Adequacy Determination for Lamar and Steamboat Springs PM10, 59767 [2014-23636]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 59767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23636]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0236; FRL-9917-35-Region-8]


Adequacy Determination for Lamar and Steamboat Springs PM10 
Maintenance Plans' Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation 
Conformity Purposes; State of Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
notifying the public that the Agency has found the following adequate 
for transportation conformity purposes: The ``Revised PM10 
Maintenance Plan for the Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area'' and its 
motor vehicle emissions budget, and the ``Revised PM10 
Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance 
Area'' and its motor vehicle emissions budget. As more fully explained 
in the Supplementary Information section of this notice, this finding 
will affect future transportation conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective on October 20, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number (303) 312-6479, fax number (303) 
312-6064, or email russ.tim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our,'' are used, we mean EPA. Whenever ``State'' is used, 
we mean the State of Colorado.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). The conformity rule provisions at 40 CFR 93 
require that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and establish the criteria and 
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP 
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP revision's motor 
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) is adequate for conformity purposes are 
outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated August 15, 1997 
(62 FR 43780). We described our process for determining the adequacy of 
submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 Transportation Conformity Rule 
Amendments (69 FR 40004). We used these resources in making our 
adequacy determinations announced in this notice.
    This notice is simply an announcement of findings that we have 
already made and are as described below:
    Lamar (PM10): The State submitted the ``Revised PM10 
Maintenance Plan for the Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area'' \1\ on May 
13, 2013. The State prepared the submittal to meet the requirements of 
section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year maintenance plan. We 
posted the ``Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Lamar 
Attainment/Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's 
transportation conformity Web site on November 15, 2013. The public 
comment period closed on December 16, 2013, and we did not receive any 
comments in response to the adequacy review posting (see https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#lamar-co). EPA 
sent a letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
Environment (CDPHE) on January 23, 2014, stating that the submitted 
Lamar PM10 second 10-year maintenance plan and the 2025 
PM10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM10 refers to particulate matter less than or 
equal to 10 microns in diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Steamboat Springs (PM10): The State submitted the 
``Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs 
Attainment/Maintenance Area'' on May 11, 2012. The State prepared the 
submittal to meet the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a 
second 10-year maintenance plan. We posted the ``Revised 
PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/
Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's transportation 
conformity Web site on November 15, 2013. The public comment period 
closed on December 16, 2013, and we did not receive any comments in 
response to the adequacy review posting (see https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#steam-spr-co). EPA sent a letter 
to the CDPHE on January 23, 2014, stating that the submitted Steamboat 
Springs PM10 second 10-year maintenance plan and the 2024 
PM10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes.
    For the Lamar PM10 maintenance area, the MVEB we found 
adequate is 764 pounds of PM10 per day in 2025. Following 
the effective date listed in the DATES section of this notice, the 
Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation are required to use this motor vehicle emissions budget 
for future transportation conformity determinations for projects in the 
Lamar PM10 maintenance area. For the Steamboat Springs 
PM10 maintenance area, the MVEB we found adequate is 1,103 
pounds of PM10 per day in 2024. Following the effective date 
listed in the DATES section of this notice, the Colorado Department of 
Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required 
to use this motor vehicle emissions budget for future transportation 
conformity determinations for projects in the Steamboat Springs 
PM10 maintenance area.
    Please note that our adequacy review described above is separate 
from our rulemaking action on the two maintenance plans discussed above 
and should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval or disapproval 
of each of the SIP revisions. Even if we find a maintenance plan and 
its MVEB adequate for transportation conformity purposes now, we may 
later find it necessary to disapprove the SIP revision. Should this 
situation arise, we would then revisit our adequacy finding.

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

    Dated: September 4, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2014-23636 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P