[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46521-46525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0659; FRL-9840-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for
Colorado Springs
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 Colorado Springs 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 September 30, 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-2011-0659, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]
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-
2011-0659. 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
[[Page 46522]]
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, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Colorado Springs 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://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 Colorado Springs area was
designated as nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate'' CO area,
with a design value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million
(ppm) (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On August 19, 1998, the Governor
of Colorado submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Colorado
Springs 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 EPA's approval of the
redesignation request. On October 1, 1998, the Governor submitted
revisions to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation
No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels Program.'' EPA approved the State's
redesignation request, the CAA section 175A(a) 10-year maintenance
plan, and the revisions to AQCC Regulation No. 13 on August 25, 1999
(64 FR 46279).
On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revised
Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan to EPA which changed the
attainment year from 1993 to 1990, provided a revised projected
emissions inventory out to 2010, and demonstrated maintenance of the CO
NAAQS in the Colorado Springs area through 2010. The Governor also
submitted a transportation conformity motor vehicle emission budget
(MVEB) for 2010, and revisions to AQCC Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated
Fuels Program,'' which allowed for the removal of the oxygenated fuels
program in Colorado Springs. We approved all of these changes into the
SIP on December 22, 2000 (65 FR 80779).
On April 12, 2004, the Governor of Colorado submitted to us a
revised maintenance plan which demonstrated maintenance of the CO NAAQS
in the Colorado Springs area through 2015 and revised the 2010
transportation conformity MVEB. The Governor also submitted revisions
to AQCC Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program,'' which allowed for the removal of the basic inspection/
maintenance program in El Paso County, including the Colorado Springs
area. We approved all of these changes into the SIP on September 7,
2004 (see 69 FR 54019).
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 Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan (hereafter,
``revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan'') to us on March 31, 2010.
With this action, we are approving the revised Colorado Springs
Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended
through 2010. Thus, the second 10-year period extends through 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Colorado Springs
area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1990 to the present.\2\ In
October 1995, EPA issued guidance that
[[Page 46523]]
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 CO 8-hour NAAQS) for eight
consecutive quarters qualify to use an LMP. For the revised Colorado
Springs Maintenance Plan, the State used EPA's LMP option to
demonstrate continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Colorado
Springs area through 2020. We have determined that the Colorado Springs
area qualifies for the LMP option for this plan revision because the
area's 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 2.3 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 1-hour CO NAAQS of 35 ppm has not been exceeded in the
Colorado Springs area since 1979.
\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\ 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 AQCC held a public hearing for the revised Colorado Springs
Maintenance Plan on December 17, 2009. The AQCC adopted the revised
Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan directly after the hearing. The
Governor's designee 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 Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan
The following are the key elements of a 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 for the revised Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan.
A. Emission Inventory
The revised Colorado Springs CO 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 Colorado Springs CO maintenance area on a typical winter day in
2007.\5\ 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) and the supplemental TSD for the revised Colorado Springs
Maintenance Plan.\6\ Included in this inventory are aircraft,
commercial cooking, fuel combustion, highway vehicle exhaust, 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on
winter weekdays.
\6\ Both the TSD and the Supplemental TSD are available in the
docket for this action.
\7\ 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 Colorado Springs area are
consistently well below the LMP threshold (See Table 1 below), the
State has adequately demonstrated that the Colorado Springs area will
maintain the CO NAAQS into the future.
Table 1--8-Hour CO Design Values for Colorado Springs, Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value (ppm)* Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.......................................................... 2004
2.7.......................................................... 2005
2.4.......................................................... 2006
2.1.......................................................... 2007
2.3.......................................................... 2008
1.9.......................................................... 2009
2.1.......................................................... 2010
1.5.......................................................... 2011
1.4.......................................................... 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 Colorado Springs 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 Colorado Springs 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 Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG), in conjunction with
the APCD, AQCC, and local governments will initiate a process to begin
evaluating potential contingency measures. The PPACG 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
[[Page 46524]]
recommended contingency measures 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 Colorado Springs CO maintenance plan include, but are not
limited to: (1) A basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program, as
such program existed in AQCC Regulation Number 11 before December 18,
2003; (2) a 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program, as such program existed
in AQCC Regulation Number 13 before February 17, 2000; (3) re-
establishing nonattainment new source review permitting for stationary
sources; and (4) wood burning restrictions.
We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised
Colorado Springs 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 the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor
vehicle emissions 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.\9\
However, under our conformity regulations, consistency with existing
MVEBs must be demonstrated as long as those MVEBs are within the
timeframe of the transportation plan. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) and
(d)(2).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ LMP Guidance at 4. October 6, 1995.
\10\ 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
Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan was adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. This finding was based substantially on the
fact that the Colorado Springs 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 Colorado Springs Maintenance
Plan was adequate for transportation conformity purposes (see 76 FR
46288). This adequacy determination became effective on August 17,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CO maintenance plan for Colorado Springs that we approved in
2004 (69 FR 54019) contains MVEBs applicable only through 2010. As 2010
is no longer within the timeframe of the transportation plan, there is
no longer a need to demonstrate conformity with the 2010 MVEB for the
Colorado Springs CO maintenance area. For the reasons described in our
LMP guidance, all actions that would require conformity determinations
for the Colorado Springs CO maintenance area under our conformity rule
provisions are considered to have already satisfied the regional
emissions analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118
because of our approval of the Colorado Springs 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 Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan
affects future CO RTP and TIP conformity determinations prepared by
PPACG, the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration.
V. Final Action
We are approving the revised Colorado Springs 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 2020.
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 September 30, 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
[[Page 46525]]
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.
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 30, 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, and 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 (o) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
* * * * *
(o) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Colorado Springs, 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. 2013-18438 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P