Adequacy Determination for Colorado Springs, Cañon City, Greeley, Pagosa Springs, and Telluride; Carbon Monoxide and PM10 Maintenance Plans' Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes; State of Colorado |
|---|
|
James B. Martin
Environmental Protection Agency
August 2, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46288-46290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19524]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[R08-CO-2011-0001; FRL-9447-1]
Adequacy Determination for Colorado Springs, Ca[ntilde]on City,
Greeley, Pagosa Springs, and Telluride; Carbon Monoxide and
PM10 Maintenance Plans' Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
Transportation Conformity Purposes; State of Colorado
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of adequacy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency
has found the following State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals
adequate for transportation conformity purposes: ``Revised Carbon
Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Colorado Springs Attainment/
Maintenance Area'' and ``Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan
Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area.'' In addition, EPA is notifying
the public that the Agency has found the following SIP submittals and
their respective motor vehicle emissions budgets adequate for
transportation conformity purposes: ``PM10 Maintenance Plan for
Ca[ntilde]on City,'' ``Final Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the
Pagosa Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area,'' and ``Revised PM10
Attainment/Maintenance Plan Telluride
[[Page 46289]]
Attainment/Maintenance Area.'' (PM10 refers to particulate
matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size.) Once this finding
becomes effective, the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG),
the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the
Colorado Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation are required to use the relevant motor vehicle emissions
budgets for future transportation conformity determinations.
DATES: This finding is effective August 17, 2011.
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 e-mail russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our,'' are used, we mean EPA.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The conformity rule provisions at 40 CFR part 93
require that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
SIPs 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'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). In addition, in certain areas with monitored
ambient carbon monoxide values significantly below the NAAQS, EPA has
allowed states to use limited maintenance plans (LMPs), which contain
no future year maintenance projections and, therefore, no MVEBs. (See
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment
Areas,'' signed by Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and
Strategies Group (MD-15), October 6, 1995, also known as EPA's ``LMP
Policy.'') In an area covered by an approved LMP, the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
are presumed to automatically satisfy the emissions budget test
requirement, and no regional emissions analysis with respect to a MVEB
under sections 40 CFR 93.118 or 93.119 (i.e., MVEB(s), build less than
no-build, or build less than base year) of the conformity rule is
required for RTP and TIP conformity. 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:
Colorado Springs (Carbon Monoxide): The State submitted the
``Revised Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Colorado Springs
Attainment/Maintenance Area'' on March 31, 2010. The State prepared the
submittal to meet the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a
second 10-year maintenance plan and used, as appropriate, the
provisions of EPA's LMP policy. Thus, the LMP contains no MVEB. EPA
sent a letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) on March 3, 2011, stating that the submitted
Colorado Springs second 10-year maintenance plan was adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. We note that we posted the
``Revised Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Colorado Springs
Attainment/Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's
transportation conformity Web site on November 10, 2010. The public
comment period closed on December 10, 2010, and we did not receive any
comments in response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#co-springs).
Greeley (Carbon Monoxide): The State submitted the ``Revised Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area'' on
March 31, 2010. The State prepared the submittal to meet the
requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year
maintenance plan and used, as appropriate, the provisions of EPA's LMP
policy. Thus, the LMP contains no MVEB. EPA sent a letter to CDPHE on
March 4, 2011, stating that the submitted Greeley second 10-year
maintenance plan was adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
We note that we posted the ``Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan
Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's
transportation conformity Web site on November 10, 2010. The public
comment period closed on December 10, 2010, and we did not receive any
comments in response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#greeley).
Ca[ntilde]on City (PM10): The State submitted the ``PM10
Maintenance Plan for Ca[ntilde]on City'' on June 18, 2009. The State
prepared the submittal to meet the requirements of section 175A(b) of
the CAA for a second 10-year maintenance plan. EPA sent a letter to
CDPHE on May 4, 2011, stating that the submitted Ca[ntilde]on City
PM10 second 10-year maintenance plan and the 2020
PM10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. We note that we posted the ``PM10 Maintenance Plan for
Ca[ntilde]on City'' for adequacy review on EPA's transportation
conformity Web site on March 15, 2011. The public comment period closed
on April 14, 2011, and we did not receive any comments in response to
the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#canon).
Pagosa Springs (PM10): The State submitted the ``Final Revised PM10
Maintenance Plan for the Pagosa Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area''
on March 31, 2010. The State prepared the submittal to meet the
requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year
maintenance plan. EPA sent a letter to CDPHE on March 17, 2011, stating
that the submitted Pagosa Springs PM10 second 10-year
maintenance plan and the 2021 PM10 MVEB were adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. We note that we posted the ``Final
Revised PM10 Maintenance Plan for the Pagosa Springs Attainment/
Maintenance Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's transportation
conformity Web site on November 22, 2010. The public comment period
closed on December 22, 2010, and we did not receive any comments in
response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#pagosa).
Telluride (PM10): The State submitted the ``Revised PM10
Attainment/Maintenance Plan Telluride Attainment/Maintenance Area'' on
March 31, 2010. The State prepared the submittal to meet the
requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year
maintenance plan. EPA sent a letter to CDPHE on March 21, 2011, stating
that the submitted Telluride PM10 second 10-year maintenance
plan and the 2021 PM10 MVEB were adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. We note that we posted the ``Revised
[[Page 46290]]
PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Plan Telluride Attainment/Maintenance
Area'' for adequacy review on EPA's transportation conformity Web site
on November 22, 2010. The public comment period closed on December 22,
2010, and we did not receive any comments in response to the adequacy
review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#telluride).
The MVEBs we found adequate are presented in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 PM10 2021 PM10
Area of applicability CO emissions (tons per day) emissions emissions
(pounds per day) (pounds per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Springs (CO)....................... N/A \1\....................... ................ ................
Greeley (CO)................................ N/A \1\....................... ................ ................
Ca[ntilde]on City (PM10).................... .............................. 1613 ................
Pagosa Springs (PM10)....................... .............................. ................ 946
Telluride (PM10)............................ .............................. ................ 1108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LMP area--no MVEB required. Prior MVEBs may apply, as described in our adequacy letters to the State.
Please note that our adequacy review described above is separate
from our rulemaking action on the five 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 or a maintenance plan and its MVEB adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, we may later disapprove the SIP revision.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 25, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-19524 Filed 8-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P