[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2827-2832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00780]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0814; FRL-9921-54-Region 8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan for 
Steamboat Springs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by 
the State of Colorado. On May 11, 2012, the designee of the Governor of 
Colorado submitted to EPA a revised maintenance plan for the Steamboat 
Springs area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 
10 microns (PM<INF>10</INF>). The SIP was adopted by the State on 
December 15, 2011. As required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A, 
this revised maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard for a second 10-year period beyond the area's 
original redesignation to attainment for the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. In 
addition, EPA is approving the revised maintenance plan's 2024 
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for 
PM<INF>10.</INF> This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A 
of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 23, 2015 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 20, 2015. If adverse 
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct 
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0814, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#68071b1c010f09091a0c460b1a111b1c0904280d1809460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="036c70776a64626271672d60717a7077626f436673622d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
    <bullet> Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
    <bullet> 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-
2013-0814. 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

[[Page 2828]]

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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b34282f323c3a3a293f75382922282f3a371b3e2b3a753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94fbe7e0fdf3f5f5e6f0baf7e6ede7e0f5f8d4f1e4f5baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    (ii) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (iii) The initials APCD mean or refer to the Colorado Air Pollution 
Control Division.
    (iv) The initials AQCC mean or refer to the Colorado Air Quality 
Control Commission.
    (v) The words Colorado and State mean or refer to the State of 
Colorado.
    (vi) The initials MVEB mean or refer to motor vehicle emissions 
budget.
    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard.
    (viii) The initials PM<INF>10</INF> mean or refer to particulate 
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 
micrometers (coarse particulate matter).
    (ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (x) The initials TSD mean or refer to technical support document.

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 Steamboat Springs area was designated unclassifiable for the 
1987 PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS by operation of law upon enactment of the 
CAA Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. However, in 
January and February of 1991, the EPA notified the Governors of those 
States, including the State of Colorado, which recorded violations of 
the PM<INF>10</INF> standard after January 1, 1989, that EPA believed 
that those areas should be redesignated as nonattainment for 
PM<INF>10</INF>. In the Federal Register published on April 22, 1991 
(56 FR 16274), EPA identified those PM<INF>10</INF> areas for which the 
EPA had notified the Governors of affected States that the area's 
PM<INF>10</INF> designation should be revised to nonattainment. After 
notification, the Governor of each affected state was required to 
submit to EPA the redesignation he or she considered appropriate for 
each area. The EPA proceeded to redesignate to nonattainment 10 areas, 
including the Steamboat Springs area, for PM<INF>10</INF> on December 
21, 1993 (58 FR 67334). EPA fully approved Colorado's nonattainment 
area SIP for the Steamboat Springs area on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 
68188).
    On July 31, 2002, the Governor of Colorado submitted a request to 
EPA to redesignate the Steamboat Springs moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1987 PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. 
Along with this request, the State submitted a maintenance plan, which 
demonstrated that the area would continue to attain the PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS through 2015. EPA approved the Steamboat Springs maintenance plan 
and redesignation to attainment on October 25, 2004 (69 FR 62210).
    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 PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance plan to 
EPA on May 11, 2012 (hereafter; ``revised Steamboat Springs 
PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 24, 2004. See 69 FR 62210. So the first maintenance plan 
was required to show maintenance at least through 2014. 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 Steamboat Springs 
area, the second 10-year period ends 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level of the national primary and 
secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for PM<INF>10</INF> is 
150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). An area attains the 24-
hour PM<INF>10</INF> standard when the expected

[[Page 2829]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the 
level of the 24-hour standard, 150 [micro]g/m\3\, after rounding to 
the nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in five or greater 
are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\ 
would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 [mu]g/
m\3\; whereas, a recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an 
exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 
part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 below shows the maximum monitored 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
values for the Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance area for 
2004-2014. The table reflects that the values for the Steamboat Springs 
area are well below the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS standard of 150 [mu]g/
m\3\.

         Table 1--Steamboat Springs PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Values
  [Based on data from Routt County Court House site, AQS Identification
                           Number 08-107-0003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                     Maximum value  ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     2004                                   94
                     2005                                   86
                     2006                                   87
                     2007                                   99
                     2008                                  124
                     2009                                   83
                     2010                                   99
                     2011                                  135
                     2012                                  124
                     2013                                   82
                     2014                                 * 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Preliminary 2014 Data only through September 17, 2014.

    Table 2 below shows the estimated number of exceedances for the 
Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance area for the three-year 
periods starting in 2004 and ending in 2014. The table reflects 
continuous attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.

          Table 2--Steamboat Springs PM10 Estimated Exceedances
  [Based on data from Routt County Court House site, AQS Identification
                           Number 08-107-0003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          3-Year estimated number of
        Design value period                      exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2004-2006                                    0
                2005-2007                                    0
                2006-2008                                    0
                2007-2009                                    0
                2008-2010                                    0
                2009-2011                                    0
                2010-2012                                    0
                2011-2013                                    0
                2012-2014                                  * 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Preliminary 2014 Data only through September 17, 2014.

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 Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance 
Plan on December 15, 2011. The AQCC approved and adopted the revised 
Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan directly after the 
hearing. The Governor's designee submitted the revised plan to EPA on 
May 11, 2012.
    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 11, 
2012, 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 Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 
Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of a Maintenance Plan for 
PM<INF>10</INF>: Emission Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, 
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency 
Plan, and MVEB for PM<INF>10</INF>. Below, we describe our evaluation 
of these elements as they pertain to the revised Steamboat Springs 
PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan 
includes three inventories of daily PM<INF>10</INF> emissions for the 
Steamboat Springs area; they are for 2008, 2016 and 2024. The Air 
Pollution Control Division (APCD) developed these emission inventories 
using EPA-approved emissions modeling methods, and updated 
transportation information, demographics data, and reported actual 
emissions for point sources. Each emission inventory is a list, by 
source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the 
Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance area. A more detailed 
description of the 2008 and 2024 inventories and information on model 
assumptions and parameters for each source category are contained in 
the State's PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan Technical Support Document 
(TSD). Included in all the inventories are emissions data for: 
commercial cooking; construction; fuel combustion; highway vehicles; 
non-road vehicles; railroad; road dust; structure fires; woodburning; 
and point sources. We find that Colorado has prepared adequate emission 
inventories for the area.

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The revised Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan uses 
emission roll-forward modeling to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-
hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS through 2024. Using the 2008 and 2024 
emissions inventories, the State first determined the projected growth 
in PM<INF>10</INF> emissions from the 2008 base year to the 2024 
maintenance year. The State estimated that emissions would increase 
from 5,095.9 pounds per day in 2008 to 7,308.8 pounds per day in 2024. 
This represents an increase of 43.4 percent.
    The State then applied this percentage increase to the design day 
concentration of 99 [mu]g/m\3\, which was the third highest 24-hour 
maximum PM<INF>10</INF> value recorded in Steamboat Springs from 2008-
2010. This resulted in an estimated maximum 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 
concentration in 2024 of 142 [mu]g/m\3\. This is below the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. This includes the continued operation of a 
PM<INF>10</INF> monitor in the Steamboat Springs area, which the State 
will rely on to track PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in the maintenance 
area.
    Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as 
satisfying the relevant requirements. These commitments are similar to 
those we approved in the original maintenance plan.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include

[[Page 2830]]

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 Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 
Maintenance Plan, exceedances trigger one level of response and 
violations trigger another. If there is an exceedance, the APCD and 
local government staff will develop appropriate contingency measure(s) 
intended to prevent or correct a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> 
standard. The APCD and local government staff will consider relevant 
information about historical exceedances, meteorological conditions 
related to the exceedance(s), and the most recent estimates of growth 
and emissions, and whether the exceedance might be attributed to an 
exceptional event. The maintenance plan indicates that the State will 
generally notify EPA and local governments in the Steamboat Springs 
area within 30 days of the exceedance, but in no event later than 45 
days. The process for exceedances will be completed within six months 
of the exceedance notification.
    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 AQCC 
agrees that the implementation of local measures will prevent further 
exceedances or violations, the AQCC may endorse or approve the local 
measures without adopting State requirements. If, however, the AQCC 
finds locally adopted contingency measures to be inadequate, the AQCC 
will adopt State enforceable measures as deemed necessary to prevent 
additional exceedances or violations. The State commits to adopt and 
implement any necessary contingency measures within one year after a 
violation occurs. Any state enforceable measures that are adopted will 
become part of another revised maintenance plan, which will be 
submitted to the Colorado Legislature and the EPA for approval.
    The State indentifies the following as potential contingency 
measures in the revised Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance 
Plan: (1) increased street sweeping requirements; (2) road paving 
requirements; (3) more stringent street sand specifications; (4) 
voluntary or mandatory woodburning curtailment; (5) bans on all 
woodburning; (6) expanded, mandatory use of alternative de-icers; (7) 
re-establishing new source review nonattainment area permitting 
requirements for stationary sources; (8) transportation control 
measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled; and (9) other 
emission control measures appropriate for the area based on the 
consideration of cost effectiveness, PM<INF>10</INF> emission reduction 
potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that 
the State deems appropriate.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised 
Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan are sufficient and 
meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity Requirements: MVEB for PM<INF>10</INF>

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR 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 and the Transportation Improvement Program are 
consistent with the 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 Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan 
contains a single MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day of PM<INF>10</INF> for the year 
2024, the maintenance year. Once the State submitted the revised plan 
with the 2024 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.\3\ We used these resources in making our adequacy 
determination described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2013, EPA announced the availability of the revised 
Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan, and the 
PM<INF>10</INF> MVEB, on EPA's transportation conformity adequacy Web 
site. 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 EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#steam-spr-co.
    By letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
Environment dated January 23, 2014, EPA found that the revised 
Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan and the 2024 
PM<INF>10</INF> MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes.\4\ However, we noted in our letter that the revised Steamboat 
Springs PM<INF>10</INF> Maintenance Plan did not discuss the 
PM<INF>10</INF> MVEB for 2015 of 21,773 lbs/day from the original 
PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance plan that EPA approved in 2004 (see 69 FR 
62210, October 25, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In a Federal Register dated October 3, 2014, we notified the 
public of our finding (see 79 FR 59767). This adequacy determination 
became effective on October 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the EPA-approved 2015 
PM<INF>10</INF> MVEB must continue to be used for analysis years 2015 
through 2023 (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 PM<INF>10</INF> MVEB and EPA approves the SIP 
revision. This is because the revised Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 
Maintenance Plan did not revise the previously approved 2015 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 2024 
and 2015 budgets--1,103 lbs/day versus 21,773 lbs/day. This is largely 
an artifact of changes in the methods, models, and emission factors 
used to estimate mobile source emissions. The 2024 MVEB is consistent 
with the State's 2024 emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust and road 
dust, and, thus, is consistent with the State's maintenance 
demonstration for 2024.

[[Page 2831]]

    The discrepancy between the 2015 and 2024 MVEBs is not a 
significant issue for several reasons. As a practical matter, the 2024 
MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day of PM<INF>10</INF> 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 2024 
MVEB. Also, for any maintenance plan, such as the revised Steamboat 
Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 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 2024, the 2024 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 PM<INF>10</INF> motor vehicle and 
road dust emissions from those calculated in the first maintenance 
plan. In view of the above, EPA is approving the 2024 PM<INF>10</INF> 
MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Steamboat Springs PM<INF>10</INF> 
Maintenance Plan that was submitted to us on May 11, 2012. We are 
approving the revised maintenance plan because it demonstrates 
maintenance through 2024 as required by CAA section 175A(b), retains 
the control measures from the initial PM<INF>10</INF> maintenance plan 
that EPA approved in October of 2004, and meets other CAA requirements 
for a section 175A maintenance plan. Our approval includes approval of 
the revised maintenance plan's 2024 transportation conformity MVEB for 
PM<INF>10</INF> of 1,103 lbs/day<INF>.</INF>

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule as 
meeting Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by March 23, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules 
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, PM<INF>10</INF>, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 2832]]

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.332  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (u) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, 
PM<INF>10</INF> Revised Maintenance Plan for Steamboat Springs, as 
adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 15, 
2011, State effective on January 30, 2012, and submitted by the 
Governor's designee on May 11, 2012. The revised maintenance plan 
satisfies all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 2015-00780 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>