VALUES

[Based on Data from 333 West Colorado Avenue, AQS Identification Number 08–113– 

0004] 

Year 

Maximum 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

2004 .......................................... 72 

2005 .......................................... 70 

2006 .......................................... 69 

2007 .......................................... 77 

2008 .......................................... 82 

2009 .......................................... 130 

2010 .......................................... 133 

2011 .......................................... 68 

2012 .......................................... 80 

Table 2 below shows the estimated 

number of exceedances for the Telluride 

PM10 maintenance area for the threeyear periods of 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 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 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—TELLURIDE PM10 ESTIMATED

EXCEEDANCES

[Based on Data from 333 West Colorado Avenue, AQS Identification Number 08–113– 

0004] 

Design value period 

3-Year 

estimated 

number of 

exceedances 

2004—2006 ........................ 0 

2005—2007 ........................ 0 

2006—2008 ........................ 0 

2007—2009 ........................ 0 

2008—2010 ........................ 0 

2009—2011 ........................ 0 

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 Telluride PM10

Maintenance Plan on November 19, 

2009. The AQCC approved and adopted 

the revised Telluride PM10 Maintenance 

Plan during the 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. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Telluride 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 including the Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budget for PM10. 

Below, we describe our evaluation of 

these elements as they pertain to the 

revised Telluride PM10 Maintenance 

Plan. 

A. Emission Inventory 

The revised Telluride PM10

Maintenance Plan includes three 

inventories of daily PM10 emissions for 

the Telluride area, for years 2007, 2015, 

and 2021. The Air Pollution Control 

Division (APCD) developed these 

emission inventories using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods 

and updated transportation and 

demographics data. Each emission 

inventory is a list, by source category, of 

the air contaminants directly emitted 

into the Telluride 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). Included in both 

inventories are agriculture, highway 

vehicle exhaust, railroads, road dust, 

commercial cooking, construction, fuel 

combustion, non-road sources, structure 

fires, and woodburning. We find that 

Colorado has prepared adequate 

emission inventories for the area. 

B. Maintenance Demonstration 

The revised Telluride PM10

Maintenance Plan uses emission rollforward modeling to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS through 2021. Using the 2007 

and 2021 emissions inventories, the 

State first determined the projected 

growth in PM10 emissions from the 2007 

base year to the 2021 maintenance year. 

The State estimated that emissions 

would increase from 1,285 pounds per 

day in 2007 to 1,989 pounds per day in 

2021. This represents an increase of 54.8 

percent. 

The State then applied this percentage 

increase to the design day concentration 

of 82 mg/m3, which was the highest 24- 

hour maximum PM10 value recorded in 

the Telluride area from 2006–2008. This 

resulted in an estimated maximum 24- 

hour PM10 concentration in 2021 of 

126.9 mg/m3. This is well below the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3. 

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

In the revised Telluride PM10

Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 

continue to operate an air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 to verify continued 

attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. 

This includes the continued operation 

of a PM10 monitor in the Telluride area, 

which the State will rely on to track 

PM10 emissions in the maintenance 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 71553 

5 ‘‘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’’ (EPA 420–B–04– 

012 July, 2004). 

6 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. The State also commits to conduct 

an annual review of the air quality 

surveillance system in accordance with 

40 CFR 58.20(d) to determine whether 

the system continues to meet the 

monitoring objectives presented in 

Appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. 

Additionally, the State commits to track 

and document PM10 mobile source 

parameters and new and modified 

stationary source permits. If these and 

the resulting emissions change 

significantly over time, the APCD will 

perform appropriate studies to 

determine: (1) whether additional and/ 

or re-sited monitors are necessary; and 

(2) whether mobile and stationary 

source emissions projections are on 

target. 

Based on the above, we are proposing 

approval of 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 

identified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

As stated in the revised Telluride 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, the 

contingency measures will be triggered 

by a violation of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. However, the maintenance 

plan notes that an exceedance of the 24- 

hour PM10 NAAQS may initiate a 

voluntary, local process by the Town of 

Telluride, the Town of Mountain 

Village, San Miguel County and the 

APCD to identify and evaluate potential 

contingency measures. 

The Town of Telluride, the Town of 

Mountain Village and San Miguel 

County in coordination with the APCD, 

AQCC, and the Colorado Department of 

Transportation (CDOT) will initiate a 

process to begin evaluating potential 

contingency measures no more than 60 

days after notification from APCD that 

a violation of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

has occurred. The AQCC will then hold 

a public hearing to consider the 

contingency measures recommended by 

the Town of Telluride, the Town of 

Mountain Village, San Miguel County, 

APCD and CDOT along with any other 

contingency measures the AQCC 

determines may be appropriate to 

effectively address the violation. The 

State commits to adopt and implement 

any necessary contingency measures 

within one year after a violation occurs. 

The State identifies the following as 

potential contingency measures in the 

revised Telluride PM10 maintenance 

plan: (1) Increased street sweeping 

requirements; (2) expanded, mandatory 

use of alternative de-icers; (3) more 

stringent street sand specifications; (4) 

road paving requirements; (5) 

woodburning restrictions; (6) reestablishing new source review 

permitting requirements for stationary 

sources; and (7) other emission control 

measures appropriate for the area based 

on consideration of cost effectiveness, 

PM10 emission reduction potential, 

economic and social considerations, or 

other factors. 

We find that the contingency 

measures provided in the revised 

Telluride 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). 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. 

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 Telluride PM10

Maintenance Plan contains a single 

MVEB of 1,108 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.5 We used these 

resources in making our adequacy 

determination described below. 

On November 22, 2010, EPA 

announced the availability of the 

revised Telluride 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/currsips.htm#telluride. 

By letter to the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE) dated March 21, 2011, EPA 

found that the revised Telluride PM10

Maintenance Plan and the 2021 PM10

MVEB were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes.6 However, we 

noted in our letter that the revised 

Telluride PM10 Maintenance Plan did 

not discuss the PM10 MVEB for 2012 of 

10,001 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. This is because the 

revised Telluride PM10 Maintenance 

Plan did not revise the previouslyapproved 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—1,108 lbs/day versus 10,001 

lbs/day. This is largely an artifact of 

changes in the methods, models, and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71554 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 230 / Friday, November 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 1,108 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 Telluride 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 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 1,108 lbs/day. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

revised Telluride PM10 Maintenance 

Plan that was submitted to us on March 

31, 2010. We are proposing to approve 

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 in June of 2001, and meets 

other CAA requirements for a section 

175A maintenance plan. We are 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that Telluride continues to 

attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 

exceedances of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS that were recorded at the 

Telluride PM10 monitor on April 5, 2010 

and April 16, 2013 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 1,108 lbs/day.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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, PM10, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: November 18, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28652 Filed 11–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2012–0113; A–1–FRL– 

9903–20–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Hampshire; Transportation Conformity 

and Conformity of General Federal 

Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

New Hampshire. This revision 

establishes transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures related to 

interagency consultation and 

enforceability of certain transportationrelated control measures and mitigation 

measures. In addition, the revision 

relies on the Federal rule for General 

Conformity. The intended effect of this 

action is to approve State criteria and 

procedures to govern conformity 

determinations. This action is being 

taken in accordance with the Clean Air 

Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 30, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2012–0113 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R01–OAR–2012– 

0113,’’ Anne Arnold, U.S. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS