Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0658-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Colorado; Second Ten-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Greeley
Posted Date: 2013-08-02T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46816-46820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18439]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0658; FRL-9840-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for 
Greeley

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado. 
On March 31, 2010, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted to EPA 
a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year maintenance plan 
for the Greeley area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance plan (LMP) addresses 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the 
original redesignation. This action is being taken under sections 110 
and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2013 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 3, 2013. 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-2011-0658, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: clark.adam@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, EPA, Region 8, 
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, EPA, 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 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-
2011-0658. 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, EPA 
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 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: Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 
8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 
312-7104, clark.adam@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 46817]]

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Greeley Maintenance Plan
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

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 words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information 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

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Greeley area was designated 
as nonattainment and classified as a ``not classified'' CO area because 
it had been designated as nonattainment before November 15, 1990, but 
had not violated the CO NAAQS in 1988 and 1989 (56 FR 56694, November 
6, 1991). On September 16, 1997, the Governor of Colorado submitted to 
EPA a request to redesignate the Greeley CO nonattainment area to 
attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along with this request, the Governor 
submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance plan which demonstrated 
that the area would maintain the CO NAAQS for the first 10 years 
following our approval of the redesignation request. We approved the 
State's redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan on March 10, 
1999 (64 FR 11775).
    On June 20, 2003, the Governor of Colorado submitted to EPA a 
revised Greeley CO maintenance plan to justify removal of Colorado's 
motor vehicle emissions inspection program and oxygenated fuels program 
from the plan; the revised plan demonstrated maintenance of the CO 
NAAQS in the Greeley area through 2015 without the motor vehicle 
emissions inspection program and oxygenated fuels program. At that 
time, the State also submitted revisions to Colorado Air Quality 
Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Inspection Program,'' and AQCC Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels 
Program,'' to effectuate the removal of both of these programs from the 
SIP for the Greeley area. The 2003 maintenance plan submittal also 
included transportation conformity budgets for various years through 
2015. We approved all of these changes into the SIP on August 19, 2005 
(70 FR 48650).
    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 Greeley CO maintenance plan (hereafter, ``revised 
Greeley Maintenance Plan'') to us on March 31, 2010. With this action, 
we are approving the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended 
through 2009. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 ppm--is attained when such value is not 
exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Greeley area has 
attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1988 to the present.\2\ In October 
1995, EPA issued guidance that provided nonclassifiable CO 
nonattainment areas the option of using a less rigorous ``limited 
maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate continued attainment and 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.\3\ According to this guidance, areas that 
can demonstrate design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance 
levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight consecutive quarters qualify 
to use an LMP. The area qualified for and used EPA's LMP option for the 
first 10-year maintenance plan (64 FR 11775, March 10, 1999), but the 
State was not able to use the LMP option for the plan revision that it 
submitted in 2003.\4\ For the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan the 
State again used the LMP option to demonstrate continued maintenance of 
the CO NAAQS in the Greeley area. We have determined that the Greeley 
area qualifies for the LMP option for this plan revision because the 
maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive quarters 
with certified data at the time the State adopted the plan (years 2007 
and 2008) was 2.4 ppm.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Greeley area has never exceeded the 1-hour CO standard 
of 35 ppm.
    \3\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie, 
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air 
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995 (hereafter referred to as ``LMP 
Guidance'').
    \4\ For a more detailed explanation, see 70 FR 28234 (May 17, 
2005).
    \5\ See Table 1 below. Additionally, according to the LMP 
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a 
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA 
action on the redesignation.'' Table 1, below, demonstrates that the 
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 us.
    The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing for the revised Greeley 
Maintenance Plan on December 17, 2009. The AQCC adopted the revised 
maintenance plan directly after the hearing. The Governor's designee

[[Page 46818]]

submitted the revised plan to EPA on March 31, 2010.
    We have evaluated the SIP revision and have determined that the 
State met the requirements for reasonable 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 SIP revision was deemed to 
have met the minimum ``completeness'' criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Greeley Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission 
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification 
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity 
Determinations. Below, we describe our evaluation of each of these 
elements as it pertains to the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Greeley Maintenance Plan contains an emission inventory 
for the base year 2007. The emission inventory is a list, by source 
category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the Greeley CO 
maintenance area on a typical winter day in 2007.\6\ The data in the 
emission inventory were developed using EPA-approved emissions modeling 
methods. The State provided a more detailed description of the 2007 
inventory in its Technical Support Document (TSD) for the revised 
Greeley Maintenance Plan.\7\ Included in this inventory are commercial 
cooking, fuel combustion, highway vehicle exhaust, oil and gas sources, 
non-road mobile sources, railroads, structure fires, woodburning, and 
non-oil-and-gas point sources. The revised maintenance plan and TSD 
contain detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in 
accordance with EPA guidance and is acceptable to us.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on 
winter weekdays.
    \7\ The TSD for the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan can be 
found in the docket for this action.
    \8\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests To Redesignate 
Areas To Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, EPA, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement to be 
satisfied for areas that qualify for and are using the LMP option. As 
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option 
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive 
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). EPA maintains 
that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design value no 
greater than 7.65 ppm, the applicability of prevention of significant 
deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP, 
and federal measures should provide adequate assurance of maintenance 
over the 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, EPA does not require 
areas using the LMP option to project emissions over the maintenance 
period. Because CO design values in the Greeley area are consistently 
well below the LMP threshold (See Table 1 below), the State has 
adequately demonstrated that the Greeley area will maintain the CO 
NAAQS into the future.

         Table 1--8-Hour CO Design Values for Greeley, Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Design value (ppm) *                         Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.7............................................................     2004
2.8............................................................     2005
3.3............................................................     2006
2.4............................................................     2007
2.2............................................................     2008
2.1............................................................     2009
2.3............................................................     2010
1.5............................................................     2011
1.6............................................................     2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Design Values were derived from the EPA AirData Web site (http://www.epa.gov/airdata/).

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan, the State commits to 
continuing operation of an air quality monitoring network in accordance 
with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify continued attainment of the CO NAAQS. The 
State also commits to conducting an annual review of the air quality 
surveillance system in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10. Additionally, the 
plan indicates that if measured mobile source parameters change 
significantly over time, the State will perform appropriate studies to 
determine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. We 
are approving 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 indentified appropriate contingency measures along with a 
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
    As stated in the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan, the contingency 
measures will be triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS. No more than 
60 days after notification from the Colorado Air Pollution Control 
Division (APCD) that a violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred, the 
North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), in 
conjunction with the APCD, AQCC, and local governments, will initiate a 
subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential contingency 
measures. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days 
of notification, and the recommended contingency measures will be 
presented to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC will 
then hold a public hearing to consider the contingency measures 
recommended by the subcommittee along with any other contingency 
measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address 
the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and 
implemented within one year after a violation occurs.
    The potential contingency measures that are identified in the 
revised Greeley CO maintenance plan include, but are not limited to: 
(1) A federally enforceable enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance 
program; \9\ (2) a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program, as set forth in 
AQCC Regulation Number 13 as of September 2009; (3) re-establishing 
nonattainment new source review permitting for stationary sources; and 
(4) wood burning restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A State-only enhanced inspection and maintenance program is 
already required for the Greeley area as part of the State's ``Ozone 
Action Plan.'' However, this existing program is not federally 
enforceable, and could be discontinued by the State without regard 
to the Greeley CO maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised 
Greeley Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of 
section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
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 (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's 
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, 
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. To effectuate 
its purpose, the conformity rule requires a demonstration that 
emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and

[[Page 46819]]

the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the 
motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the LMP guidance, emissions budgets generally are treated as 
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While EPA's 
LMP guidance does not exempt an area from the need to affirm 
conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity 
without submitting a MVEB. According to the LMP guidance, it is 
unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth 
in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\11\ 
However, the CO maintenance plan for Greeley that we approved in 2005 
(70 FR 48650) contains MVEBs for 2010 through 2014 (62 tons per day of 
CO), and for 2015 (60 tons per day of CO), and the State did not revise 
or remove these MVEBs from the SIP. Under our conformity regulations, 
consistency with those MVEBs must continue to be demonstrated as long 
as such years are within the timeframe of the transportation plan. See 
40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) and (d)(2).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ LMP Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995.
    \12\ As required by our transportation conformity adequacy 
process, we made a finding in a March 4, 2011 letter to the Colorado 
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that the revised 
Greeley Maintenance Plan was adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes. This finding was based substantially on the fact that the 
Greeley CO maintenance area meets the LMP criteria, and is therefore 
not required to project future emissions. In a Federal Register 
notice dated August 2, 2011, we notified the public of our finding 
that the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan was adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes (see 76 FR 46288). This adequacy 
determination became effective on August 17, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When those years are no longer within the timeframe of the 
transportation plan, there will no longer be a need to demonstrate 
conformity with any MVEB for the Greeley CO maintenance area, for the 
reasons described in our LMP guidance. From that point forward, all 
actions that require conformity determinations for the Greeley CO 
maintenance area under our conformity rule provisions will be 
considered to have already satisfied the regional emissions analysis 
and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 because of our 
approval of the Greeley CO LMP.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain 
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be 
required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, 
for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still 
will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 
93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation and Transportation 
Control Measure (TCM) implementation in the conformity rule provisions 
(40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects 
in LMP areas still will be required to meet the applicable criteria for 
CO hot spot analyses to satisfy ``project level'' conformity 
determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must also 
incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available (40 
CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively).
    Our approval of the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan affects future 
CO RTP and TIP conformity determinations prepared by NFRMPO, the 
Colorado Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway 
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Greeley Maintenance Plan submitted on 
March 31, 2010. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA 
requirements, and we have determined it is sufficient to provide for 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year 
maintenance period out to 2019.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments 
are filed. This rule will be effective October 1, 2013 without further 
notice unless we receive adverse comments by September 3, 2013. If we 
receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. We 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 we receive adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 
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 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard.

[[Page 46820]]

    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 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. 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. section 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. 
section 804(2).
    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 October 1, 2013. 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 Clean Air Act section 
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Judith Wong,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.349  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide

* * * * *
    (p) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Greeley, as adopted by the 
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 17, 2009 and 
submitted by the Governor's designee on March 31, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2013-18439 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P