[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32556-32564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15029]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO-001-0058a, CO-001-0059a;
FRL-6989-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, 
Telluride and Pagosa Springs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado 
on May 10, 2000, for the purpose of redesignating the Telluride, 
Colorado and Pagosa Springs, Colorado areas from nonattainment to 
attainment for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 
than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM<INF>10</INF>) under the 
1987 standards. The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division's 
(Colorado) submittal, among other things, documents that the Telluride 
and Pagosa Springs areas have attained the PM<INF>10</INF> national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), requests redesignation to 
attainment and includes a maintenance plan for each of the areas 
demonstrating maintenance of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS for ten years. 
EPA is approving these redesignation requests and maintenance plans 
because Colorado has met the applicable requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA), as amended. Upon the effective date of this approval, the 
Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas will be designated attainment for 
the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. This action is being taken under sections 
107, 110, and 175A of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 14, 2001 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 16, 2001. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, 
Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, 
Colorado, 80202. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 
999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and copies of the 
Incorporation by Reference material are available at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the State 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air 
Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, 
Colorado 80246-1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Williams, EPA, Region VIII, 
(303) 312-6431.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Final Action
    What Action Is EPA Taking in This Direct Final Rule?
II. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
    A. What Requirements Must Be Followed for Redesignations to 
Attainment?
    B. Do the Telluride and Pagosa Springs Redesignation Requests 
and Maintenance Plans Meet the CAA Requirements?
    C. Have the Transportation Conformity Requirements Been Met?
    D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting this 
Action?
III. Background
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA's Final Action

What Action Is EPA Taking in this Direct Final Rule?

    We are approving the Governor's submittal of May 10, 2000, that 
requests redesignation for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs 
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1987 PM<INF>10</INF> 
standards. Included in Colorado's submittal are changes to the Ambient 
Air Quality Standards Regulation and State Implementation Plan Specific 
Regulations for Nonattainment--Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local 
Elements) Regulation (SIP Specific Regulation) which we are approving, 
under section 110 of the CAA, into

[[Page 32557]]

Colorado's SIP. We are also approving the maintenance plans for the 
Telluride and Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas, which 
were submitted with Colorado's May 10, 2000 redesignation requests. We 
are approving these requests and maintenance plans because Colorado has 
adequately addressed all of the requirements of the CAA for 
redesignation to attainment applicable to the Telluride and Pagosa 
Springs PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas. Upon the effective date of 
this action, the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas' designation status 
under 40 CFR part 81 will be revised to attainment.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse 
comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 14, 2001 without 
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by July 16, 
2001. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if 
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of 
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of 
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are 
not the subject of an adverse comment.

II. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

A. What Requirements Must Be Followed for Redesignations to Attainment?

    In order for a nonattainment area to be redesignated to attainment, 
the following conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be 
met:
    (i) We must determine that the area has attained the NAAQS;
    (ii) The applicable implementation plan for the area must be fully 
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    (iii) We must determine that the improvement in air quality is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable 
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and 
enforceable reductions;
    (iv) We must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as 
meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
    (v) The State containing such an area must meet all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    Our September 4, 1992 guidance entitled ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' outlines how to assess 
the adequacy of redesignation requests against the conditions listed 
above.
    On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revision to 
the SIP for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs area and a request that we 
redesignate these areas to attainment for PM<INF>10</INF>. The 
following is a brief discussion of how Colorado's redesignation 
requests and maintenance plans meet the requirements of the CAA for 
redesignation of the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas to attainment 
for PM<INF>10</INF>.

B. Do the Telluride and Pagosa Springs Redesignation Requests and 
Maintenance Plans Meet the CAA Requirements?

1. Attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS
    A state must demonstrate that an area has attained the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS through submittal of ambient air quality data 
from an ambient air monitoring network representing maximum 
PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations. The data, which must be quality assured 
and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS), 
must show that the average annual number of expected exceedances for 
the area is less than or equal to 1.0, pursuant to 40 CFR 50.6. In 
making this showing, the three most recent years of complete air 
quality data must be used.
    Colorado operates one PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring site in the 
Telluride PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. Colorado submitted 
ambient air quality data from the monitoring site which demonstrate 
that the area has attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. These air quality 
data were quality-assured and placed in AIRS. An exceedance of the 24-
hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS was recorded in 1994 and 1999 but neither 
exceedance resulted in a violation of the standard (i.e., the 3-year 
average of estimated exceedances remained below 1.0 per year). These 
two were the only recorded exceedances since PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring 
began in Telluride in 1987. The annual PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS has never 
been exceeded in Telluride. The three most recent years of data for the 
area (1997-1999) are complete (i.e., data are available for at least 
75% of the scheduled PM<INF>10</INF> samples per quarter) with no 
recorded violations. We believe that Colorado has adequately 
demonstrated, through ambient air quality data, that the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS have been attained in the Telluride area.
    Colorado also operates one PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring site in the 
Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. Colorado submitted 
ambient air quality data from the monitoring site which demonstrate 
that the area has attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. These air quality 
data were quality assured and placed in AIRS. Two exceedances of the 
24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS were measured on December 21 and again on 
December 29, 1994. However, the 3-year average of estimated exceedances 
remained below 1.0 (per year) and therefore did not result in a 
violation of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. The three most recent 
years of data for the area (1997-1999) are complete (i.e., data are 
available for at least 75% of the scheduled PM<INF>10</INF> samples per 
quarter) with no recorded violations. While the area recently recorded 
an exceedance of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS on June 12, 2000, 
this exceedance did not result in a violation of the standard and, 
thus, the area is still eligible for redesignation to attainment. The 
annual PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS has never been exceeded in Pagosa Springs. 
We believe that Colorado has adequately demonstrated, through ambient 
air quality data, that the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS have been attained in 
the Pagosa Springs area.
2. State Implementation Plan Approval
    Those States containing initial moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas were required by the 1990 amendments to the CAA to 
submit a SIP by November 15, 1991 which demonstrated attainment of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS by December 31, 1994. To approve a redesignation 
request, the SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 
110(k) and must satisfy all requirements that apply to that area. We 
partially/conditionally approved the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Telluride 
on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807) and fully approved it, with the 
adoption of new street sanding requirements, on October 4, 1996 (61 FR 
51784). We approved the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Pagosa Springs on May 
19, 1994 (59 FR 26126). These PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs for Telluride and 
Pagosa Springs were approved as meeting the moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment plan requirements that were due to EPA on November 15, 
1991.

[[Page 32558]]

3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures
    A state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air 
quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable. The 
primary sources of PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in the Telluride area are 
re-entrained road dust (from highways, paved roads, chip sealed roads, 
and unpaved roads) and woodburning. In the mid-1980's, Colorado adopted 
emission standards for all new woodburning stoves and fireplace inserts 
in Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 4. These regulations 
were most recently approved by us into the SIP on August 24, 1994. In 
addition, the town of Telluride and San Miguel County have adopted wood 
and coal burning emission reduction measures which: (1) Require the 
installation of cleaner-burning devices in existing dwellings which 
have pre-existing solid fuel burning devices; (2) prohibit solid fuel 
burning devices in new construction; (3) ban coal burning; and (4) 
limit the total number of fireplaces and woodstoves in the 
nonattainment area. These wood and coal burning controls were adopted 
and implemented throughout the 1980's and 1990's and were approved by 
EPA into the SIP in 1994. In addition, Telluride has adopted street 
sanding controls that require the use of street sanding material 
containing less than ``two percent fines'' (i.e., two percent of the 
material passing through a #200 sieve as determined by the American 
Society for Testing Materials ``Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of 
Fine and Coarse Aggregates'', designation C136-84a (1988)). This 
control strategy was adopted in 1994 and approved by EPA in 1996. 
Colorado submitted revisions to their SIP Specific Regulation that 
change the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for street sanding 
in Telluride. These changes eliminate irrelevant recordkeeping 
requirements and require users to retain records for 2 years instead of 
annually submitting reports to the State. Since these changes in 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements do not change the 
enforceability of the street sanding control measures in Telluride, we 
are approving the changes into the SIP. In addition to these State and 
local control measures, the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control 
Program has reduced PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in Telluride as older, 
higher emitting diesel vehicles are replaced with newer vehicles that 
meet tighter emission standards. Overall, despite growth in the 
Telluride nonattainment area (e.g., in population, employment and 
vehicle miles traveled) since 1990, attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS has been demonstrated. We have evaluated the various control 
measures, in addition to the 1996 attainment year emission inventory 
and the projected emissions described below, and have concluded that 
the continued attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in the Telluride 
area has resulted from emission reductions that are permanent and 
enforceable.
    The primary source of PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in the Pagosa 
Springs area is re-entrained road dust (from highways, paved roads, 
gravel roads, and dirt roads). The Town of Pagosa Springs paved 6.5 
miles of unpaved roads in 1992, 1993 and 1994 in order to reduce 
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions. In addition, Pagosa Springs has adopted 
street sanding controls that require the use of street sanding material 
containing less than ``one percent fines'' (i.e., one percent of the 
material passing through a #200 sieve as determined by the American 
Society for Testing Materials ``Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of 
Fine and Coarse Aggregates'', designation C136-84a (1988)). Users of 
street sand on Highway 160 and Highway 84 must also use 15 percent less 
sand than an established base sanding amount. These sanding controls 
were adopted in 1992 and approved by EPA in 1994. Colorado submitted 
revisions to their SIP Specific Regulation that change the reporting 
requirements for street sanding in Pagosa Springs. These changes 
eliminate the road paving control measure that was completed in 1994 
and require users to retain records for 2 years instead of annually 
submitting reports to the State. Since these changes in reporting 
requirements do not change the enforceability of the current street 
sanding control measures in Pagosa Springs, we are approving the 
changes into the SIP. In addition to these State and local control 
measures, the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program has 
reduced PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in Pagosa Springs as older, higher 
emitting diesel vehicles are replaced with newer vehicles that meet 
tighter emission standards. Overall, despite growth in the Pagosa 
Springs nonattainment area (e.g., in population and sales tax revenue), 
attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS has been demonstrated. We have 
evaluated the various control measures, in addition to the 1997 
attainment year emission inventory and the projected emissions 
described below, and have concluded the continued attainment of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS in the Pagosa Springs area has resulted from 
emission reductions that are permanent and enforceable.
4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A of the CAA
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that, for a nonattainment 
area to be redesignated to attainment, we must fully approve a 
maintenance plan which meets the requirements of section 175A of the 
CAA. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the relevant 
NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after our approval of the 
redesignation. Eight years after our approval of a redesignation, 
Colorado must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating 
attainment for the 10 years following the initial 10 year period. The 
maintenance plan must also contain a contingency plan to ensure prompt 
correction of any violation of the NAAQS. (See sections 175A(b) and 
(d).) Our September 4, 1992 guidance outlines 5 core elements that are 
necessary to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area 
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Those elements, 
as well as guidelines for subsequent maintenance plan revisions, are as 
follows:
    a. Attainment Inventory. The maintenance plan should include an 
attainment emission inventory to identify the level of emissions in the 
area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. An emission inventory for 
Telluride was developed for the attainment year (1996). The inventory 
was based on the 1991 base year inventory approved by us in 1996 and 
includes emissions from wood and coal burning, restaurants, aircraft, a 
stationary source, mobile exhaust and re-entrained dust from paved and 
unpaved roads. Emissions were updated to reflect the latest emission 
factors, device counts (for stoves/fireplaces), traffic estimates and 
also to reflect the road paving that has occurred in the area.
    An emission inventory for Pagosa Springs was developed for the 
attainment year (1997). The inventory was based on the 1988 base year 
inventory approved by us in 1994 and includes emissions from wood and 
coal burning, mobile exhaust and re-entrained dust from paved and 
unpaved roads. Emissions were updated to reflect the latest emission 
factors and traffic estimates as well as the road paving and street 
sand controls that have occurred in the area.
    Colorado conducted silt loading studies during the spring of 1997 
in Telluride and Pagosa Springs to update the road dust emission 
factors used in the inventories. The revised emission factors for road 
dust used in the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

[[Page 32559]]

inventories reflect the control measures that are in place in these 
areas and include the street sanding controls as well as voluntary 
street sweeping. Colorado adjusted the emission factors to account for 
a lack of sanding during the 1997 study period. However, no adjustment 
was made to account for the voluntary street sweeping that may have 
occurred. Since the voluntary street sweeping is not an enforceable 
control measure in the PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs for these areas, an 
additional adjustment to the road dust emission factors must be taken 
into consideration in our review. If the voluntary street sweeping had 
been suspended for the duration of the silt loading studies, 
PM<INF>10</INF> emission projections would likely increase no more than 
2% in Telluride and 3% in Pagosa Springs. Based on these estimates, the 
areas would still be able to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour 
NAAQS. Thus, we believe Colorado has prepared adequate attainment 
inventories for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas.
    b. Maintenance Demonstration. A state may generally demonstrate 
maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a 
pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment 
inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and 
emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. Colorado chose 
the modeling approach for both Telluride and Pagosa Springs.
    The maintenance demonstration for both the Telluride and Pagosa 
Springs areas uses the chemical mass balance (CMB) roll-forward 
methodology, which is the same level of modeling used in the original 
attainment demonstrations for the moderate PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs for 
these areas. The CMB receptor model data are used to identify the 
sources of emissions that influence PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations in 
the area. Colorado used the attainment inventories to further refine 
the CMB source identification for each area and then apportion the 
design day concentration. The design day concentration was determined 
using EPA's ``Table look-up'' method. Based on the number of samples 
collected during a three year period from 1996--1998 (934 samples in 
Telluride and 1025 samples in Pagosa Springs), the third highest 
concentration measured during that period is used as the design value: 
101 <greek-m>g/m\3\ for Telluride and 89 <greek-m>g/m\3\ for Pagosa 
Springs. Colorado prepared a maintenance inventory for the year 2012 
for each area and rolled forward the design day concentration based on 
the changes that occurred in the emission inventory from the attainment 
year to the maintenance year. Based on this process, the Telluride 2012 
maintenance concentration is 147 <greek-m>g/m\3\ and the Pagosa Springs 
2012 maintenance concentration is 121 <greek-m>g/m\3\. Since these 2012 
projections for Telluride and Pagosa Springs are below the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, maintenance is demonstrated.
    Although EPA would normally insist on some interim year projections 
between the attainment year and 2012, we have no reason to believe that 
total emissions will be greater than the 2012 projections in any of the 
interim years. Colorado applied simple, environmentally conservative, 
growth rates to all source categories other than stationary sources. 
The stationary source in the Telluride inventory was projected at 
maximum allowable emissions. Thus, total emissions in all years before 
2012 should be less than 2012 total emissions and no interim year 
projections are required.
    Since no violations of the annual PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS have ever 
occurred in Telluride or Pagosa Springs and since the maintenance 
demonstration clearly shows maintenance of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS in these areas through the year 2012, it is reasonable and 
adequate to assume that protection of the 24-hour standard will be 
sufficient to protect the annual standard as well. Thus, EPA believes 
Colorado has adequately demonstrated that the Telluride and Pagosa 
Springs areas will maintain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS for at least the 
next ten years.
    c. Monitoring Network. Once a nonattainment area has been 
redesignated to attainment, the State must continue to operate an 
appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR 
part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The maintenance 
plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality 
monitors that will provide such verification. Colorado operates one 
PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring site in the Telluride area and one in the 
Pagosa Springs area. We approve these sites annually, and any future 
change would require discussion with, and approval from, us. In their 
May 10, 2000 submittal, Colorado committed to continue to operate these 
PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring stations in Telluride and Pagosa Springs, in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
    d. Verification of Continued Attainment. A state's maintenance plan 
submittal should indicate how it will track the progress of the 
maintenance plan. This is necessary due to the fact that the emission 
projections made for the maintenance demonstration depend on 
assumptions of point and area source growth. Colorado commits to 
analyze the monitoring data in Telluride and Pagosa Springs to verify 
continued attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. Additionally, in a 
letter dated January 24, 2001, from Margie Perkins, Director, Colorado 
Air Pollution Control Division, to Richard Long, Director, EPA Region 
VIII Air and Radiation Program, Colorado commits to reviewing inventory 
assumptions (i.e., emission factors, actual or projected population 
growth and growth in vehicle miles traveled, etc.) on a 3-year basis. 
EPA relies on this commitment in approving the Telluride and Pagosa 
Springs maintenance plans and the above-referenced letter is archived 
as Additional Materials in 40 CFR 52.320(c)(90)(ii).
    e. Contingency Plan. Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a 
maintenance plan also include contingency provisions, as necessary, to 
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 
redesignation of the area. For the purposes of section 175A, a state is 
not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take 
effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance 
plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is an enforceable 
part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures are adopted 
expeditiously once they are triggered. The plan should discuss the 
measures to be adopted and a schedule and procedure for adoption and 
implementation. The State should also identify the specific indicators, 
or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency plan 
will be implemented.
    The Telluride and Pagosa Springs contingency plans will be 
triggered upon our determination that a PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS violation 
has occurred in Telluride or Pagosa Springs. The Telluride and Pagosa 
Springs contingency plans provide that, within six months of our 
determination that a violation has occurred, Colorado and the local 
government staff in the area will develop appropriate contingency 
measure(s) intended to prevent or correct a violation of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard. If a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS 
has occurred, a public hearing process at the State and local level 
will begin. If the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) 
agrees that the implementation of local measures will prevent further 
exceedances or violations, the AQCC may approve of the local measures 
without adopting State requirements. If, however, the AQCC finds 
locally adopted contingency measures to be inadequate,

[[Page 32560]]

the AQCC will adopt State enforceable measures as deemed necessary to 
prevent additional exceedances or violations. Any State-enforceable 
measures will become part of the next revised maintenance plan, 
submitted to us for approval.
    Potential contingency measures for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs 
areas include: transportation control measures designed to reduce 
vehicle miles traveled, increased street sweeping, additional road 
paving, more stringent street sand specifications, voluntary or 
mandatory woodburning bans, expanded use of alternative de-icers, re-
establishing nonattainment new source review permitting requirements 
for stationary sources, or other measures as deemed appropriate.
    The Telluride and Pagosa Springs contingency plans provide that the 
contingency measures will be adopted and fully implemented within one 
year of a PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS violation.
    f. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions. In accordance with 
section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of Colorado is required to submit 
a revision to the maintenance plan eight years after the redesignation 
of the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas to attainment for 
PM<INF>10</INF>. This revision is to provide for maintenance of the 
NAAQS for an additional ten years following the first ten year period. 
Colorado committed, in the Telluride and Pagosa Springs redesignation 
requests, to submit a revised maintenance plan, for each area, to EPA 
no later than December 31, 2008.
5. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, section 
107(d)(3)(E) requires that it must have met all applicable requirements 
of section 110 and part D of the CAA. We interpret this to mean that, 
for a redesignation request to be approved, the State must have met all 
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to, or at the time 
of, submitting a complete redesignation request. In our evaluation of a 
redesignation request, we don't need to consider other requirements of 
the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete 
redesignation request.
    a. Section 110 Requirements. Section 110(a)(2) contains general 
requirements for nonattainment plans. For purposes of redesignation, 
the Colorado SIP was reviewed to ensure that all applicable 
requirements under the amended CAA were satisfied. These requirements 
were met for Telluride with Colorado's March 17, 1993 and April 22, 
1996 submittals for the Telluride PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. 
We provided full approval of the Telluride SIP Element on October 4, 
1996 (61 FR 51784). The section 110(a)(2) requirements were met for 
Pagosa Springs with Colorado's February 24, 1993 and December 9, 1993 
submittals for the Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area. 
We approved these submittals on May 19, 1994 (59 FR 26126).
    b. Part D Requirements. Before a PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area 
may be redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the 
applicable requirements of part D. Subpart 1 of part D establishes the 
general requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, subpart 4 
of part D establishes specific requirements applicable to 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas.
    The requirements of sections 172(c) and 189(a) regarding attainment 
of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS, and the requirements of section 172(c) 
regarding reasonable further progress, imposition of Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACM), the adoption of contingency 
measures, and the submission of an emission inventory, have been 
satisfied through our September 19, 1994 partial/conditional approval 
of the Telluride PM<INF>10</INF> SIP (59 FR 47807), our October 4, 1996 
full approval of the Telluride PM<INF>10</INF> SIP (61 FR 51784) with 
the adoption of new street sanding requirements, our May 19, 1994 
approval of the Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> SIP (59 FR 26126), and 
the demonstration that the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas are now 
attaining the NAAQS.
    Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR 51.396) require that states 
adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas 
designated nonattainment or subject to an EPA-approved maintenance 
plan, we have decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an 
applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in 
EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. (See 
61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)
    We approved the requirements of the part D new source review (NSR) 
permit program for the Pagosa Springs moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42506). In that same 
Federal Register action, we only partially approved Colorado's 
nonattainment NSR permitting regulations for the Telluride moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area because Colorado did not submit NSR 
permitting regulations for sources of PM<INF>10</INF> precursors in 
Telluride and because EPA had not yet found that such sources did not 
contribute significantly in Telluride. Colorado's nonattainment area 
NSR permitting regulations were fully approved on September 19, 1994 
when we partially/conditionally approved the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP 
element for Telluride (59 FR 47807). Once the Telluride and Pagosa 
Springs areas are redesignated to attainment, the prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements of part C of the CAA will 
apply. We must ensure that Colorado has made any needed modifications 
to its PSD regulations so that its PSD regulations will apply in the 
Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas after redesignation. Colorado's PSD 
regulations, which we approved as meeting all applicable Federal 
requirements, apply to any area designated as unclassifiable or 
attainment and, thus, will become fully effective in the Telluride and 
Pagosa Springs area upon redesignation of the area to attainment.

C. Have the Transportation Conformity Requirements Been Met?

    Under our transportation conformity regulations, States are to 
define the mobile vehicle emissions budget to which Federal 
transportation plans must demonstrate conformity. The emissions budget 
is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the 
attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the 
NAAQS.
    Colorado had previously adopted mobile source emissions budgets for 
Telluride for the years 1994 and 1997 of 16,901 lb/day and 14,687 lb/
day, respectively. In the Telluride maintenance plan, Colorado 
established a new mobile source emissions budget of 10,001 lb/day for 
the year 2012 and beyond. This budget is the total of the 2012 mobile 
source PM<INF>10</INF> emissions and includes vehicle exhaust, 
highways, paved collector roads, paved local roads and dirt roads. 
EPA's approval of 10,001 lb/day as the budget means that this value 
must be used for conformity determinations for all years after 2012. 
This budget was adopted in Colorado's Ambient Air Standards Regulation 
and submitted to us for approval. We are approving the emission budget 
for Telluride into the SIP.
    Colorado has also previously adopted mobile source emissions 
budgets for Pagosa Springs for the years 1994 and 1997 of 6,204 lb/day 
and 6,281 lb/day, respectively. In the Pagosa Springs maintenance plan, 
Colorado established a new mobile source emissions budget of 7,486 lb/
day for the year 2012 and beyond. This budget is the total of the 2012 
mobile source PM<INF>10</INF> emissions and includes vehicle exhaust, 
highways,

[[Page 32561]]

paved roads, gravel roads and dirt roads. EPA's approval of 7,486 lb/
day as the budget means that this value must be used for conformity 
determinations for all years after 2012. This budget was adopted in 
Colorado's Ambient Air Standards Regulation and submitted to us for 
approval. We are approving the emission budget for Pagosa Springs into 
the SIP.
    On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Environmental Defense 
Fund vs. the Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637, that we must 
make an affirmative determination that the submitted motor vehicle 
emission budgets contained in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are 
adequate before they are used to determine the conformity of 
Transportation Plans or Transportation Improvement Programs. In 
response to the court decision, we make any submitted SIP revision 
containing an emission budget available for public comment and respond 
to these comments before announcing our adequacy determination. EPA's 
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93) spells out criteria 
that EPA must use in its adequacy review.
    EPA sent a letter to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division on 
July 12, 2000 stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
submitted Telluride and Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance 
plans are adequate. This finding has also been announced on EPA's 
conformity website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/adequacy.htm. We documented our adequacy determination for Telluride 
and Pagosa Springs in the Federal Register on August 3, 2000 (65 FR 
47726). The budgets took effect on August 18, 2000 (15 days after our 
announcement in the Federal Register), superseding the prior 
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions budgets for Telluride and Pagosa Springs.

D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting This Action?

    The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission. 
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation plan 
submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public 
hearing. Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that each 
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the CAA 
must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
    Colorado held a public hearing for the proposed rule changes on 
March 16, 2000. The rulemaking was adopted by the Air Quality Control 
Commission (AQCC) directly after the March 16, 2000 hearing and was 
formally submitted to EPA by the Governor on May 10, 2000. We reviewed 
the submission against our completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V. We determined the submission was complete and notified 
Colorado in a letter dated August 7, 2000. We have evaluated the 
Governor's submittal and have determined that Colorado met the 
requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA.

III. Background

    To implement our 1987 revisions to the particulate matter NAAQS, on 
August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), we categorized areas of the nation into 
three groups based on the likelihood that protection of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS would require revisions of the existing SIP. We 
identified both Telluride and Pagosa Springs as PM<INF>10</INF> ``Group 
I'' areas of concern, i.e., areas with a strong likelihood of violating 
the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS and requiring a substantial SIP revision. The 
Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas were among several Group I 
PM<INF>10</INF> areas, all of which were designated and classified as 
moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas by operation of law upon 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (November 15, 1990). 
See 56 FR 56694 at 56705-706 (November 6, 1991).
    By November 15, 1991, States containing initial moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas were required to submit most 
elements of their PM<INF>10</INF> SIPs. (See sections 172(c), 188, and 
189 of the CAA.) Some provisions, such as PM<INF>10</INF> contingency 
measures required by section 172(c)(9) of the CAA and nonattainment new 
source review (NSR) provisions, were due at later dates. In order for a 
nonattainment area to be redesignated to attainment, the above 
mentioned conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met. We 
partially/conditionally approved the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Telluride 
on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47807) and fully approved it, with the 
adoption of new street sanding requirements, on October 4, 1996 (61 FR 
51784). We approved the PM<INF>10</INF> SIP for Pagosa Springs on May 
19, 1994 (59 FR 26126).
    EPA promulgated new standards for PM<INF>10</INF> on September 18, 
1997. Areas were to be designated under the new PM<INF>10</INF> 
standard by July 2000. On May 14, 1999, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Associations, Inc. et 
al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency vacated the 1997 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard. Because of the Court ruling, we are 
continuing to implement the pre-existing PM<INF>10</INF> standard, and 
are therefore approving redesignations to qualified PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas. On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado 
submitted a request to redesignate the Telluride and Pagosa Springs 
moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment areas to attainment (for the 
1987 PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS) and submitted maintenance plans for the 
areas.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the

[[Page 32562]]

absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP 
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in 
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 
(61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in 
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective August 14, 2001 unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by July 16, 2001.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 14, 2001. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: May 1, 2001.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

    2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(90) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (90) On May 10, 2000, the State of Colorado submitted maintenance 
plans for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas and requested that these areas be redesignated to 
attainment for the PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. The redesignation requests and maintenance plans satisfy all 
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, ``State Implementation 
Plan Specific Regulations for Nonattainment--Attainment/Maintenance 
Areas (Local Elements),'' 5 CCR 1001-20, revisions adopted 3/16/00, 
effective 5/30/00, as follows: Section I., Pagosa Springs Attainment/
Maintenance Area and Section II., Telluride Attainment/Maintenance 
Area.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) January 24, 2001 letter from Margie Perkins, Director, Colorado 
Air Pollution Control Division, to Richard Long, Director, EPA Region 
VIII Air and Radiation Program, clarifying the commitments of the 
Verification of Continued Attainment section of the Telluride and 
Pagosa Springs maintenance plans.

    3. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.332  Moderate PM-10 nonattainment area plans.

* * * * *
    (j) On May 10, 2000, the State of Colorado submitted maintenance 
plans for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas and requested that these areas be redesignated to 
attainment for the PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. The redesignation requests and maintenance plans satisfy all 
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


    2. In Sec. 81.306, the table entitled ``Colorado-PM-10'' is amended 
by revising the entries under Archuleta County for the ``Pagosa Springs 
Area'' and under San Miguel County for ``Telluride'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 81.306  Colorado.

* * * * *

                                                                     Colorado--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Designation                                              Classification
          Designated area           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date                          Type                         Date                         Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Archuleta County:
    Pagosa Springs Area............  August 14, 2001.................  Attainment.............

[[Page 32563]]

 
        Township 35N-Range
         2W:Sections 13, 14, 15;
         Section 23 NE, N \1/2\ SE;
         Section 24 all except
         SWSW; Section 25 N \1/
         2\NE, NENW.
        Township 35N-Range 1W:
         Section 18 W \1/2\
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
 
San Miguel County:
    Telluride......................  August 14, 2001.................  Attainment.............
        The Telluride attainment/
         maintenance area begins 28
         at the intersection
         ofColorado State Highway
         145 and the Telluride
         service area boundary,
         existed in 1991. The
         western edge of the 2
         nonattainment area until
         it meets Remine Creek is
         defined as follows: A
         tract of land located in a
         portion of the west one-
         half of Section 28 and the
         east one-half of Section
         29, Township 43 North,
         Range 9 west, of New
         Mexico Principal Meridian,
         County of San Miguel,
         State of Colorado,
         described as follows:
         Beginning at the southwest
         corner of the said Section
         28; Thence N 89 deg.36'00"
         W. 292.70 Feet; Thence S
         04 deg.05'12" W. 538.63
         Feet; Thence N 03
         deg.29'42" W. 780.19 Feet;
         Thence N 22 deg.15'00" E.
         3344.16 Feet; Thence S 51
         deg.51'49" E. 570.44 Feet;
         Thence S 03 deg.15'36" E.
         1106.22 Feet; Thence S 45
         deg.24'42" E. 546.96 Feet;
         Thence S 28 deg.41'12" W.
         549.62 Feet; Thence S 29
         deg.40'09" E. 169.68 Feet;
         Thence S 44 deg.30'03" W.
         649.51 Feet; Thence S 85
         deg.54'00" E. 660.00 Feet;
         Thence S 04 deg.06'00" W.
         660.00 Feet; Thence N 89
         deg.56'00" E. 1318.68
         Feet; to the true point of
         beginning containing 11249
         acres as described above.
         Then, at Remine Creek, the
         attainment/maintenance
         boundary follows the
         service area boundary for
         9.65 miles to the 9,200
         foot contour line. The
         boundary then intersects
         Bear Creek. Here the
         attainment/maintenance
         boundary diverges from the
         service area boundary
         (9,200 foot contour line).
         The attainment/maintenance
         boundary continues in a
         west, southwest direction
         for 0.92 miles from the
         intersection of the 9,200
         foot contour line and Bear
         Creek to the top of ski
         lift number 9 in the
         Telluride Ski Area at an
         elevation of about 11,900
         feet. The boundary then
         shifts and runs in a north-
         westerly direction for
         0.83 miles from the top of
         lift 9 to the top of lift
         7, which is located at an
         elevation of 10,490 feet.
         From the top of lift 7,
         the attainment/maintenance
         boundary continues in a
         north-westerly direction
         for 0.5 miles to the
         intersection of lift 3
         with the 10,000 foot
         control line. The
         attainment/maintenance
         boundary follows the
         10,000 foot contour line
         in a south, south-west
         direction for 3.2 miles,
         until it intersects Skunk
         Creek. Here the boundary
         diverges from the 10,000
         foot contour line and
         follows Skunk Creek in a
         northerly direction for
         2.25 miles. At the
         intersection of Skunk
         Creek and Colorado State
         Highway 145, the
         attainment/maintenance
         boundary leaves the creek
         and follows Highway 145 in
         a northerly direction
         until it meets the service
         area boundary as it
         existed prior to changes
         adopted in 1991.
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 32564]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-15029 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P