Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0389-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgations: Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for Canon City
Posted Date: 2013-07-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41307-41311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16506]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0389; FRL-9832-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for 
Ca[ntilde]on City

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action approving State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado. On June 18, 2009, 
the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted to EPA a revised 
maintenance plan for the Ca[ntilde]on City area for the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 
(PM10), which was adopted by the State on November 20, 2008. 
As required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b), this revised 
maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the PM10 standard 
for a second 10-year period beyond the area's original redesignation to 
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is also 
taking final action approving the revised maintenance plan's 2020 
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budget for 
PM10. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A 
of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 9, 2013 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 9, 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-2010-0389, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-Mail: ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only 
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2010-0389. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting 
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at 
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602, 
ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials APCD mean or refer to the Colorado Air 
Pollution Control Division.
    (iii) The initials AQCC mean or refer to the Colorado Air 
Quality Control Commission.
    (iv) The initials AQS mean or refer to the EPA Air Quality 
System database.
    (v) The words Colorado and State mean or refer to the State of 
Colorado.
    (vi) The initials CDOT mean or refer to the Colorado Department 
of Transportation.
    (vii) The initials CDPHE mean or refer to the Colorado 
Department of Public Health and Environment.
    (viii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (ix) The initials FHWA mean or refer to the Federal Highway 
Administration.
    (x) The initials FTA mean or refer to the Federal Transit 
Administration.
    (xi) The initials MVEB mean or refer to motor vehicle emissions 
budget.
    (xii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard.
    (xiii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers 
(coarse particulate matter).
    (xiv) The initials RTP mean or refer to the Regional 
Transportation Plan.
    (xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (xvi) The initials TIP mean or refer to the Transportation 
Improvement Program.
    (xvii) The initials TSD mean or refer to technical support 
document.

[[Page 41308]]

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the state's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Ca[ntilde]on City 
PM10 Maintenance Plan
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 Ca[ntilde]on City area was designated nonattainment for 
PM10 and classified as moderate by operation of law upon 
enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, 56705, 56736 
(November 6, 1991). EPA approved Colorado's nonattainment area SIP for 
the Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 nonattainment area on December 
23, 1993 (58 FR 68036) and its PM10 contingency measures SIP 
for the area on December 14, 1994 (59 FR 64332).
    On September 22, 1997, the Governor of Colorado submitted a request 
to EPA to redesignate the Ca[ntilde]on City moderate PM10 
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. 
Along with this request, the State submitted a maintenance plan, which 
demonstrated that the area was expected to remain in attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS through 2015. EPA approved the Ca[ntilde]on City 
maintenance plan and redesignation to attainment on May 30, 2000 (65 FR 
34399).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA 
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance 
plan to EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-year 
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued maintenance of the 
applicable NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this 
requirement of the Act, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted 
the second 10-year update of the PM10 maintenance plan to 
EPA on June 18, 2009 (hereafter, ``revised Ca[ntilde]on City 
PM10 Maintenance Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period described in 
CAA section 175A extended through 2010. Thus, the second 10-year 
period extends through 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level of the national primary and 
secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for PM10 is 
150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). An area attains the 24-
hour PM10 standard when the expected number of days per 
calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess of the standard 
(referred to herein as ``exceedance''), as determined in accordance 
with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less than one, averaged 
over a three-year period.\2\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the 
level of the 24-hour standard, 150 [mu]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 [micro]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 PM10 
values for the Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 maintenance area for 
2004 through 2012. The table reflects that the values for the 
Ca[ntilde]on City area are well below the PM10 NAAQS 
standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.

         Table 1--Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Values
   [Based on data from City Hall, 128 Main Street, AQS Identification
                           Number 08-043-0003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Maximum  value
                          Year                             ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004...................................................             * 17
2005...................................................               33
2006...................................................               54
2007...................................................               31
2008...................................................               54
2009...................................................               38
2010...................................................               31
2011...................................................               71
2012...................................................               61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only operated Oct.-Dec. 2004.

    Table 2 below shows the estimated number of exceedances for the 
Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 maintenance area for the three-year 
periods of 2004 through 2006, 2005 through 2007, 2006 through 2008, 
2007 through 2009, 2008 through 2010, 2009 through 2011, and 2010 
through 2012. The table reflects continuous attainment of the 
PM10 NAAQS.

          Table 2--Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Estimated Exceedances
   [Based on data from City Hall, 128 Main Street, AQS Identification
                           Number 08-043-0003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              3-Year
                                                            estimated
                  Design value period                       number of
                                                           exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004-2006..............................................                0
2005-2007..............................................                0
2006-2008..............................................                0
2007-2009..............................................                0
2008-2010..............................................                0
2009-2011..............................................                0
2010-2012..............................................                0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What was the State's process?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that a state provide 
reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and 
submitting it to EPA.
    The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public 
hearing for the revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance 
Plan on November 20, 2008. The AQCC approved and adopted the revised 
Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan during this hearing. 
The Governor's designee submitted the revised plan to EPA on June 18, 
2009.
    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 December 18, 
2009, by operation of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the revised 
maintenance

[[Page 41309]]

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 Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 
Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of a maintenance plan for 
PM10: Emission Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, 
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency 
Plan, and Transportation Conformity Requirements: Motor Vehicle 
Emission Budget for PM10. Below, we describe our evaluation 
of these elements as they pertain to the revised Ca[ntilde]on City 
PM10 Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan 
includes two inventories of daily PM10 emissions for the 
Ca[ntilde]on City area, one for 2006 and one for 2020. The Air 
Pollution Control Division (APCD) developed these emission inventories 
using EPA-approved emissions modeling methods and updated 
transportation and demographics data. Each emission inventory is a 
list, by source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into 
the Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 maintenance area. A more detailed 
description of the 2006 and 2020 inventories and information on model 
assumptions and parameters for each source category are contained in 
the State's PM10 maintenance plan Technical Support Document 
(TSD). Included in both inventories are agriculture, highway vehicle 
exhaust, railroads, road dust, commercial cooking, construction, fuel 
combustion, non-road sources, structure fires, woodburning, and 
stationary sources. We find that Colorado has prepared adequate 
emission inventories for the area.

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan uses 
emission roll-forward modeling to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS through 2020. Using the 2006 and 2020 
emissions inventories, the State first determined the projected growth 
in PM10 emissions from the 2006 base year to the 2020 
maintenance year. The State estimated that emissions would increase 
from 2,149.0 pounds per day in 2006 to 2,736.6 pounds per day in 2020. 
This represents an increase of 27.3 percent.
    The State then applied this percentage increase to the design day 
concentration of 56 [mu]g/m\3\, which was the highest 24-hour maximum 
PM10 value recorded in Ca[ntilde]on City from 2005-2007. 
This resulted in an estimated maximum 24-hour PM10 
concentration in 2020 of 71.3 [mu]g/m\3\. This is well below the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.
    At EPA's request, the State provided supplemental emissions 
inventories in April of 2011. These inventories differ from those in 
the revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan in two 
respects. First, they reflect potential point source emissions, not 
just projected actual point source emissions. Second, they reflect 
annual emissions, not daily.
    EPA requested this information from the State because the original 
maintenance plan reviewed the emissions inventories for projected 
actual point source emissions and potential point source emissions for 
demonstration of maintenance, however, the June 18, 2009 maintenance 
plan did not contain the inventory for potential point source 
emissions. Therefore, for a complete review of the second 10-year 
maintenance plan by EPA this information was needed.
    To further assess the State's maintenance demonstration, we 
conducted an additional roll-forward analysis using information from 
these inventories. We compared the projected annual inventory for 2020 
of 540.85 tons per year of PM10 from all source categories 
(which is based on potential emissions from point sources) to the 
annual inventory for 2006 for all source categories of 392.11 tons per 
year of PM10 (which is based on actual emissions from point 
sources) to arrive at a projected increase in area emissions of 37.9% 
between 2006 and 2020. We then applied this percentage increase to the 
same design day concentration of 56 [mu]g/m\3\ that the State used. 
Doing so, we calculated a projected maximum 24-hour PM10 
concentration in 2020 of 77.22 [mu]g/m\3\. This value is also well 
below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and confirms 
the State's maintenance demonstration. Thus, the State has adequately 
demonstrated that the Ca[ntilde]on City area will maintain the 
PM10 NAAQS through 2020.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan, 
the State commits to continue to operate an air quality monitoring 
network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to verify continued 
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. This includes the continued 
operation of a PM10 monitor in the Ca[ntilde]on City area, 
which the State will rely on to track PM10 emissions in the 
maintenance area. The State also commits to conduct an annual review of 
the air quality surveillance system in accordance with 40 CFR 58.20(d) 
to determine whether the system continues to meet the monitoring 
objectives presented in appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. Additionally, the 
State commits to track and document PM10 mobile source 
parameters and new and modified stationary source permits. If these and 
the resulting emissions change significantly over time, the APCD will 
perform appropriate studies to determine: (1) whether additional and/or 
re-sited monitors are necessary, and (2) whether mobile and stationary 
source emissions projections are on target.
    Based on the above, we are taking final action 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 
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 Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 
Maintenance Plan, the contingency measures will be triggered by a 
violation of the PM10 NAAQS. However, the maintenance plan 
notes that an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS may initiate a 
voluntary, local process by Ca[ntilde]on City and the APCD to identify 
and evaluate potential contingency measures.
    Ca[ntilde]on City, in coordination with the APCD, AQCC, and the 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will initiate a process to 
begin evaluating potential contingency measures no more than 60 days 
after notification from APCD that a violation of the PM10 
NAAQS has occurred. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to 
consider the contingency measures recommended by Ca[ntilde]on City, 
APCD and CDOT along with any other contingency measures the AQCC 
believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation. The 
State commits to adopt and implement any necessary contingency measures 
within one year after a violation occurs.
    The State identifies the following as potential contingency 
measures in the revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance 
Plan: (1) Increased street sweeping requirements; (2) expanded, 
mandatory use of alternative de-icers; (3) more stringent street sand 
specifications; (4) road paving requirements; (5)

[[Page 41310]]

woodburning restrictions; (6) re-establishing new source review 
permitting requirements for stationary sources; and (7) other emission 
control measures appropriate for the area based on consideration of 
cost effectiveness, PM10 emission reduction potential, 
economic and social considerations, or other factors.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised 
Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan are sufficient and 
meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity Requirements: Motor Vehicle Emission 
Budget for PM10

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation 
plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the 
criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. 
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not 
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or 
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. To effectuate its purpose, the 
conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the 
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement 
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) 
(MVEB(s)) contained in a control strategy SIP revision or maintenance 
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as the 
level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the 
attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain 
compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. 
Further information concerning 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 Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan 
contains a single MVEB of 1,613 lbs/day of PM10 for the year 
2020, the maintenance year. Once the State submitted the revised plan 
with the 2020 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 March 15, 2011, EPA announced the availability of the revised 
Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan, and the 
PM10 MVEB, on EPA's transportation conformity adequacy Web 
site. EPA solicited public comment on the MVEB, and the public comment 
period closed on April 14, 2011. 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#canon.
    By letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
Environment (CDPHE) dated May 4, 2011, EPA found that the revised 
Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan and the 2020 
PM10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes.\4\ However, we noted in our letter that the revised 
Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 Maintenance Plan did not discuss the 
PM10 MVEB for 2015 of 7,439 lbs/day from the original 
PM10 maintenance plan that EPA approved in 2000 (see 65 FR 
34399, May 30, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In a Federal Register notice dated August 2, 2011, we 
notified the public of our finding (see 76 FR 46288). This adequacy 
determination became effective on August 17, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the EPA-approved 2015 
PM10 MVEB must continue to be used for analysis years 2015 
through 2019 (as long as such years are within the timeframe of the 
transportation plan), unless the State elects to submit a SIP revision 
to revise the 2015 PM10 MVEB and EPA approves the SIP 
revision. This is because the revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 
Maintenance Plan did not revise the previously-approved 2015 
PM10 MVEB nor establish a new MVEB for 2015. Accordingly, 
the MVEB ``. . . for the most recent prior year . . .'' (i.e., 2015) 
from the original maintenance plan must continue to be used (see 40 CFR 
93.118(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(iv)).
    We note that there is a considerable difference between the 2020 
and 2015 budgets--1,613 lbs/day versus 7,439 lbs/day. This is largely 
an artifact of changes in the methods, models, and emission factors 
used to estimate mobile source emissions. The 2020 MVEB is consistent 
with the State's 2020 emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust and road 
dust, and, thus, is consistent with the State's maintenance 
demonstration for 2020.
    The discrepancy between the 2015 and 2020 MVEBs is not a 
significant issue for several reasons. As a practical matter, the 2020 
MVEB of 1,613 lbs/day of PM10 would be controlling for any 
conformity determination involving the relevant years because 
conformity would have to be shown to both the 2015 MVEB and the 2020 
MVEB. Also, for any maintenance plan, such as the revised Ca[ntilde]on 
City PM10 Maintenance Plan, that only establishes a MVEB for 
the last year of the maintenance plan, 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) requires 
that the demonstration of consistency with the budget be accompanied by 
a qualitative finding that there are no factors that would cause or 
contribute to a new violation or exacerbate an existing violation in 
the years before the last year of the maintenance plan. Therefore, when 
a conformity determination is prepared which assesses conformity for 
the years before 2020, the 2020 MVEB and the underlying assumptions 
supporting it would have to be considered. Finally, 40 CFR 93.110 
requires the use of the latest planning assumptions in conformity 
determinations. Thus, the most current motor vehicle and road dust 
emission factors would need to be used, and we expect the analysis 
would show greatly reduced PM10 motor vehicle and road dust 
emissions from those calculated in the first maintenance plan. In view 
of the above, EPA is approving the 2020 PM10 MVEB of 1,613 
lbs/day.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Ca[ntilde]on City PM10 
Maintenance Plan that was submitted to us on June 18, 2009. We are 
approving the revised maintenance plan because it demonstrates 
maintenance through 2020 as required by CAA section 175A(b), retains 
the control measures from the initial PM10 maintenance plan 
that EPA approved in May of 2000, and meets other CAA requirements for 
a section 175A maintenance plan. Our approval includes approval of the 
revised maintenance plan's 2020 transportation conformity MVEB for 
PM10 of 1,613 lbs/day.

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

[[Page 41311]]

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 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 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 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. 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 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 September 9, 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 section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 20, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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 (q) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.332  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (q) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, 
PM10 Revised Maintenance Plan for Ca[ntilde]on City, as 
adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on November 20, 
2008, State effective on December 30, 2008, and submitted by the 
Governor's designee on June 18, 2009. The revised maintenance plan 
satisfies all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 2013-16506 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P