Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
CO ID: [CO-001-0076a, CO-001-0077a; FRL-7784-9]
NOTICE: RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Lamar and Steamboat Springs
DATES: This rule is effective on October 4, 2004, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 7, 2004. 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.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado
on July 31, 2002, for the purpose of redesignating the Lamar, Colorado and Steamboat Springs, Colorado areas from
[[Page 47367]]
nonattainment to attainment for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM
SUMMARY: Colorado,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. EPA's Final Action
A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Direct Final Rule? III. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
A. What Requirements Must Be Followed for Redesignations to Attainment?
B. Do the Lamar and Steamboat Springs Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans Meet the CAA Requirements?
C. Have the Transportation Conformity Requirements Been Met?
D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting This Action?
IV. Background
V. Consideration of CAA section 110(l)
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. The Regional Office has established an official public rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA has established an official public rulemaking file for this action under CO0010076a, CO0010077a. The official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. You may view the public rulemaking file at the Regional Office Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Copies of the Incorporation by Reference material are also available at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B 108 (Mail Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
2. Copies of the State submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 802461530.
3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the Regulations.gov web site located at http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit comments on
Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.
B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking CO0010076a, CO0010077a'' in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket. 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.
i. Email. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email). Please
send any comments to long.richard@epa.gov and faulk.libby@epa.gov and
include the text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking CO0010076a,
CO0010077a'' in the subject line. EPA's email system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an email comment directly without going through
[[Page 47368]]
``Regulations.gov'' (see below), EPA's email system will automatically
capture your email address. Email addresses that are automatically
captured by EPA's email system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket.
ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then click on the button ``TO SEARCH FOR REGULATIONS CLICK HERE,'' and select Environmental Protection Agency as the Agency name to search on. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section 2, directly below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8PAR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202 2466. Please include the text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking CO0010076a, CO0010077a'' in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8PAR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 802022466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any 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 official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not
marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for
public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
II. EPA's Final Action
A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Direct Final Rule?
We are approving the Governor's submittal of July 31, 2002, that
requests redesignation for the Lamar and Steamboat Springs
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1987 PM
Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local Areas)'' which we are approving,
under section 110 of the CAA, into Colorado's SIP. We are also
approving the maintenance plans for the Lamar and Steamboat Springs
PM
PM
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 4, 2004 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September
7, 2004. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
III. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
A. What Requirements Must Be Followed for Redesignations to Attainment?
In order for a nonattainment area to be redesignated to attainment,
the following conditions in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met:
(i) We must determine that the area has attained the NAAQS;
(ii) The applicable implementation plan for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA;
(iii) We must determine that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) We must fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
(v) The State containing such an area must meet all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Our September 4, 1992 guidance entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' outlines how to assess the adequacy of redesignation requests against the conditions listed above.
The following is a brief discussion of how Colorado's redesignation
requests and maintenance plans meet the requirements of the CAA for
redesignation of the Lamar and Steamboat Springs areas to attainment for PM
[[Page 47369]]
B. Do the Lamar and Steamboat Springs Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans Meet the CAA Requirements?
i. Attainment of the PM
A state must demonstrate that an area has attained the
PM
Colorado operates two PM
Colorado also operates two PM
Those States containing initial moderate PM
iii. Improvement in Air Quality Due to Permanent and Enforceable Measures
Section 107(d)(3(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the
improvement in air quality is due to emission reductions which are
permanent and enforceable. The Lamar PM
Recognizing that certain uncontrollable natural events, such as
high winds, and wildfires, can have on the NAAQS, the EPA issued a
Natural Events Policy (NEP) on May 30, 1996. The NEP sets forth
procedures through the development of a Natural Events Action Plan
(NEAP) for protecting public health in areas where the PM
\1\ This policy applies to emissions caused by natural events that have occurred since January 1, 1994.
Over the past eight years, the monitors located at the Municipal
Power Plant and Municipal Building in Lamar, Colorado experienced
exceedances of the 24hour NAAQS for PM
[[Page 47370]]
Lamar as meeting all the requirements of the 1996 NEP. Since 1998, it
is this plan that has assisted the area in addressing blowing dust due
to uncontrollable winds. In the Lamar area the BACM that were
implemented as part of the 1998 NEAP to address high wind events
include wind breaks, controls at the East Lamar Landfill, vegetative
cover at Escondido Park, soil stabilization along rail lines,
installation of perennial grass over croplands, and the implementation
of soil erosion conservation practices. In addition, the 1996 NEP
requires that the State provide a fiveyear review of the NEAP, which
was submitted to EPA in 2003 and subsequently approved. The fiveyear
review of the NEAP for Lamar includes commitments for additional BACM
control measures, including irrigation of tree groves established for
wind breaks, additional litter control at the East Lamar Landfill,
stabilization of the entrance road to Escondido Park, and the purchase
and use of a regenerative air street sweeper. In addition to the BACM
control measures, public education and notification procedures have
been implemented as part of the NEAP for Lamar. Based on our approval
of the 1998 Lamar NEAP and our subsequent approval of the 2003 Lamar
NEAP's fiveyear review, EPA has concluded that, but for the emissions
caused by natural events, the Lamar area has demonstrated attainment of the PM
In addition to the local and State control measures discussed
above, the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program has helped
reduce PM
The primary sources of PM
The City of Steamboat Springs and Routt County adopted local
ordinance and resolutions that limit the number and types of
woodburning devices in new construction in the Steamboat Springs area.
Installation of new solid fuel burning devices is limited to one
approved device for any building. The Steamboat Springs area adopted
these measures in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the measures were
included in State regulation in 1993 (Section VIII.E. of the ``State Implementation PlanSpecific Regulations for Nonattainment
Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local Areas)''). The rule was approved by EPA on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 68188).
The Steamboat Springs area adopted two street sanding control
strategies for the nonattainment area. The first street sanding control
strategy requires that any user that applies street sanding materials
in the Steamboat Springs area must use materials containing less than
two percent fines, except on U.S. Highway 40 from the junction of U.S.
Highway 131 towards Rabbit Ears Pass. This strategy was included in State regulations in 1996 (Section VIII.B. of the ``State
Implementation PlanSpecific Regulations for Nonattainment
Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local Areas)). The second street sanding control strategy requires that the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) reduce the amount of sand applied on U.S.
Highways 40 and 131 in the Steamboat Springs area by 10 percent. This
strategy was included in State regulation in 1996 (Section VIII.C. of the ``State Implementation PlanSpecific Regulations for
NonattainmentAttainment/Maintenance Areas (Local Areas)). Both the
street sanding controls were approved by EPA on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 68188).
In addition, the Steamboat Springs area adopted street sweeping requirements for a defined section of Lincoln Avenue (Highway 40 in town). Street cleaning using vacuum sweepers or any other sweepers with equal efficiency must be performed four times within four days of the roadways becoming free and clear of snow and ice following each sanding deployment use. This strategy was included in State regulations in 1996 (Section VIII.D. of the ``State Implementation PlanSpecific Regulations for NonattainmentAttainment/Maintenance Areas (Local Areas)). The rule was approved by EPA on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 68188).
In addition to the local control measures that have been adopted in the Steamboat Springs area, Colorado's July 31, 2002 submittal did cite several Statewide regulations that limit emissions from any new source that may locate in the Steamboat Springs area. These rules are: ``Air Pollution Emission Notices, Construction Permits and Fees, Operating Permits and Including the Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' (Regulation No. 3), ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources'' (Regulation No. 6), and the ``Common Provisions Regulation.''
In addition to these State and Local control measures, the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program has helped reduce
PM
iv. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Under Section 175A of the CAA
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that, for a nonattainment
area to be redesignated to attainment, we must fully approve a
maintenance plan which meets the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA. The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the relevant
NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after our approval of the
redesignation. Eight years after our approval of a redesignation,
Colorado must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating
attainment for the 10 years following the initial 10 year period. The
maintenance plan must also contain a contingency plan to ensure prompt
correction of any violation of the NAAQS. (See sections 175A(b) and
(d).) Our September 4, 1992 guidance outlines five core elements that
are necessary to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area
seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Those elements,
as well as guidelines for subsequent maintenance plan revisions, are as follows:
[[Page 47371]]
a. Attainment Inventory
The maintenance plan should include an attainment emission
inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is
sufficient to attain the NAAQS. An emission inventory for Lamar was
developed for the attainment year 2000 as well as the projection
inventory for the year 2015. The emission inventory incorporates
emission estimates for woodburning (fireplaces and wood stoves),
restaurant and mobile exhaust emissions, highway, arterial and local
reentrained road dust emissions, and gravel road emissions. Summary
emission figures from the 2000 attainment year inventory and the 2015
projected inventory for the Lamar area are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3 below.
Table 1.2000 and 2015 PM10 Total Emission Inventory for Road Dust Activity in Pounds per Day for Lamar City
Paved roads
Highway Unpaved
Arterial Local roads
2000........................................................ 2530 866 3195 24
2015........................................................ 2792 993 3665 28
\*\ Highway reentrained road dust emissions for the year 2000 were developed using the latest traffic counts
from Colorado Deparment of Transportation (CDOT) as well as revised emissions factors that incorporate the
latest EPA methods for determining paved road emission and measured silt loadings from the area.
\**\ Arterial and local street reentrained emissions for 2000 were determined using VMT information contained
in the 1993 SIP element (grown to 2000 by appropriate growth rates) as well as the latest EPA methods for
determining paved road emissions and measured silt loadings form the area.
\***\ Gravel road emissions were developed using VMT information contained in the 1993 SIP element (grown to
2000 by appropriate growth rates) as well as EPA methods for determining gravel road emissions.
Table 2.2000 and 2015 PM10 Total Emission Inventory for Vehicle Exhaust, Fireplaces, Woodstoves and Point
Sources in Pounds per Day for Lamar City
Vehicle Point
exhaust Fireplace Woodstoves sources
2000........................................................ 56 208 269 1271
2015........................................................ 56 228 294 1281
\*\ The woodburning emission estimates and mobile exhaust emissions for the year 1997 were taken from the 1993
SIP element that was approved by EPA on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29732) and rolled forward to 2000. VMT was also adjusted using actual CDOT traffic counts.
Table 3.2000 and 2015 PM10 Total Emission Inventory for Tilling, Wind Erosion/Feedlot, Grain Elevators, and
Storage Piles in Pounds per Day for Lamar City
Wind
Tilling erosion/ Grain Storage
feedlot elevators piles
2000........................................................ 28 4231 2 22
2015........................................................ 28 4231 2 22
\*\ The tilling, wind erosion, and the area's feedlot emissions were rolled forward from 2000 inventory levels
as well as the storage piles emission inventory. The 2000 emissions are the same as the 1997 emissions documented in the 1994 Lamar SIP.
More detailed descriptions of the 2000 attainment year inventory
and the 2015 projected inventory for the Lamar area are documented in
the maintenance plan in Chapter 3, section B and in the Colorado
technical support documentation. Colorado's submittal contains detailed
emission inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA
emission inventory guidance.\2\ Following our review, we have
determined that Colorado prepared an adequate attainment inventory for the Lamar area.
\2\ EPA's current guidance on the preparation of PM
An emission inventory for Steamboat Springs was developed for the
attainment year 1999 as well as the projection inventory for the 2005
and 2010 interim years and the 2015 maintenance year. The emission
inventory incorporates the emission estimates for aircrafts,
restaurants, stationary sources, woodburning, mobile exhaust, and re
entrained road dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads that are
contained in the nonattainment area SIP element that was approved by
EPA on December 31, 1997 (62 FR 68188). Aircraft emissions were
determined by using EPA and Colorado's Air Pollution Control Division
(APCD) developed emission factors and activity data provided by the
City of Steamboat Springs. Restaurant emissions were developed using
emission factors and survey data of activity in the Steamboat Springs
area. Woodburning emissions were determined by using EPA and APCD
developed emission factors and survey data of woodburning activity and
practices in the Steamboat Springs area. Reentrained dust from paved
and unpaved roads were developed using APCD and CDOT vehicle miles
traveled data and emission factors that were calculated using the EPA
approved formula, local silt loading data, and the application of
credits from street sweeping and street sand reduction control
measures. Mobil exhaust was determined using EPA's PART5 model.
Stationary source emission in the Steamboat Springs area were [[Page 47372]]
determined by calculating allowable emissions from three facilities in
the area in existence in the mid1990s. The Craig and Hayden power
plants were modeled at allowable emissions for all years however these
emissions were not included in the emission inventories because they
are not located within the Steamboat Springs nonattainmentattainment/
maintenance area and modeling domain. Summary emission figures from the
1999 attainment year inventory, the 2005 and 2010 interim years, and
the 2015 projected inventory for the Steamboat Springs area are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1.1999, 2005, 2010 and 2015 PM10 Total Emission Inventory in Pounds per Day for Steamboat Springs
PM10 emissions (lbs./day)
1999 2005 2010 2015
Aircraft........................................ 24 27 30 34
Restaurant Grills............................... 99 114 127 143
Vehicle Exhaust................................. 53 52 56 63
Paved Roads..................................... 9122 10059 11271 12630
Unpaved Roads................................... 7519 7233 8104 9080
Stationary Sources.............................. 584 242 271 304
Woodburning..................................... 1057 1216 1353 1522
More detailed descriptions of the 1999 attainment year inventory,
the 2005 and 2010 interim years, and the 2015 projected inventory for
the Steamboat Springs area are documented in the maintenance plan in
Chapter 3, section B and in the Colorado technical support
documentation. Colorado's submittal contains detailed emission
inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA emission
inventory guidance.\3\ Following our review, we have determined that
Colorado prepared an adequate attainment inventory for the Steamboat Springs area.
\3\ EPA's current guidance on the preparation of PM
b. Maintenance Demonstration
A state may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. Colorado chose the chemical mass balance (CMB) modeling approach for the Lamar area and the dispersion modeling approach for the Steamboat Springs area.
The maintenance demonstration for the Lamar area uses the CMB roll
forward methodology, which is the same level of modeling used in the
original attainment demonstration for the moderate PM
Although EPA would normally insist on some interim year projections between the attainment year and 2015, we have no reason to believe that total emissions for the Lamar area will be greater than the 2015 projections in any of the interim years. Colorado applied simple, environmentally conservative, growth rates to all source categories. Thus, total emissions in all years before 2015 in the Lamar area should be less than 2015 total emissions and no interim year projections are required.
Since no violation of the PM
The maintenance demonstration for the Steamboat Springs area relied
on the dispersion modeling methodology, which is the same level of
modeling used in the original attainment demonstration for the moderate
PM
Since no exceedances of the PM
[[Page 47373]]
Springs area will maintain the PM
c. Monitoring Network
Once a nonattainment area has been redesignated to attainment, the
State must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment
status of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for
continued operation of air quality monitors that will provide such
verification. Colorado operates two PM
d. Verification of Continued Attainment
A state's maintenance plan submittal should indicate how it will
track the progress of the maintenance plan. This is necessary due to
the fact that the emission projections made for the maintenance
demonstration depend on assumptions of point and area source growth.
Colorado commits to operating both the Lamar and Steamboat Springs
PM
e. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan also include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. For the purposes of section 175A, a state is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures are adopted expeditiously when a violation of the NAAQS has occurred in a redesignated area. The plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State. The State should also identify the specific indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency plan will be implemented.
Chapter 3, section H, of both the Lamar and Steamboat Springs
maintenance plan contains the area's PM
If a violation of the PM
The Lamar PM
\4\ The maintenance plan refers to ``Reestablishing new source
review permitting requirement for stationary sources.'' Given that
PSD permitting requirements will apply to the area after the
effective date of this action, we interpret the maintenance plan's reference to mean ``nonattainment new source review.''
The Steamboat Springs PM
f. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of
Colorado is required to submit a revision to the maintenance plan eight
years after the redesignation of the Lamar and Steamboat Springs areas
to attainment for PM
v. Meeting Applicable Requirements of Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
In order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E) requires that it must have met all applicable requirements of section 110 and part D of the CAA. We interpret this
[[Page 47374]]
to mean that, for a redesignation request to be approved, the State
must have met all requirements that applied to the subject area prior
to, or at the time of, submitting a complete redesignation request. In
our evaluation of a redesignation request, we don't need to consider
other requirements of the CAA that became due after the date of the submission of a complete redesignation request.
a. Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) contains general requirements for nonattainment
plans. These requirements were met for Lamar with Colorado's May 7,
1993 submittal for the Lamar PM
b. Part D Requirements
Before a PM
The requirements of sections 172(c) and 189(a) regarding attainment
of the PM
Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR 51.396) require that states adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas designated nonattainment or subject to an EPAapproved maintenance plan, we have decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. (See 61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)
We approved the requirements of the part D new source review (NSR)
permit program for the Lamar moderate PM
C. Have the Transportation Conformity Requirements Been Met?
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. the Environmental Protection Agency, No. 971637, that we must make an affirmative determination that the submitted motor vehicle emission budgets contained in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are adequate before they are used to determine the conformity of Transportation Plans or Transportation Improvement Programs. In response to the court decision, we make any submitted SIP revision containing an emission budget available for public comment and respond to these comments before announcing our adequacy determination. The criteria and process by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and in the guidance ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision,'' dated May 14, 1999.
In the Lamar maintenance plan, Colorado established a new mobile
source emissions budget of 7,534 lbs./day for the year 2015 and beyond.
In the Steamboat Springs maintenance plan, Colorado established a new
mobile source emissions budget of 21,773 lbs./day for the year 2015 and
beyond. The new mobile source emissions budgets for both Lamar and Steamboat Springs are the total of the 2015 mobile source
PM
EPA sent a letter to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
(APCD) on September 25, 2002 stating that the motor vehicle emission
budgets that were submitted with the Lamar and Steamboat Springs
PM
for Lamar and Steamboat Springs in the Federal Register on October 28,
2002 (67 FR 65789). The budgets took effect on November 12, 2002 (15 days after our announcement in the Federal Register).
D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper Procedures for Adopting This Action?
The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the CAA must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.
Colorado held a public hearing for the proposed rule changes on November 15, 2001. The rulemaking was adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) directly after the November 15, 2001 hearing and was formally submitted to EPA by the Governor on July 31, 2002. We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have determined that Colorado met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
IV. Background
To implement our 1987 revisions to the particulate matter NAAQS, on
August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), we categorized areas of the nation into
three groups based on the likelihood that protection of the
PM
identified Lamar as PM
The Lamar area was among several Group I PM
Pursuant to sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Act, areas
previously identified as Group I (55 FR 45799, October 31, 1990) and
other areas which had monitored violations of the PM
PM
PM
EPA promulgated new standards for PM
V. Consideration of CAA Section 110(l)
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. As stated above, the Lamar and Steamboat Springs area has
shown continuous attainment of the PM
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review
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 preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 1044).
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 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).
[[Page 47376]]
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 4, 2004. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control.
Dated: June 28, 2004.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 are amended as follows: PART 52[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Libby Faulk, EPA, Region VIII, (303)
3126083.
Subpart GColorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(101) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(101) On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted maintenance
plans for the Lamar and Steamboat Springs PM
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 44 CFR Part 64 10 CFR Part 50 49 CFR Part 571 47 CFR Part 76