Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan, Attainment Demonstration of the 8-hour Ozone Standard, and Approval of Related Revisions, 28239-28252 [05-9724]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the Denver 8-hour ozone EAC plan.
While the basic I/M program was
originally adopted for Greeley to control
CO emissions, it also produces some
reduction in volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions, a precursor to ground
level ozone formation. For example,
vehicles in the Greeley area are failed
for excessive hydrocarbon emissions,
which contain VOCs. In other words,
removal of the basic I/M program from
the Greeley area could lead to an
increase in ozone.
Under EPA’s interpretation of section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act, we cannot
approve the removal of the basic I/M
program from the Greeley area absent a
substitute revision providing equivalent
or greater VOC reductions or a
demonstration that elimination of the
program will not interfere with relevant
requirements of the Clean Air Act (in
this case, attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.)
The State is not providing a substitute
SIP revision. Instead, Colorado intends
to demonstrate non-interference through
its 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration, which is part of the
Denver 8-hour ozone EAC plan that the
Governor submitted on July 21, 2004.
The 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration takes no emissions
reduction credit for the Greeley basic
I/M program. We have not acted on the
Denver 8-hour ozone EAC plan, but
intend to do so in the near future.
Assuming we approve the Denver
EAC ozone attainment demonstration,
we will then have the technical and
legal basis to approve the removal of the
Greeley area basic I/M program from the
SIP. Thus, we must approve the Denver
8-hour ozone EAC plan before, or at the
same time, we approve the removal of
the Greeley area basic I/M program from
the SIP. Accordingly, we will not
finalize approval of the revised Greeley
CO maintenance plan and revised
Regulation No. 11 unless and until we
approve the Denver 8-hour ozone EAC
plan.
IX. Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing
approval of the Greeley revised carbon
monoxide maintenance plan, the
transportation conformity budgets for
2005 through 2009, 2010 through 2014,
and 2015 and beyond, and the revisions
to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No.
13.
Submit your comments, identified by
RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2004–
CO–0004, by one of the methods
identified above at the front of this
proposed rule. We will consider your
comments in deciding our final action if
they are received before June 16, 2005.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
EPA will address all public comments
in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. 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 the
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.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
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 proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed 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
proposes to approve 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 proposed 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
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28239
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed 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 proposed
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.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 6, 2005.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 05–9721 Filed 5–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–CO–
0001; FRL–7912–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Denver Early Action
Compact Ozone Plan, Attainment
Demonstration of the 8-hour Ozone
Standard, and Approval of Related
Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Colorado. On July 21, 2004, the
Governor of Colorado submitted an
Early Action Compact (EAC) ozone plan
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28240
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
for the Denver metropolitan area
(hereafter, Denver area) for the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The Governor’s
submittal also contained an attainment
demonstration for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In conjunction with the EAC
ozone plan, the Governor submitted
revisions to Colorado’s Common
Provisions Regulation, Colorado’s
Regulation No. 7 ‘‘Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds’’ (hereafter,
Regulation No. 7), and revisions to
Colorado’s Regulation No. 11 ‘‘Motor
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program’’
(hereafter Regulation No. 11). In this
action, EPA is proposing approval of the
Denver EAC ozone plan, the associated
attainment demonstration, and the
revisions to the Common Provisions
Regulation, Regulation No. 7, and
Regulation No. 11. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by RME Docket Number R08–
OAR–2005–CO–0001, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME),
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and
russ.tim@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.
• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal
holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2005–
CO–0001. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
may be made available at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp,
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
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail.
EPA’s Regional Materials in EDOCKET
and federal regulations.gov Web site are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through
EDOCKET or 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 information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET online or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
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 Regional Materials in
EDOCKET index at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publically
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th
Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6479, and
e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State’s process to submit
these materials to EPA?
IV. Background for Early Action Compacts
for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
V. EPA’s evaluation of the Denver Early
Action Compact Milestone Submittals
VI. EPA’s evaluation of the Denver Early
Action Compact Ozone Plan
VII. EPA’s evaluation of the Denver Early
Action Compact Ozone Plan’s
Attainment Demonstration
VIII. EPA’s evaluation of the Regulation No.
7 Revisions
IX. EPA’s evaluation of the Regulation No. 11
Revisions
X. EPA’s evaluation of the Common
Provisions Regulation Revision
XI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the
CAA
XII. Proposed Action
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 NAAQS mean
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(v) The word State means the State of
Colorado, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
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
regulations.gov or e-mail. 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
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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:
I. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
II. 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.
III. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
IV. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
V. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
VI. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
VII. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
VIII. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
In this action, we are proposing
approval of the Early Action Compact
ozone plan for the Denver area that is
designed to demonstrate attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December
31, 2007 with additional provisions for
continued maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS through 2012, we’re proposing
approval of the photochemical modeled
attainment demonstration, we’re
proposing approval of certain revisions
to the State’s Common Provisions
Regulation, we’re proposing approval of
revisions to Regulation No. 7 for the
control of VOC and NOX emissions from
certain oil and gas exploration and
production operations, we’re proposing
approval of revisions to the motor
vehicle inspections and maintenance (I/
M) requirements in Regulation No. 11
the Governor submitted on July 21,
2004, and we’re proposing approval of
several prior I/M revisions to Regulation
No. 11.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
III. What Is the State’s Process to
Submit These Materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses
our actions on submissions of revisions
to a SIP. The CAA requires States to
observe certain procedural requirements
in developing SIP revisions for
submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing. This must occur prior to
the revision being submitted by a State
to us.
A. The Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the Denver EAC ozone plan
on March 11 and 12, 2004. The AQCC
adopted the EAC ozone plan, and its
associated attainment demonstration,
directly after the hearing. This SIP
revision became State effective on May
30, 2004, and was submitted by the
Governor to us on July 21, 2004.
We have evaluated the Governor’s
submittal for the Denver EAC ozone
plan and have determined that the State
met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. By operation of
law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
CAA, the Governor’s July 21, 2004,
submittal became complete on January
21, 2005.
B. The Colorado AQCC held a public
hearing for the revisions to the Common
Provisions Regulation, Regulation No. 7
and Regulation No. 11 on March 11 and
12, 2004. The AQCC adopted these
revisions directly after the hearing.
These SIP revisions became State
effective on May 30, 2004, and were
submitted by the Governor to us on July
21, 2004.
We have evaluated the Governor’s
submittal for the Common Provisions
Regulation, Regulation No. 7 and
Regulation No. 11 revisions and have
determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA. By operation of law under
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
Governor’s July 21, 2004, submittal
became complete on January 21, 2005.
C. For the 2000, 2001, and 2002
Regulation No. 11 revisions, the
Colorado AQCC held a public hearing
on November 16, 2000, December 20,
2001, August 15, 2002, and October 17,
2002. The AQCC adopted the revisions
to Regulation No. 11 directly after these
hearings. These SIP revisions became
State effective on December 30, 2000,
January 30, 2002, September 30, 2002,
and December 30, 2002, respectively,
and were all submitted by the Governor
to us on June 20, 2003.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28241
We evaluated the Governor’s
submittal and concluded that the State
met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we
reviewed these SIP materials for
conformance with the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V
and determined that the Governor’s June
30, 2003, submittal was administratively
and technically complete. Our
completeness determination was sent on
November 28, 2003, through a letter
from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.
D. For the 2003 Regulation No. 11
revisions, the Colorado AQCC held a
public hearing on September 18, 2003,
and December 18, 2003. The AQCC
adopted the revisions to Regulation No.
11 directly after these hearings. These
SIP revisions became State effective on
November 30, 2003, and March 1, 2004,
respectively, and were all submitted by
the Governor to us on April 12, 2004.
We evaluated the Governor’s
submittal and concluded that the State
met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we
reviewed these SIP materials for
conformance with the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V
and determined that the Governor’s
April 12, 2004, submittal was
administratively and technically
complete. Our completeness
determination was sent on June 17,
2004, through a letter from Robert E.
Roberts, Regional Administrator, to
Governor Bill Owens.
E. The Colorado AQCC held a public
hearing for additional revisions to
Regulation No. 7 on December 16, 2004.
The AQCC adopted these revisions
directly after the hearing. These SIP
revisions became State effective on
March 2, 2005, and were submitted by
the Governor to us on March 24, 2005.
We have evaluated the Governor’s
submittal of the additional revisions to
Regulation No. 7 and have determined
that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
Pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials
for conformance with the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V
and determined that the Governor’s
March 24, 2005, submittal was
administratively and technically
complete. Our completeness
determination was sent on April 6,
2005, through a letter from Robert E.
Roberts, Regional Administrator, to
Governor Bill Owens.
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28242
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
IV. Background for Early Action
Compacts for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
A. Why Was the Compact Program
Developed?
As discussed in our proposed rule for
the implementation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (see 68 FR 32805, June 2, 2003),
State, local and Tribal air pollution
control agencies continued to express a
need for added flexibility in
implementing the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, including incentives for taking
action sooner than the CAA requires for
reducing ground-level ozone. The
compact program permits local areas to
make decisions that will achieve
reductions in VOC and NOX emissions
sooner than otherwise is mandated by
the CAA. Early planning and early
implementation of control measures that
improves air quality will likely
accelerate protection of public health.
We issued our initial policy on early
planning on November 14, 2002 1
(hereafter, November 14, 2002 policy),
with a further description in our June 2,
2003 proposed rule (68 FR 32805), and
as provided in our April 30, 2004 final
rule (69 FR 23951) entitled ‘‘Final Rule
To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standard—Phase 1.’’
B. What Was the ‘‘Early Action’’
Protocol That Texas Submitted to EPA?
In March of 2002, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) encouraged EPA to consider
incentives for early planning towards
achieving the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The TCEQ submitted to EPA the
Protocol for Early Action Compacts
Designed to Achieve and Maintain the
8-hour Ozone Standard (Protocol). The
Protocol was designed to achieve NOX
and VOC emissions reductions for the 8hour ozone NAAQS sooner than would
otherwise be required under the CAA.
The TCEQ recommended that the
Protocol be formalized by ‘‘Early Action
Compact’’ agreements primarily
developed by local, State and Federal
(EPA) officials. In a letter dated June 19,
2002, from Gregg Cooke, Administrator,
Region 6, to Robert Huston, Chairman,
TCEQ, EPA endorsed the principles
outlined in the Protocol. The Protocol
was subsequently revised on December
11, 2002, 2 based on comments from
1 Memorandum from Jeffrey R. Holmstead,
Assistant Administrator, to Regional
Administrators, entitled ‘‘Schedule for 8-Hour
Ozone Designations and its Effect on Early Action
Compacts’’ dated November 14, 2002.
2 The Texas Protocol was submitted to EPA in
March 2002 for review and was revised in
December 2002 based on the Agency’s comments
concerning the need for additional milestones and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
EPA. Areas meeting the necessary
prerequisites prepared an Early Action
Compact (EAC) document that was
based on the provisions of the Protocol.
These EACs were then executed by the
necessary State and local entities, along
with the respective EPA Regional Office,
by December 31, 2002. The EACs were
required to contain the following:
1. Early planning, implementation,
and emissions reductions leading to
expeditious attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
2. Local control of the measures
employed with broad-based public
input.
3. State support to ensure technical
integrity of the early action plan
including completion of emissions
inventories and dispersion modeling
(based on most recent Agency guidance)
to support the attainment demonstration
and selected local control measures.
4. Formal incorporation of the early
action plan itself into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Also,
adoption and submittal as revisions to
the SIP of control strategies that
demonstrate attainment.
5. Completion of a component to
address emissions growth at least 5
years beyond December 31, 2007,
ensuring that the area will remain in
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard
during that period.
6. Semiannual reports detailing
progress toward completion of compact
milestones.
7. Designation of all areas as
attainment or nonattainment in April
2004, but for compact areas, deferral of
the effective date of the nonattainment
designation and/or designation
requirements so long as all compact
terms and milestones continue to be
met.
8. Safeguards to return areas to
traditional SIP attainment requirements
should compact terms be unfulfilled
(e.g., if the area fails to attain in 2007),
with appropriate credit given for
reduction measures already
implemented.
C. What are the milestone and submittal
requirements for Early Action Compact
areas?
The November 14, 2002, policy
memorandum, an additional EPA
memorandum dated April 4, 2003, 3 our
June 2, 2003 proposed rule (68 FR
other clarifications. Docket No. OAR–2003–0090–
0004.
3 Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Director,
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division,
‘‘Early Action Compacts (EACs): The June 16, 2003
Submission and Other Clarifications,’’ April 4,
2003. Docket No. OAR–2003–0090–0002.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32805), and our April 30, 2004 final rule
(69 FR 23951) establish the activities
EAC areas are required to perform and
the necessary submittals that must be
made to EPA. EAC areas are required to
select control strategies based on SIPquality dispersion modeling that shows
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
no later than December 31, 2007
through implementation of the control
strategies. We specified that all EAC
areas must submit a local plan by March
31, 2004 that includes measures that are
specific, quantified, and permanent and
that, once approved into the SIP by
EPA, will be federally enforceable. The
March 31, 2004 submission also had to
include specific implementation dates
for the local controls, as well as detailed
documentation supporting the selection
of measures. Control measures must be
implemented no later than December
31, 2005, which is at least 161⁄2 months
earlier than required by the CAA.
Reports are required every 6 months to
describe progress toward completion of
milestones.
Table IV–1 below presents the
milestones and submissions that EAC
areas are required to complete in order
to continue eligibility for a deferral of
the effective date of the nonattainment
designation for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
TABLE IV–1.—EARLY ACTION
COMPACT MILESTONES
Submittal Date
Compact Milestone
December 31,
2002.
June 16, 2003
State/Locals submit EAC for
EPA signature.
State/Locals submit preliminary list and description of
potential local control
measures under consideration.
Plan submitted to State for
necessary action (includes
specific, quantified and
permanent control measures to be adopted).
State submits EAC plan and
adopted local measures to
EPA as a SIP revision
that, when approved, will
be federally enforceable.
State/Locals to implement
adopted SIP control measures.
State reports on implementation of control measures,
assessment of air quality
improvement, and reductions in NOX and VOC
emissions to date.
EAC area attains 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
March 31,
2004.
December 31,
2004.
No later than
December
31, 2005.
June 30, 2006
December 31,
2007.
In accordance with the Protocol and
the executed EAC documents, EPA
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
recognized the EAC areas’ commitments
to early, voluntary action by designating
the EAC areas that were violating the 8hour NAAQS (based on air quality data
from 2001, 2002, and 2003) as
nonattainment on April 30, 2004 (see 69
FR 23858), but deferred the effective
date of the nonattainment designation
so long as all terms and milestones of
the EAC continue to be met.
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the Denver Early
Action Compact Milestone Submittals
We have reviewed the Denver EAC
milestone submittals with respect to the
requirements in the Protocol and the
executed December 31, 2002 Denver
EAC. We consider these milestone
submittals as necessary prerequisites in
order for us to propose approval of the
Denver EAC ozone plan SIP revision.
The following are our analyses of how
the EAC milestone submittal
requirements, discussed above, have
been met for the Denver EAC.
A. State/Locals Submit EAC for EPA
Signature by December 31, 2002
The State of Colorado delivered the
Denver EAC to EPA, Region 8 on
December 30, 2002. The EAC had been
signed by Jim Scherer, Chairman of the
Denver Regional Air Quality Council
(RAQC), Robert E. Brady Jr., Chairman
of the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC), Douglas H.
Benevento, Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), Thomas Norton,
Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT),
and Sharon L. Richardson, Chairman,
Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG). The Denver
EAC was executed by Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8,
on December 31, 2002.
The Denver EAC was amended on
March 18, 2004 with the additional
signatures of Stephen F. Stutz, Chair,
Elbert County Board of County
Commissioners, Kathay Rennels, Chair,
Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners, Michael Harms, Chair,
Morgan County Board of County
Commissioners, and Rob Masden, Chair,
Weld County Board of County
Commissioners.
Based on the above actions, EPA has
determined that this EAC milestone
requirement has been addressed.
B. State/Locals Submit Preliminary List
and Description of Potential Local
Control Measures Under Consideration
by June 16, 2003
On June 16, 2003, Ken Lloyd,
Executive Director, RAQC and Margie
Perkins, Director, Air Pollution Control
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
Division (APCD) of the CDPHE jointly
submitted the Denver EAC area’s ‘‘June
16, 2003 Milestone—Identification and
Description of Potential Control
Strategies for Further Consideration.’’
This submittal contained a further
description of the stakeholder process,
strategy evaluation considerations, and
a list of ten potential emission reduction
strategies. Provided for each of the
potential strategies were, a brief
description, estimate of potential
emission reductions (where available),
an implementation approach and
schedule, and a description of the
geographic area of application of the
strategy.
Based on the content of this
document, EPA has determined that this
EAC milestone requirement has been
addressed.
C. Plan Submitted to State for necessary
Action (Includes Specific, Quantified
and Permanent Control Measures To Be
Adopted) by March 31, 2004
The Denver RAQC held a public
meeting on December 11, 2003, at the
end of which, the RAQC gave their
approval to the Denver EAC ozone plan.
In conjunction with the RAQC’s
planning processes, the Colorado AQCC
entertained public comment during
noticed public meetings in July, August,
September, November, and December,
2003. With the RAQC’s approval, the
Denver EAC plan, and associated
materials, were then transmitted to the
Colorado AQCC. At their December 18,
2003, public meeting the AQCC gave
notice to open a three-month public
comment period and scheduled a public
hearing for March 11, 2004 (which was
subsequently extended to March 11 and
March 12, 2004.) At the December 18,
2003 AQCC meeting, the AQCC also
noticed for public comment revisions to
the appropriate Colorado Regulations
that would achieve the necessary
emission reductions that were modeled
in the attainment demonstration which
supported the EAC plan. Once
approved, these Regulation revisions
would generate permanent and
enforceable emission reductions. We
note that the Denver EAC plan does not
take any credit for voluntary measures.
Based on the above actions, EPA has
determined that this EAC milestone
requirement has been addressed.
D. State Submits EAC Plan and Adopted
Local Measures to EPA as a SIP Revision
(That, When Approved, Will Be
Federally Enforceable) by December 31,
2004
On March 11 and March 12, 2004, the
AQCC conducted a public hearing to
consider the Denver EAC plan, the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28243
attainment demonstration, and the
necessary revisions to Colorado’s
Common Provisions Regulation,
Regulation No. 7, and Regulation No.
11. At the end of the public hearing on
March 12, 2004, the AQCC adopted all
the above SIP materials. The entire
Denver EAC SIP package was forwarded
to Governor Owens who then
transmitted the SIP package to EPA,
Region 8, with a letter dated July 21,
2004.
We note that on March 10, 2004, and
just prior to the AQCC public hearing of
March 11 and March 12, 2004, we sent
a letter to the State and AQCC
expressing concerns with the adequacy
of the revisions to Colorado’s Regulation
No. 7. In that March 10, 2004 letter, we
stated that we would continue to work
with the State to resolve our concerns.
CDPHE and EPA staff met several
times starting in August, 2004 up
through December, 2004 to address the
Regulation No. 7 deficiencies. At the
September, 2004 AQCC meeting, the
AQCC established a public comment
period and noticed for public hearing
revisions to Regulation No. 7. The
AQCC held a public hearing on
December 16, 2004 to consider the
revisions to Regulation No. 7. The
AQCC adopted the revisions directly
after the public hearing and Governor
Owens submitted these supplemental
Regulation No. 7 revisions to us on
March 24, 2005.
Based on the above actions, EPA has
determined that this EAC milestone
requirement has been addressed.
We also note that in addition to
meeting all the required EAC
milestones, the State and RAQC jointly
submitted ‘‘Progress Reports’’ on June
30, 2003, December 31, 2003, March 31,
2004, and December 31, 2004.
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the Denver
Early Action Compact Ozone Plan
We have reviewed the Denver EAC
ozone plan (hereafter, Denver EAC plan)
with respect to the requirements in the
Protocol, the December 31, 2002 Denver
EAC document, and our general
requirements for a nonattainment area
plan and believe that approval of the
Denver EAC plan is warranted. The
following are our descriptions and
analysis of how the Denver EAC plan
meets the necessary provisions
referenced above.
We note that the Denver EAC plan is
divided into two sections; a non-SIP
introduction and monitoring
background section and the SIP section
entitled ‘‘8-Hour Ozone State
Implementation Plan’’ that contains
emission inventories, control measures,
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28244
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
photochemical dispersion modeling,
and a weight of evidence analysis.
A. Introduction and Monitoring
Background Section (non-SIP Materials)
The introduction section discusses
the EAC protocol, the aspects of the
Denver EAC, the Protocol milestones
and how these were met, information
that went into the development of the
SIP emission inventories and dispersion
modeling, emission reduction strategies,
aspects of maintenance for growth, a
brief description of the stakeholder/
public process, and a description of the
area encompassed by the Denver EAC
plan. The ozone monitoring section
provides information with respect to the
location of Front Range ozone monitors
(from southern metropolitan Denver
north to Fort Collins including Rocky
Mountain National Park), the State’s
ambient air quality data assurance
program, a description and commitment
for continued operation of the ozone
monitoring network, and relevant 8hour ozone monitoring data from 1996
through 2003 with design values
presented for data from 2001, 2002, and
2003.
B. Denver EAC Plan—‘‘8-Hour Ozone
State Implementation Plan’
1. Base Case Emissions Inventories
(a) As described in Chapter I of the
Denver EAC plan, the State and RAQC
used demographic data that was
provided by the metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO), DRCOG and North
Front Range Transportation and Air
Quality Planning Council (NFRTAQPC).
Demographic data were prepared for
2002, 2007, and 2012 and are presented
in Table 4 of the Denver EAC plan.
(b) At the time that the emission
inventories were being prepared for the
Denver EAC plan, EPA had not yet
finalized the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment boundary for the DenverBoulder-Greeley area 4. The State and
RAQC prepared the EAC emission
inventories for two situations depending
on EPA’s final decision on the
boundary: (1) inventories based on
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and Weld
Counties, and (2) inventories based on
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson,
Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties.
These inventories address ozone
precursor emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX).
(c) The 2002 and 2007 base case
inventories incorporate control
measures that were in place in 2002 and
were predicted to be in place in 2007.
The essential control measures are
described in Chapter I of the Denver
EAC plan and are: (1) Federallymandated regulations for motor vehicle
exhaust (or tailpipe) emissions and
Federally-mandated regulations for
exhaust emissions from non-road
engines, (2) Colorado’s Regulation No. 7
for the control of VOC emissions, and
(3) Colorado’s Regulation No. 11, the
State’s Automobile Inspection and
Readjustment (A.I.R.) Program, which
requires the application of the State’s
Basic Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
program for vehicles older than 1982
and the Enhanced I/M program for
vehicles of model year 1982 and newer.
With respect to the Basic I/M program,
Chapter I, 2 of the EAC plan states, ‘‘The
computer modeling does not include
any credit for the basic programs in
Colorado Springs and Fort Collins/
Greeley areas and such basic programs
are not part of, or being submitted for
inclusion in, the SIP.’’ In addition to the
above, Chapter I, 4 indicates that a
conventional gasoline Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of 8.2 pounds per square
inch (psi) was used in the 2002 base
case inventory and an RVP of 9.0 was
assumed for the 2007 base case
inventory. Chapter I.,4 also states that
‘‘All of the inventories were developed
using EPA-approved emissions
modeling methods, including EPA’s
MOBILE6 model and local VMT data for
on-road mobile source emissions, EPA’s
non-road model and local demographic
information for area and off-road
sources, and reported actual emissions
for point sources.’’ The 2002 and 2007
base case VOC and NOX emission
inventories are presented in Table 5a
and Table 5b in Chapter I of the Denver
EAC plan and are summarized below in
Tables VI–1 and VI–2.
TABLE VI–1.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER,
BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, AND WELD COUNTIES
Source category
2002 VOCs
2002 NOX
2007 VOCs
2007 NOX
Point Sources ..................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................................
Non-Road Sources ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Sources ............................................................................................................
Subtotal Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................
Biogenics .........................................................................................................................
192.8
96.9
73.1
152.8
515.6
468.1
105.2
25.6
87.99
157.8
376.6
37.1
204.1
104.1
53.7
117.5
479.4
468.1
107.1
27.6
82.5
119.3
336.5
37.1
Total ..........................................................................................................................
983.7
413.7
947.5
373.6
TABLE VI–2.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER,
BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, ELBERT, JEFFERSON, LARIMER, MORGAN, AND WELD COUNTIES
Source category
2002 VOCs
Point Sources ..................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................................
Non-Road Sources ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Sources ............................................................................................................
Subtotal Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................
Biogenics .........................................................................................................................
4 EPA promulgated the final 8-hour ozone
nonattainment boundary for the Denver-BoulderGreeley area on April 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 23858.)
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
200.0
111.3
84.9
172.6
568.8
799.46
The boundary includes all of Adams, Arapahoe,
Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2002 NOX
140.1
30.4
104.6
177.6
452.7
52.3
2007 VOCs
209.3
119.6
62.6
135.1
526.6
799.5
2007 NOX
144.9
32.7
92.4
136.6
406.6
52.3
Counties and the southern halves of Larimer and
Weld Counties.
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28245
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI–2.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION INVENTORIES IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BOULDER,
BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, ELBERT, JEFFERSON, LARIMER, MORGAN, AND WELD COUNTIES—Continued
Source category
2002 VOCs
Total ..........................................................................................................................
2. Control Measures
Chapter II of the Denver EAC plan
describes the additional control
measures, above and beyond those
assumed in the 2007 base case
emissions inventory, that will be
implemented by December 31, 2005.
These additional control measures are
incorporated into the SIP to demonstrate
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by 2007, maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2012, and to
meet the requirements of the EAC
Protocol.
(a) Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP). Chapter II A. of the Denver EAC
plan describes the RVP control measure.
Since 1991, gasoline sold in the Denver
area during the summer ozone season
(for gasoline RVP, this is defined as June
1 through September 15) has been
subject to an EPA national rule that
requires an RVP of 7.8 psi (see 55 FR
23658, June 11, 1990, and 56 FR 64704,
December 12, 1991.) This RVP
requirement of 7.8 psi was applicable to
the Denver 1-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area as defined in the
Federal Register (see 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991.) From 1992 through
the 2003 summer ozone season, and in
response to waiver petitions from the
Governor of Colorado, we either waived
or granted enforcement discretion for
the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the
Denver area and instead allowed the
less stringent 9.0 psi RVP. Our decisions
were based on evidence that
demonstrated the 7.8 psi RVP was not
necessary given the Denver area’s record
of continued attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS using the 9.0 psi RVP
requirement and additional evidence
presented by the State that showed
economic hardship to consumers and
industry if the 7.8 psi RVP level was
imposed.
Since 1999, and in response to a
request from the RAQC, refiners serving
the Denver area voluntarily provided
gasoline with an RVP of 8.5 psi or lower
to help reduce evaporative emissions of
VOCs from refueling and vehicle
operations. Through the Denver EAC
stakeholder meetings, the RAQC, State,
and industry elected to commit to a
gasoline RVP of 8.1 psi to help reduce
VOC emissions. Therefore, the Denver
EAC plan and 2007 dispersion modeled
attainment demonstration took credit for
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
1368.3
the more stringent RVP level of 8.1 psi.
On January 12, 2004, the Colorado
Petroleum Association (CPA) submitted
a request to EPA for enforcement
discretion for the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement for June 1, 2004 through
September 15, 2004. In their January 12,
2004 letter, CPA acknowledged their
continuing efforts with CDPHE and the
RAQC in developing the Denver EAC
plan using an RVP of 8.1 psi, but asked
that EPA grant enforcement discretion
for a 9.0 psi RVP with CPA’s offer to
meet the prior voluntary 8.5 psi RVP
level. However, quality-assured ozone
monitoring data for 2001, 2002, and
2003 showed that three of the ozone
ambient air quality monitors in the
Denver area’s network recorded
violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
In a letter dated March 25, 2004, we
explained that primarily based on the
monitored violations of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and public health issues,
enforcement discretion was not
warranted and that the Federal
requirement for 7.8 psi RVP gasoline for
the Denver area would be effective
beginning June 1, 2004. We note that,
although the Denver EAC plan and
attainment demonstration dispersion
modeling take credit for 8.1 psi RVP
conventional gasoline (9.1 psi RVP for
ethanol blends), the Denver area will
instead be realizing greater evaporative
VOC emissions reductions due to EPA’s
requirement for 7.8 psi RVP. 5
An additional RVP issue is found in
the third paragraph in Chapter II A. of
the Denver EAC plan which states:
Therefore, since this EAC ozone action
plan for the 8-hour ozone standard relies on
an RVP level of 8.1 psi (9.1 psi for ethanol
blends) in the 2007 control case inventory for
the existing Denver 1-hour ozone attainment/
maintenance area, the State of Colorado
requests a three year waiver establishing an
8.1 psi (9.1 psi for ethanol blends) RVP level
for the existing Denver 1-hour attainment/
maintenance area through the 2007 summer
ozone season.
We view this and related language in
the SIP as a petition to EPA to establish
an 8.1 psi RVP standard for the Denver
5 The requirement for conventional gasoline is an
RVP of 7.8 psi. However, the CAA allows an
additional 1.0 psi increase for gasoline blended
with ethanol. In the Denver EAC attainment
demonstration dispersion modeling, the State
assumes a 25 percent market penetration for ethanol
blended gasoline.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2002 NOX
505.0
2007 VOCs
1326.1
2007 NOX
458.9
area rather than the currently applicable
7.8 psi RVP standard. A revision to the
federal RVP standard can only be done
via rulemaking under section 211 of the
CAA, and the authority to conduct such
rulemaking cannot be delegated from
the Administrator of EPA to the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region
VIII. Hence, Colorado’s RVP petition
cannot be addressed in this SIP
rulemaking. Our inability to act on
Colorado’s RVP petition does not affect
our ability to propose approval of the
EAC plan because the currently
applicable standard—7.8 psi RVP—will
reduce VOC emissions more than the
8.1 psi RVP standard the State relied on
to model attainment in 2007.
(b) Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production (E&P) Condensate Tank
Controls. The Denver EAC plan and
attainment demonstration include a
reduction in flash emissions of VOCs
from new control equipment to be
installed on E&P condensate collection,
storage, processing and handling
operations. Revisions to Colorado’s
Regulation No. 7 (also being proposed
for approval with this action and
described in section VIII below) require
the installation of air pollution control
technology to achieve at least a 47.5
percent reduction in VOC emissions
from E&P production operations, natural
gas compressor stations, and natural gas
drip stations located in the Denver EAC
plan area.
(c) Controls for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE). The Denver EAC plan
and attainment demonstration include
VOC and NOX emission reductions from
new control equipment to be installed
on new and existing rich burn and lean
burn natural gas-fired RICE engines
larger than 500 horsepower. Chapter II
C. states that emission control
equipment for uncontrolled rich burn
RICE shall be non-selective catalyst
reduction and an air fuel ratio controller
or other equally effective air pollution
control technology. Chapter II C. also
states that for uncontrolled lean burn
RICE, emission control equipment shall
be oxidation catalyst reduction or other
equally effective air pollution control
technology. These RICE controls are
contained in revisions to Colorado’s
Regulation No. 7.
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28246
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(d) Controls for Dehydration Units.
Chapter II D. of the Denver EAC plan
and the attainment demonstration
include VOC emission reductions from
new control equipment to be installed
on new and existing dehydration
towers, with VOC emissions in excess of
15 tons per year, located at oil and gas
operations. These new control
requirements are contained in revisions
to Colorado’s Regulation No. 7.
(e) Revisions to Colorado’s Regulation
No. 11—Automobile Inspection and
Readjustment Program. Chapter II E. of
the Denver EAC plan and the attainment
demonstration include VOC and NOX
emission reductions from revisions to
Regulation No. 11. These revisions
reduce the coverage of the remote
sensing clean screen area in order to
reduce the disbenefit of the clean screen
program and to reflect the practical
reality of potential coverage. No more
than 50% of the fleet of gasoline
vehicles in the enhanced I/M program
area (described in Regulation No. 11) of
applicability will be evaluated with
remote sensing during any twelvemonth period after December 31, 2005.
These revisions to Colorado’s
Regulation No. 11 are also being
proposed for approval with this action.
For further discussion, see section IX
below.
3. Maintenance for Growth—Continuing
Planning Process
The State’s methodology and
demonstration of maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS is described in
Chapter III H. of the Denver EAC plan
and our evaluation is described further
in section VII C. below. We note,
however, that an oversight occurred in
which the State failed to include a
discussion in the Denver EAC plan as to
how it would address the Protocol’s
continuing planning process provisions.
To address this issue, the State
submitted a commitment letter, dated
March 22, 2005, that detailed the
specific measures it would use to
address the continuing planning
requirements of the Protocol.
The State will periodically evaluate
the data and growth assumptions used
in the attainment demonstration, review
point source growth, and review
transportation patterns. If these periodic
reviews demonstrate a need to adopt
additional control measures, the State
will evaluate and adopt the necessary
controls for the Denver EAC plan. The
State also noted that the transportation
patterns and emissions in the Denver
EAC plan’s 8-hour ozone control area
are already evaluated due to the
transportation conformity requirements
of currently approved maintenance
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
plans (i.e., Denver PM10, Denver carbon
monoxide, Denver 1-hour ozone, Fort
Collins carbon monoxide, Greeley
carbon monoxide, and Longmont carbon
monoxide). The State’s letter also
contained a commitment to amend the
Denver EAC plan, as a SIP revision, to
incorporate the continuing planning
process language from our Protocol.
This SIP revision will be performed in
2005. However, due to State-internal SIP
processing requirements, it will not be
submitted to EPA until 2006.
In addition to the above, we note that
once the Denver area receives an
effective attainment designation in
2008, the area will then have to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4) and
40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii). To meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii),
the State will have to submit a CAA
section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan
within three years of the designation of
attainment (i.e., 2011). In the State’s
March 22, 2005 letter, it acknowledges
this obligation and also states its
intention to prepare this required
maintenance plan in an earlier time
period.
Based on the contents of the
March 22, 2005 commitment letter, we
have determined that the State has
adequately addressed the continuing
planning process requirements of the
Protocol.
VII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Denver
Early Action Compact Ozone Plan’s
Attainment Demonstration
Chapter III of the Denver EAC plan
contains descriptions and results of the
attainment demonstration
photochemical dispersion modeling,
including relative reduction factors
(RRF), 2007 design values, 2007 control
case inventories, a 2007 control case
demonstration, and weight of evidence
analyses.
A. Photochemical Dispersion Modeling
1. Model Approach Selected. The
State selected the EPA-approved
photochemical model ‘‘Comprehensive
Air Quality Model with Extensions’’
(CAMx). The State’s contractors,
ENVIRON International Corporation and
Alpine Geophysics Atmospheric
Sciences Group performed the modeling
work. Meteorological fields for input
into the CAMx model were produced
with the Mesoscale Meteorological
Model (MM5). Emissions data,
previously described above, were
processed with the Emissions
Processing System (EPS2x) for 2002 and
2007. The photochemical dispersion
modeling was performed in accordance
with our then available draft May 1999
modeling guidance entitled ‘‘Draft
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS.’’ A more in-depth discussion
of the modeling protocol is located in
appendix A (‘‘Modeling Protocol,
Episode Selection, and Domain
Definition’’) of the State’s TSD which is
included with the docket for this action.
2. Modeling Domain. The Denver EAC
plan’s air quality modeling domains
were defined on an MM5 system with
36 kilometer (km), 12 km, and a 4 km
nested-grid structure. This structure was
utilized in conjunction with the CAMx
and EPS2x air quality and emissions
modeling during the episode periods
that are described below. The larger
36km domain was selected to address
the impact of boundary condition
uncertainties for the Front Range area of
Colorado, as CDPHE was concerned
there may be transport from Southern
California and Texas. The 12 km grid
resolution domain essentially covers the
central Rocky Mountain states or
portions thereof (i.e., Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) The
4 km nested-grid was used for the
period encompassing the final, selected
ozone episode of June 25, 2002 to
July 1, 2002 to provide finer resolution
of the emissions, transport, and
transformation, and to evaluate the
selected control strategies for the Denver
EAC area and nearby Front Range cities.
A more in-depth discussion of the
modeling domain is located in
Appendix A (‘‘Modeling Protocol,
Episode Selection and Domain
Definition’’) of the State’s TSD.
3. Episode Selection. Initially, the
State, RAQC, and the modeling
contractors evaluated three 2002 ozone
episodes. These episodes were June 8 to
June 12, June 25 to July 1, and July 18
to July 21. The June 8 to June 12 episode
was removed from consideration due to
the problems associated with the
Hayman wildfire that started on June 8,
2002. The potential influx of emissions
along with the effects of the large smoke
plume made this episode unsuitable for
use. Both the June 25 to July 1 and July
18 to July 21 episodes were modeled.
However, the results for the July 18 to
July 21 episode were unable to conform
to the necessary model performance
standards required by our 8-hour ozone
NAAQS modeling guidance (‘‘Draft
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS.’’) It appears that the poor
model performance for this episode was
due to convective meteorological
conditions that could not be resolved by
MM5. However, the results for the June
25 to July 1 episode were successful in
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28247
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
meeting our modeling guidance and
were used for the Denver EAC ozone
plan’s attainment demonstration.
Additional discussion on episode
selection can be found in section D of
our TSD and in Appendix B of the
State’s TSD.
4. Base Case Relative Reduction
Factors (RRF). The dispersion modeling
for the Denver EAC plan produced base
case relative reduction factors (RRF) for
receptors in the modeling domain where
ozone monitors are located. In general,
the RRF for each monitor is equal to the
mean 2007 base case modeled 8-hour
ozone concentration divided by the
mean 2002 base case modeled 8-hour
ozone concentration. Once the RRFs are
developed, the RRF for each monitoring
site is multiplied by the monitoring
site’s base case design value to
determine a future case design value
(i.e., 2007) to indicate if attainment is
demonstrated at each site. This is
further discussed in Chapter III B. and
C. of the Denver EAC plan. Twelve
Front Range ozone monitors were
considered by the State, ranging from
Fort Collins to the north of metropolitan
Denver, in Larimer County, to the
Chatfield reservoir in the southwestern
portion of metropolitan Denver, and
also including an ozone monitor
operated by the National Park Service
(NPS) just outside the eastern border of
Rocky Mountain National Park in
Larimer County. The current (2001–
2003) base case ozone design values
used in the Denver EAC plan and
attainment demonstration are based on
monitoring data from 2001, 2002, and
2003. In these three years of data, three
of the twelve monitors were violating
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. They are: (1)
The Chatfield (hereafter Chatfield)
reservoir monitor, located in Douglas
County, Air Quality System (AQS) site
identification number 080350002, (2)
the National Renewable Energies
Laboratory (hereafter NREL) monitor,
located in Jefferson County, AQS
identification number 080590011, and
(3) the Rocky Flats North (hereafter
Rocky Flats) monitor, located in
Jefferson County, AQS identification
number 080590006. For the violating
monitors, we have extracted RRF
information from Table 6 of the Denver
EAC plan and present it below in our
Table VII–1:
TABLE VII–1.—RRF FOR VIOLATING MONITORS
8-hour
ozone current (2001–
2003) base
case design
values in
ppm
8-hour
ozone future
(2007) base
case design
values in
ppm
0.085
0.085
0.087
Monitoring site name
Base case
relative reduction factors (RRF)
0.9807
0.9946
0.9942
0.0834
0.0845
0.0865
Chatfield ...................................................................................................................................................
NREL .......................................................................................................................................................
Rocky Flats ..............................................................................................................................................
Table VII–1 represents the 2007 base
case modeling which relied on expected
emission reductions from existing State
controls, existing Federal rules, and
anticipated reductions from new
Federal rules. As is clear from Table
VII–1 above and the Denver EAC plan,
additional emission reductions are
necessary to bring the Rocky Flats
monitor towards modeled attainment for
2007. The 2007 ‘‘control case’’ emission
inventories and modeling are described
below and in Chapter III. E and F of the
Denver EAC plan. Further discussions
are found in sections C and D of our
TSD and in Appendices F, J, K, and L
of the State’s TSD.
5. 2007 Control Case Emission
Inventories. The 2007 control case
emission inventories reflect estimated
VOC and NOX emission reductions from
the control strategies described in
Chapter III. E of the Denver EAC plan
and in section VI B.2. above. In addition
to emission reductions from existing
State and Federal rules, for 2007 the
State calculated the following:
(a) 10 tons per day (tpd) VOC
reductions from an 8.1 psi RVP for
conventional gasoline with 9.1 psi RVP
for ethanol blends (9 tpd from on-road
vehicles, 1 tpd from refueling, and
assuming 25% market penetration for
ethanol blends),
(b) 55 tpd VOC reductions from
control of oilfield flash emissions,
(c) 5.5 tpd VOC reductions and 19 tpd
NOX reductions from oilfield RICE
controls, and,
(d) 0.5 tpd VOC reductions from the
control of oilfield dehydrators.
The State calculated total emission
reductions from existing and new State
and Federal rules for the 2007 control
case of 106 tpd of VOC emissions and
58 tpd of NOX emissions for the eightcounty metropolitan Denver area
(counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson,
and Weld) and slightly greater tons per
day for the eleven-county area (adding
Elbert, Larimer, and Morgan counties to
the other eight). These projected
emission reductions were extracted
from Chapter III. E of the Denver EAC
plan (Tables 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b) and are
presented below in our Tables VII–2 and
VII–3:
TABLE VII–2.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TONS PER AVERAGE EPISODE DAY (TPD) EMISSIONS FOR ADAMS, ARAPAHOE,
BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, AND WELD COUNTIES
2007
VOCs
base
case
Source category
Point Sources ..................................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................................................
Non-Road Sources ..........................................................................................................................
On-Road Sources ............................................................................................................................
Subtotal Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................................
Biogenics .........................................................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
204.1
104.1
53.7
117.5
479.4
468.1
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
2007
NOX
base
case
107.1
27.6
82.5
119.3
336.5
37.1
2007
VOCs
control
case
143.3
104.1
53.5
108.4
409.3
468.1
2007
NOX control case
88.3
27.6
82.6
119.0
317.5
37.1
28248
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII–2.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TONS PER AVERAGE EPISODE DAY (TPD) EMISSIONS FOR ADAMS, ARAPAHOE,
BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, AND WELD COUNTIES—Continued
2007
VOCs
base
case
Source category
Total ..........................................................................................................................................
2007
VOCs
control
case
2007
NOX
base
case
947.5
373.6
2007
NOX control case
877.4
354.6
TABLE VII–3.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TONS PER AVERAGE EPISODE DAY (TPD) EMISSIONS FOR ADAMS, ARAPAHOE,
BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, ELBERT, JEFFERSON, LARIMER, MORGAN, AND WELD COUNTIES
2007 VOCs
base case
Source category
2007 NOX
base case
2007 VOCs
control case
2007 NOX
control case
Point Sources ..................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................................
Non-Road Sources ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Sources ............................................................................................................
Subtotal Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................
Biogenics .........................................................................................................................
209.3
119.6
62.6
135.1
526.6
799.5
144.9
32.7
92.4
136.6
406.6
52.3
148.1
119.6
62.6
126.0
456.4
799.5
126.1
32.7
93.3
136.3
388.4
52.3
Total ..........................................................................................................................
1326.1
458.9
1255.8
440.7
6. 2007 Control Case Modeling
Demonstration. The State modeled the
above base case and control case
scenarios with CAMx. As discussed
above and in Chapter III. F of the Denver
EAC plan, the 2007 base case and 2007
control case modeling produce relative
reduction factors (RRF) for receptors in
the modeling domain where ozone
ambient air quality monitors are located.
Table VII–4 below presents the 2007
control case RRFs, 2007 control case
design values for modeled days greater
than 0.070 ppm, and control case design
values for modeled days greater than
0.080 ppm for the Chatfield, NREL, and
Rocky Flats monitors. We note that the
nine other monitors listed in Table 9 of
the Denver EAC plan all show predicted
attainment with values less than 0.081
ppm for both evaluation days (i.e.,
modeled days greater than 0.070 ppm
and greater than 0.080 ppm.)
TABLE VII–4
8-hour
ozone base
case design
values
2001–2003
(ppm)
Monitoring
site name
Chatfield ...................................................................................................
NREL .......................................................................................................
Rocky Flats ..............................................................................................
In Section D of our TSD and in
Appendix I of the State’s TSD, results
are presented for the final modeling
runs for the June 25, 2002 to July 1,
2002 episode. These results reflect
incorporation of all the control
measures for the 2007 attainment year.
However, CAMx still predicts that the
Rocky Flats monitor will marginally
exceed the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
information is presented below in Table
VII–5.
TABLE VII–5
Monitoring site
2001–2003
design
value
2007 predicted design value
Chatfield ................
NREL ....................
85 ppb .....
85 ppb .....
82.9 ppb
83.9 ppb
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
Days >
0.070 (ppm)
Days >
0.070 (ppm)
Days >
0.080 (ppm)
Days >
0.080 (ppm)
2007 control
case RRF
2007 control
case design
values
(ppm)
2007 control
case RRF
2007 control
case design
values
(ppm)
0.085
0.085
0.087
0.9761
0.9891
0.9888
0.0830
0.0841
0.0860
0.9779
0.9748
0.9811
0.0831
0.0829
0.0854
TABLE VII–5—Continued
Monitoring site
2001–2003
design
value
2007 predicted design value
Rocky Flats ...........
87 ppb .....
85.9 ppb
As can be seen above in Tables VII–
4, VII–5, and Table 9 of the Denver EAC
plan, the Rocky Flats monitor was
unable to demonstrate attainment with
the 2007 control case emission
reduction strategies. The State and its
modeling contractor performed
additional sensitivity analyses, that are
described further in section D of our
TSD and Appendix K of the State’s TSD.
They concluded, based on the
anomalous meteorological conditions in
2003 and the under-prediction tendency
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the CAMx model, for the Denver EAC
plan application, that a weight of
evidence (WOE) demonstration was
warranted. A WOE demonstration
provides corroborating evidence and
technical analysis, beyond the
dispersion modeling, to support a
conclusion that attainment is likely to
occur. Weight of evidence
demonstrations may be accepted by EPA
and have been approved in prior 1-hour
ozone dispersion-modeled
demonstrations of attainment. We also
describe their use in our May, 1999 draft
guidance for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(‘‘Draft Guidance on the Use of Models
and Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS.’’)
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
B. Weight of Evidence Determination
As described in Chapter III. G of the
Denver EAC plan and in our May, 1999
draft modeling guidance for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, if resultant values of the
dispersion modeling for an attainment
demonstration are between 0.084 ppm
and 0.089 ppm at one or more
monitoring site receptor locations, then
a WOE determination should be
performed. Since the final modeled
design value at the Rocky Flats
monitoring site is predicted to be below
0.089 ppm, our guidance indicates that
corroborating evidence, based on other
analyses, can be sufficiently convincing
to support a conclusion that attainment
is likely to occur despite the outcome of
the dispersion modeling. To the State
and its contractors, the modeling results
appear to be very ‘‘stiff ’’; that is, the
estimated 2007 design values are not
very sensitive to local emission controls.
The State indicated in Chapter III. G of
the Denver EAC plan that they believe
this lack of sensitivity is primarily
caused by the following: (1) Anomalous
temperatures and low mixing heights in
2003 were more conducive to ozone
formation than the meteorological
conditions that were used in the 2002
modeling episode, (2) the model’s
tendency, despite achieving most of
EPA’s model performance goals, to
under-predict ozone concentrations and
thus under-predict the beneficial impact
of local control measures, and (3)
potential influence from elevated,
upwind background concentrations of
ozone and ozone precursor emissions
that were detected by the air quality
monitors in 2003, but unaccounted for
in the photochemical modeling.
The following describes aspects of the
State’s WOE analysis:
1. Anomalous Meteorological
Conditions in 2003 and Trends
Analysis. The Denver EAC plan’s
photochemical modeling was designed
with ozone episode days and
meteorological data from 2002.
However, with the 8-hour ozone
violations detected in 2003, the 2002based photochemical modeling was
then applied to address these higher
2003 ozone values. It was discovered,
though, that meteorological conditions
were significantly different between
2002 and 2003 and this affected the
photochemical model’s performance.
One evaluation method the State
applied to address this issue was to
provide meteorological data that
indicated that 2003 had record-setting
maximum ambient temperatures and
lower than average mixing heights, both
of which contributed to the elevated
2003 monitored 8-hour ozone values. If
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
the extreme high ambient temperatures
and low-level mixing heights of summer
2003 are excluded, a 1993 to 2002
trends analysis shows a 1.2% annual
reduction in ozone concentrations,
which would result in predicted
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by 2007. A further discussion is
provided in section D of our TSD and
in Appendix N of the State’s TSD.
2. Under-Prediction Tendency of the
Model. An overall under-prediction
tendency of the model was documented
by the State in Appendixes H and N of
their TSD and in section D of our TSD.
The model tended to under-predict 2003
ozone concentrations by approximately
20%. We note that when a
photochemical model underestimates
the ozone concentrations, less ozone is
attributed to the local precursor
emissions in the model than resulted
from these emissions in reality. To
evaluate this issue, the State’s contractor
prepared an analysis for modeled days
greater than 70 ppb for the episode days
of June 27, 2002 through June 30, 2002.
However, for these episode days, only
minimal changes in the predicted ozone
values were seen (modeled values were
still low). Only the July 1, 2002 episode
day modeling results, with a modelpredicted value of 85 ppb, approached
the design value of 87 ppb and the
monitor-observed value of 89 ppb. This
is further described in Chapter III. G,
Table 10, of the Denver EAC plan,
section D of our TSD, and in
Appendices B, K, and L of the State’s
TSD.
3. Number of Fine Grid Cell Hours
Greater than 84 ppb. The State
evaluated an indicator of the model’s
performance—the relative change from
the 2002 base case modeling to the 2007
control case modeling with respect to
the predicted ozone concentrations in
the 4 km grid cells. Specifically, the
State’s contractor found that the number
of 8-hour periods that the model
predicted to be greater than 84 ppb for
the 2007 control case (4) were 88%
fewer than the model predicted for the
2002 base case (33). This 88% figure is
greater than the ‘‘large’’ reduction (80%)
that is suggested in our 1999 draft 8hour ozone modeling guidance and
supports the conclusion that the
proposed control strategy package for
2007 is consistent with meeting the 8hour NAAQS. This evaluation is further
described in section D of our TSD and
in Appendix L of the State’s TSD.
4. Relative Difference (RD). Relative
Difference (RD) is another metric the
State’s contractor evaluated. RD
examines the amount by which the 8hour ozone concentration is above 84
ppb in the 2007 control case modeling
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28249
versus the 2002 base case modeling. The
State’s contractor computed the ratio of
the average estimated ‘‘excess 8-hour
ozone’’ for the 2007 control case
modeling to the average estimated
‘‘excess 8-hour ozone’’ for the 2002 base
case modeling. In this case, we are using
the phrase ‘‘excess 8-hour ozone’’ to
mean the amount by which the average
in the particular year exceeds 84 ppb.
The State’s contractor calculated an RD
of 93%, which means the 2007 value
was 93% less than the 2002 value. EPA
considers large RDs to be desirable, with
anything greater than 80% considered
large. Thus, this 93% figure further
supports a conclusion that the control
strategy package for 2007 is consistent
with meeting the 8-hour NAAQS. This
evaluation is further described in
section D of our TSD and in Appendix
L of the State’s TSD.
5. VOC and NOX Sensitivity. The
State and its contractor performed
sensitivity modeling runs looking at
reductions in VOCs, VOCs and NOX,
and just NOX. The sensitivity analyses
indicated that VOC reductions alone
were more important for achieving
reductions in ozone values in the
urbanized area and at the Rocky Flats
air quality monitoring location. This
also helped confirm the validity of the
2007 control strategy package which
focused on VOC controls. This
evaluation is further described in
section D of our TSD and in Appendixes
J and K of the State’s TSD.
In summary, the State’s WOE analyses
provide adequate support for the State’s
attainment demonstration. Our decision
on the adequacy of the WOE is based on
the composite of the analyses, and not
on any single element. The WOE
complements the modeled 2007 control
strategies and indicates that attainment
should be reached by December 31,
2007 as is required by the EAC Protocol.
C. Maintenance Through 2012
The EAC Protocol requires that, in
addition to demonstrating attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2007, areas
demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2012. For the
Denver EAC plan, the State performed a
comparison of projected emissions, from
all source categories, for 2012 to those
used in the 2007 dispersion modeled
attainment demonstration (as supported
by WOE.) The 2012 emission
inventories assume that the 2007 control
strategies remain in place through 2012.
The 2012 emission inventories also
account for Federal emission control
measures that are scheduled to take
effect in the 2007 to 2012 time period.
As the 2012 projected emissions are less
than the 2007 dispersion modeled
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28250
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
emissions in the attainment
demonstration, continued maintenance
is demonstrated. The 2007 control case
emission inventories for the 8-county
area and the 11-county area, along with
the 2012 maintenance emission
inventories, are presented in Chapter III
E. Tables 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b respectively
and also in our Tables VII–6 and VII–7
below.
TABLE VII–6.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TONS PER AVERAGE EPISODE DAY (TPD) EMISSIONS FOR ADAMS, ARAPAHOE,
BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, JEFFERSON, AND WELD COUNTIES
2007 VOCs
control case
2012 VOCs
control case
2007 NOX
control case
2012 NOX
control case
Point Sources ..................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................................
Non-Road Sources ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Sources ............................................................................................................
Subtotal Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................
Biogenics .........................................................................................................................
143.3
104.1
53.5
108.4
409.3
468.1
152.9
114.0
47.7
76.0
390.6
468.1
88.3
27.6
82.6
119.0
317.5
37.1
96.5
31.1
74.8
77.7
280.1
37.1
Total ..........................................................................................................................
877.4
858.7
354.6
317.2
Source category
TABLE VII–7.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TONS PER AVERAGE EPISODE DAY (TPD) EMISSIONS FOR ADAMS, ARAPAHOE,
BOULDER, BROOMFIELD, DENVER, DOUGLAS, ELBERT, JEFFERSON, LARIMER, MORGAN, AND WELD COUNTIES
2007 VOCs
control case
2012 VOCs
control case
2007 NOX
control case
2012 NOX
control case
Point Sources ..................................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................................
Non-Road Sources ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Sources ............................................................................................................
Subtotal Anthropogenic ...................................................................................................
Biogenics .........................................................................................................................
148.1
119.6
62.6
126.0
456.4
799.5
159.2
131.3
56.2
89.0
435.7
799.5
126.1
32.7
93.3
136.3
388.4
52.3
138.1
36.7
84.6
90.1
349.4
52.3
Total ..........................................................................................................................
1255.8
1235.2
440.7
401.8
Source category
Our review of the attainment
demonstration shows that it should be
approved. The State has adopted
acceptable control strategies and has
performed modeling that meets our
modeling guidance requirements for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS and the EAC
Protocol. Modeling based on newly
adopted and existing control measures,
and supplemented by a weight-ofevidence analysis, demonstrates
attainment by December 31, 2007 and
maintenance through 2012. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve the
attainment demonstration.
VIII. EPA’s Evaluation of the
Regulation No. 7 Revisions
Colorado’s Regulation No. 7 is
entitled ‘‘Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds’’ (hereafter, Regulation No.
7). In conjunction with the development
of the Denver EAC plan, the State made
several changes and/or additions to
sections I.A., I.B., XII, and XVI of
Regulation No. 7 which the AQCC
adopted after its March 12, 2004, public
hearing. These Regulation No. 7
revisions were submitted to us by the
Governor on July 21, 2004. Based on
input and discussions with EPA, the
AQCC further amended Regulation No.
7 on December 16, 2004, following a
public hearing. The Governor submitted
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
these additional revisions to Regulation
No. 7 to us on March 24, 2005. These
March 24, 2005 Regulation No. 7
revisions supersede and replace those
submitted by the Governor on July 21,
2004, and are those we are proposing to
approve.
The purpose of the revisions to
Regulation No. 7 was to reduce
emissions of: (1) VOCs from condensate
tanks and operations at oil and gas
exploration and production (E&P)
facilities, (2) VOCs and NOX from
stationary and portable oilfield
reciprocating internal combustion
engines (RICE), (3) VOCs from gas
processing plants, and (4) VOCs from
dehydrators at oilfield operations. These
revisions to Regulation No. 7 apply to
all affected facilities within the 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area boundary,
with the majority of affected facilities
being located in southern Weld County.
The revisions to Regulation No. 7
affect the following sections:
A. Sections I.A. and I.B. Including
definitions of the Denver 1-hour ozone
area and the Denver 8-hour ozone
control area. Also indicating that new
and existing oil and gas operations come
under the provisions of sections XII and
XVI..
B. Section II.A., additional
definitions.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. A new Section XII, ‘‘Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions From Oil
And Gas Operations.’’ Includes
definitions, percentages of emission
reductions for the high ozone season
and rest of the year, numerous
recordkeeping requirements for a
spreadsheet to determine daily
compliance, emission factors used to
demonstrate compliance, reporting
requirements for certain equipment if a
construction or Title V permit is issued
by the State, methodology for approval
of alternative emissions control
equipment, requirements for gasprocessing plants, requirements for
controlling emissions from dehydration
units, and a methodology for approval
to develop testing methods and revised
emission factors.
D. A new Section XVI, ‘‘Control of
Emissions From Stationary And
Portable Engines in the 8-hour Ozone
Control Area.’’ Includes specific
requirements for emission control
technology for applicable RICE and
dates for the removal or replacement
with electric units for certain existing
internal combustion engines.
One of the major requirements of the
changes is an overall reduction of 47.5%
of VOCs from E&P condensate storage
tanks during the summer ozone season
to meet the modeled requirements of the
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
attainment demonstration. Due to the
unique operating parameters and
numerous tanks in the field (in excess
of 1,000), the AQCC allowed an overall
averaging approach, rather than a unitby-unit approach, to achieve the
necessary emission reductions. The
regulation includes detailed record
keeping requirements to help ensure the
47.5% reduction requirement is met.
We have reviewed, and are proposing
approval of, all of the above Stateadopted revisions to Regulation No. 7.
IX. EPA’s evaluation of the Regulation
No. 11 Revisions
Colorado’s Regulation No. 11 is
entitled ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program’’ (hereafter referred
to as Regulation No. 11). This program
has undergone several revisions since
2000, including revisions that were
adopted by the AQCC in conjunction
with the Denver EAC plan after the
March 11–12, 2004 public hearing. The
prior Regulation No. 11 revisions that
the Governor submitted on June 20,
2003 and April 12, 2004 are briefly
described below. The revisions the
Governor submitted on July 21, 2004 in
support of the Denver EAC plan are also
described below:
A. Revisions adopted November 16,
2000, submitted June 20, 2003.
This submittal amended Regulation
No. 11 by (1) extending the time for
taking valid remote-sensing readings for
purposes of the clean screen program,
and (2) correcting a citation error in a
section of the rule concerning the
licensing of clean screen inspectors.
B. Revisions adopted December 20,
2001, submitted June 20, 2003.
This submittal amended Regulation
No. 11 by (1) expanding the clean screen
program, (2) excluding El Paso County
from the clean screen program, and (3)
repealing the ‘‘Verification of Emissions
Test’’ certificate or windshield sticker.
C. Revisions adopted August 15, 2002,
submitted June 20, 2003.
This submittal amended Regulation
No. 11 to switch to a pay-uponregistration system for the clean screen
program. The rule amendments also
included a change to the timing
requirements for remote sensing
readings to make the clean screen
program more flexible. As amended, the
regulation requires two valid remote
sensing readings within a twelve-month
period in order to clean screen a
vehicle. The regulation previously
required the most recent reading to be
within 120 days of the registration
renewal date. In addition, this submittal
included several minor, housekeeping
changes such as:
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
1. The elimination of a requirement
for agencies to develop the equivalent of
a windshield sticker for clean screened
vehicles.
2. The elimination of a provision
requiring annual inspections for
government vehicles.
3. The repeal of provisions
establishing a method to mail payments
to the contractor.
D. Revisions adopted October 17,
2002, submitted June 20, 2003.
This submittal to Regulation No. 11
expanded the pay-upon-registration for
the clean screen program (see the
August 15, 2002 version) to the
enhanced I/M program area (see the
December 20, 2001 version). These
revisions also contained provisions that
the malfunction indicator light (MIL)
and on-board diagnostic (OBD II) fault
codes will not be used as the basis for
test failures and it eliminated a preexisting state requirement for vehicles to
pass MIL tests. We note that Federal law
does not require MIL or OBD tests for
pre-1996 vehicles.
These revisions also eliminated the
requirement for 1996 and newer
vehicles to pass MIL and OBD tests.
This particular revision is acceptable to
EPA in view of our final Motor Vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance requirements
(see 66 FR 18155, April 5, 2001) which
extended the deadline for beginning
OBD inspections to January 1, 2002. As
the Denver metropolitan area was
redesignated to attainment for carbon
monoxide on December 14, 2001 (see 66
FR 64751), this January 1, 2002 OBD
implementation date was not applicable
to the Denver metropolitan area and the
State need not retain the MIL and OBD
program in the SIP.
E. Revisions adopted September 18,
2003, submitted April 12, 2004.
This submittal to Regulation No. 11
allows the sale and registration of used
motor vehicles without an emissions
inspection if the motor vehicle is less
than 3 years old. In addition, Regulation
No. 11 previously required motor
vehicle dealers to have an emissions test
for used vehicles at the time of sale,
regardless of when they may have been
inspected before. The rule has been
revised such that motor vehicle dealers
need to only have vehicles that are
consigned for sale inspected annually;
further inspection is not required at the
time of sale.
F. Revisions adopted December 18,
2003, submitted April 12, 2004.
This submittal to Regulation No. 11
removed the calendar year 2004 and
2005 cutpoints, while retaining the 2006
cutpoints, and also removed El Paso
County (Colorado Springs area) from the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28251
Federal applicability of a basic I/M
program.
G. Revisions adopted March 12, 2004,
submitted July 21, 2004.
This submittal to Regulation No. 11
supports the Denver EAC plan by
reducing the percentage of the fleet to be
clean-screened from a maximum of 80%
to a maximum of 50% after December
31, 2005.
We have reviewed, and are proposing
approval of, all of the above Stateadopted revisions to Regulation No. 11.
X. EPA’s evaluation of the Common
Provisions Regulation Revision
The State amended the Common
Provisions Regulation to incorporate the
American Petroleum Institute’s (API)
definition of ‘‘condensate,’’ which refers
to hydrocarbon liquids that have an API
gravity of 40 degrees or greater.
We have reviewed, and are proposing
approval of, this revision to the
Common Provisions Regulation.
XI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of
the CAA
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. The Denver
EAC ozone plan will not interfere with
attainment, reasonable further progress,
or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.
XII. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the
Denver Early Action Compact (EAC)
ozone plan that the Governor submitted
on July 21, 2004, the attainment
demonstration, the revisions to
Regulation No. 7 that the Governor
submitted on March 24, 2005, all of the
revisions to Regulation No. 11, and the
revisions to the Common Provisions
Regulation, all as a revision to the SIP.
Submit your comments, identified by
RME Docket Number R08-OAR–2004CO–0001, by one of the methods
identified above at the front of this
proposed rule. We will consider your
comments in deciding our final action if
they are received before June 16, 2005.
EPA will address all public comments
in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
28252
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
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 proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed 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
proposes to approve 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 (Public Law 104–4).
This proposed 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
proposes to approve 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 proposed 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:03 May 16, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 proposed
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.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: May 6, 2005.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 05–9724 Filed 5–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R03–OAR–2005–VA–0004; FRL–7913–7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Attainment Demonstration for the
Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) Early Action Compact Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The
proposed revision consists of an Early
Action Compact (EAC) Plan that will
enable the Roanoke MSA EAC Area to
demonstrate attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality (NAAQS)
standard. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–
2005–VA–0004 by one of the following
methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Agency Web site: https://
www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/
RME, EPA’s electronic public docket
and comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
C. E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov.
D. Mail: R03–OAR–2005–VA–0004,
David Campbell, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously
listed EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME ID No. R03–OAR–2005–VA–0004.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,
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 RME,
regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME
and the Federal regulations.gov Web
sites are 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
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov,
your e-mail 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.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the RME
index at https://www.docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/. Although listed in the index,
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28239-28252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2005-CO-0001; FRL-7912-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan, Attainment
Demonstration of the 8-hour Ozone Standard, and Approval of Related
Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On July 21, 2004, the
Governor of Colorado submitted an Early Action Compact (EAC) ozone plan
[[Page 28240]]
for the Denver metropolitan area (hereafter, Denver area) for the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
Governor's submittal also contained an attainment demonstration for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS. In conjunction with the EAC ozone plan, the
Governor submitted revisions to Colorado's Common Provisions
Regulation, Colorado's Regulation No. 7 ``Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds'' (hereafter, Regulation No. 7), and revisions to Colorado's
Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program''
(hereafter Regulation No. 11). In this action, EPA is proposing
approval of the Denver EAC ozone plan, the associated attainment
demonstration, and the revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation,
Regulation No. 7, and Regulation No. 11. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-
OAR-2005-CO-0001, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and russ.tim@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME Docket Number R08-OAR-
2005-CO-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, 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 EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. EPA's Regional Materials in EDOCKET and
federal regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous access'' systems,
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA, without going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail 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 information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET online
or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 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 Regional
Materials in EDOCKET index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publically
available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically in Regional Materials in EDOCKET or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202-2466. 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 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone (303) 312-
6479, and e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA?
IV. Background for Early Action Compacts for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
V. EPA's evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Milestone
Submittals
VI. EPA's evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan
VII. EPA's evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone
Plan's Attainment Demonstration
VIII. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 7 Revisions
IX. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions
X. EPA's evaluation of the Common Provisions Regulation Revision
XI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
XII. Proposed Action
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(v) The word State means the State of Colorado, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
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
regulations.gov or e-mail. 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
[[Page 28241]]
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:
I. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
II. 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.
III. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
IV. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
V. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
VI. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
VII. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
VIII. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
In this action, we are proposing approval of the Early Action
Compact ozone plan for the Denver area that is designed to demonstrate
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007 with
additional provisions for continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS
through 2012, we're proposing approval of the photochemical modeled
attainment demonstration, we're proposing approval of certain revisions
to the State's Common Provisions Regulation, we're proposing approval
of revisions to Regulation No. 7 for the control of VOC and
NOX emissions from certain oil and gas exploration and
production operations, we're proposing approval of revisions to the
motor vehicle inspections and maintenance (I/M) requirements in
Regulation No. 11 the Governor submitted on July 21, 2004, and we're
proposing approval of several prior I/M revisions to Regulation No. 11.
III. What Is the State's Process to Submit These Materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
A. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the Denver EAC ozone plan on March 11 and 12, 2004. The
AQCC adopted the EAC ozone plan, and its associated attainment
demonstration, directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became
State effective on May 30, 2004, and was submitted by the Governor to
us on July 21, 2004.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the Denver EAC ozone
plan and have determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
Governor's July 21, 2004, submittal became complete on January 21,
2005.
B. The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing for the revisions to the
Common Provisions Regulation, Regulation No. 7 and Regulation No. 11 on
March 11 and 12, 2004. The AQCC adopted these revisions directly after
the hearing. These SIP revisions became State effective on May 30,
2004, and were submitted by the Governor to us on July 21, 2004.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the Common
Provisions Regulation, Regulation No. 7 and Regulation No. 11 revisions
and have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By
operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor's
July 21, 2004, submittal became complete on January 21, 2005.
C. For the 2000, 2001, and 2002 Regulation No. 11 revisions, the
Colorado AQCC held a public hearing on November 16, 2000, December 20,
2001, August 15, 2002, and October 17, 2002. The AQCC adopted the
revisions to Regulation No. 11 directly after these hearings. These SIP
revisions became State effective on December 30, 2000, January 30,
2002, September 30, 2002, and December 30, 2002, respectively, and were
all submitted by the Governor to us on June 20, 2003.
We evaluated the Governor's submittal and concluded that the State
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and determined that
the Governor's June 30, 2003, submittal was administratively and
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on
November 28, 2003, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.
D. For the 2003 Regulation No. 11 revisions, the Colorado AQCC held
a public hearing on September 18, 2003, and December 18, 2003. The AQCC
adopted the revisions to Regulation No. 11 directly after these
hearings. These SIP revisions became State effective on November 30,
2003, and March 1, 2004, respectively, and were all submitted by the
Governor to us on April 12, 2004.
We evaluated the Governor's submittal and concluded that the State
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the
CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and determined that
the Governor's April 12, 2004, submittal was administratively and
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on June
17, 2004, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.
E. The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing for additional revisions
to Regulation No. 7 on December 16, 2004. The AQCC adopted these
revisions directly after the hearing. These SIP revisions became State
effective on March 2, 2005, and were submitted by the Governor to us on
March 24, 2005.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal of the additional
revisions to Regulation No. 7 and have determined that the State met
the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we
reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and determined that the
Governor's March 24, 2005, submittal was administratively and
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on April
6, 2005, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.
[[Page 28242]]
IV. Background for Early Action Compacts for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
A. Why Was the Compact Program Developed?
As discussed in our proposed rule for the implementation of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (see 68 FR 32805, June 2, 2003), State, local and
Tribal air pollution control agencies continued to express a need for
added flexibility in implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including
incentives for taking action sooner than the CAA requires for reducing
ground-level ozone. The compact program permits local areas to make
decisions that will achieve reductions in VOC and NOX
emissions sooner than otherwise is mandated by the CAA. Early planning
and early implementation of control measures that improves air quality
will likely accelerate protection of public health. We issued our
initial policy on early planning on November 14, 2002 \1\ (hereafter,
November 14, 2002 policy), with a further description in our June 2,
2003 proposed rule (68 FR 32805), and as provided in our April 30, 2004
final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 1.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant
Administrator, to Regional Administrators, entitled ``Schedule for
8-Hour Ozone Designations and its Effect on Early Action Compacts''
dated November 14, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Was the ``Early Action'' Protocol That Texas Submitted to EPA?
In March of 2002, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) encouraged EPA to consider incentives for early planning towards
achieving the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The TCEQ submitted to EPA the
Protocol for Early Action Compacts Designed to Achieve and Maintain the
8-hour Ozone Standard (Protocol). The Protocol was designed to achieve
NOX and VOC emissions reductions for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
sooner than would otherwise be required under the CAA. The TCEQ
recommended that the Protocol be formalized by ``Early Action Compact''
agreements primarily developed by local, State and Federal (EPA)
officials. In a letter dated June 19, 2002, from Gregg Cooke,
Administrator, Region 6, to Robert Huston, Chairman, TCEQ, EPA endorsed
the principles outlined in the Protocol. The Protocol was subsequently
revised on December 11, 2002, \2\ based on comments from EPA. Areas
meeting the necessary prerequisites prepared an Early Action Compact
(EAC) document that was based on the provisions of the Protocol. These
EACs were then executed by the necessary State and local entities,
along with the respective EPA Regional Office, by December 31, 2002.
The EACs were required to contain the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Texas Protocol was submitted to EPA in March 2002 for
review and was revised in December 2002 based on the Agency's
comments concerning the need for additional milestones and other
clarifications. Docket No. OAR-2003-0090-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Early planning, implementation, and emissions reductions leading
to expeditious attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard.
2. Local control of the measures employed with broad-based public
input.
3. State support to ensure technical integrity of the early action
plan including completion of emissions inventories and dispersion
modeling (based on most recent Agency guidance) to support the
attainment demonstration and selected local control measures.
4. Formal incorporation of the early action plan itself into the
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Also, adoption and submittal as
revisions to the SIP of control strategies that demonstrate attainment.
5. Completion of a component to address emissions growth at least 5
years beyond December 31, 2007, ensuring that the area will remain in
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard during that period.
6. Semiannual reports detailing progress toward completion of
compact milestones.
7. Designation of all areas as attainment or nonattainment in April
2004, but for compact areas, deferral of the effective date of the
nonattainment designation and/or designation requirements so long as
all compact terms and milestones continue to be met.
8. Safeguards to return areas to traditional SIP attainment
requirements should compact terms be unfulfilled (e.g., if the area
fails to attain in 2007), with appropriate credit given for reduction
measures already implemented.
C. What are the milestone and submittal requirements for Early Action
Compact areas?
The November 14, 2002, policy memorandum, an additional EPA
memorandum dated April 4, 2003, \3\ our June 2, 2003 proposed rule (68
FR 32805), and our April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23951) establish
the activities EAC areas are required to perform and the necessary
submittals that must be made to EPA. EAC areas are required to select
control strategies based on SIP-quality dispersion modeling that shows
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than December 31, 2007
through implementation of the control strategies. We specified that all
EAC areas must submit a local plan by March 31, 2004 that includes
measures that are specific, quantified, and permanent and that, once
approved into the SIP by EPA, will be federally enforceable. The March
31, 2004 submission also had to include specific implementation dates
for the local controls, as well as detailed documentation supporting
the selection of measures. Control measures must be implemented no
later than December 31, 2005, which is at least 16\1/2\ months earlier
than required by the CAA. Reports are required every 6 months to
describe progress toward completion of milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, ``Early Action Compacts (EACs):
The June 16, 2003 Submission and Other Clarifications,'' April 4,
2003. Docket No. OAR-2003-0090-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-1 below presents the milestones and submissions that EAC
areas are required to complete in order to continue eligibility for a
deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment designation for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Table IV-1.--Early Action Compact Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submittal Date Compact Milestone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 2002...................... State/Locals submit EAC for EPA
signature.
June 16, 2003.......................... State/Locals submit preliminary
list and description of
potential local control
measures under consideration.
March 31, 2004......................... Plan submitted to State for
necessary action (includes
specific, quantified and
permanent control measures to
be adopted).
December 31, 2004...................... State submits EAC plan and
adopted local measures to EPA
as a SIP revision that, when
approved, will be federally
enforceable.
No later than December 31, 2005........ State/Locals to implement
adopted SIP control measures.
June 30, 2006.......................... State reports on implementation
of control measures,
assessment of air quality
improvement, and reductions in
NOX and VOC emissions to date.
December 31, 2007...................... EAC area attains 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the Protocol and the executed EAC documents, EPA
[[Page 28243]]
recognized the EAC areas' commitments to early, voluntary action by
designating the EAC areas that were violating the 8-hour NAAQS (based
on air quality data from 2001, 2002, and 2003) as nonattainment on
April 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 23858), but deferred the effective date of
the nonattainment designation so long as all terms and milestones of
the EAC continue to be met.
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Milestone
Submittals
We have reviewed the Denver EAC milestone submittals with respect
to the requirements in the Protocol and the executed December 31, 2002
Denver EAC. We consider these milestone submittals as necessary
prerequisites in order for us to propose approval of the Denver EAC
ozone plan SIP revision. The following are our analyses of how the EAC
milestone submittal requirements, discussed above, have been met for
the Denver EAC.
A. State/Locals Submit EAC for EPA Signature by December 31, 2002
The State of Colorado delivered the Denver EAC to EPA, Region 8 on
December 30, 2002. The EAC had been signed by Jim Scherer, Chairman of
the Denver Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC), Robert E. Brady Jr.,
Chairman of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), Douglas
H. Benevento, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE), Thomas Norton, Executive Director, Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Sharon L. Richardson,
Chairman, Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). The Denver
EAC was executed by Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 8, on December 31, 2002.
The Denver EAC was amended on March 18, 2004 with the additional
signatures of Stephen F. Stutz, Chair, Elbert County Board of County
Commissioners, Kathay Rennels, Chair, Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners, Michael Harms, Chair, Morgan County Board of County
Commissioners, and Rob Masden, Chair, Weld County Board of County
Commissioners.
Based on the above actions, EPA has determined that this EAC
milestone requirement has been addressed.
B. State/Locals Submit Preliminary List and Description of Potential
Local Control Measures Under Consideration by June 16, 2003
On June 16, 2003, Ken Lloyd, Executive Director, RAQC and Margie
Perkins, Director, Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the CDPHE
jointly submitted the Denver EAC area's ``June 16, 2003 Milestone--
Identification and Description of Potential Control Strategies for
Further Consideration.'' This submittal contained a further description
of the stakeholder process, strategy evaluation considerations, and a
list of ten potential emission reduction strategies. Provided for each
of the potential strategies were, a brief description, estimate of
potential emission reductions (where available), an implementation
approach and schedule, and a description of the geographic area of
application of the strategy.
Based on the content of this document, EPA has determined that this
EAC milestone requirement has been addressed.
C. Plan Submitted to State for necessary Action (Includes Specific,
Quantified and Permanent Control Measures To Be Adopted) by March 31,
2004
The Denver RAQC held a public meeting on December 11, 2003, at the
end of which, the RAQC gave their approval to the Denver EAC ozone
plan. In conjunction with the RAQC's planning processes, the Colorado
AQCC entertained public comment during noticed public meetings in July,
August, September, November, and December, 2003. With the RAQC's
approval, the Denver EAC plan, and associated materials, were then
transmitted to the Colorado AQCC. At their December 18, 2003, public
meeting the AQCC gave notice to open a three-month public comment
period and scheduled a public hearing for March 11, 2004 (which was
subsequently extended to March 11 and March 12, 2004.) At the December
18, 2003 AQCC meeting, the AQCC also noticed for public comment
revisions to the appropriate Colorado Regulations that would achieve
the necessary emission reductions that were modeled in the attainment
demonstration which supported the EAC plan. Once approved, these
Regulation revisions would generate permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. We note that the Denver EAC plan does not take any credit
for voluntary measures.
Based on the above actions, EPA has determined that this EAC
milestone requirement has been addressed.
D. State Submits EAC Plan and Adopted Local Measures to EPA as a SIP
Revision (That, When Approved, Will Be Federally Enforceable) by
December 31, 2004
On March 11 and March 12, 2004, the AQCC conducted a public hearing
to consider the Denver EAC plan, the attainment demonstration, and the
necessary revisions to Colorado's Common Provisions Regulation,
Regulation No. 7, and Regulation No. 11. At the end of the public
hearing on March 12, 2004, the AQCC adopted all the above SIP
materials. The entire Denver EAC SIP package was forwarded to Governor
Owens who then transmitted the SIP package to EPA, Region 8, with a
letter dated July 21, 2004.
We note that on March 10, 2004, and just prior to the AQCC public
hearing of March 11 and March 12, 2004, we sent a letter to the State
and AQCC expressing concerns with the adequacy of the revisions to
Colorado's Regulation No. 7. In that March 10, 2004 letter, we stated
that we would continue to work with the State to resolve our concerns.
CDPHE and EPA staff met several times starting in August, 2004 up
through December, 2004 to address the Regulation No. 7 deficiencies. At
the September, 2004 AQCC meeting, the AQCC established a public comment
period and noticed for public hearing revisions to Regulation No. 7.
The AQCC held a public hearing on December 16, 2004 to consider the
revisions to Regulation No. 7. The AQCC adopted the revisions directly
after the public hearing and Governor Owens submitted these
supplemental Regulation No. 7 revisions to us on March 24, 2005.
Based on the above actions, EPA has determined that this EAC
milestone requirement has been addressed.
We also note that in addition to meeting all the required EAC
milestones, the State and RAQC jointly submitted ``Progress Reports''
on June 30, 2003, December 31, 2003, March 31, 2004, and December 31,
2004.
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan
We have reviewed the Denver EAC ozone plan (hereafter, Denver EAC
plan) with respect to the requirements in the Protocol, the December
31, 2002 Denver EAC document, and our general requirements for a
nonattainment area plan and believe that approval of the Denver EAC
plan is warranted. The following are our descriptions and analysis of
how the Denver EAC plan meets the necessary provisions referenced
above.
We note that the Denver EAC plan is divided into two sections; a
non-SIP introduction and monitoring background section and the SIP
section entitled ``8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan'' that
contains emission inventories, control measures,
[[Page 28244]]
photochemical dispersion modeling, and a weight of evidence analysis.
A. Introduction and Monitoring Background Section (non-SIP Materials)
The introduction section discusses the EAC protocol, the aspects of
the Denver EAC, the Protocol milestones and how these were met,
information that went into the development of the SIP emission
inventories and dispersion modeling, emission reduction strategies,
aspects of maintenance for growth, a brief description of the
stakeholder/public process, and a description of the area encompassed
by the Denver EAC plan. The ozone monitoring section provides
information with respect to the location of Front Range ozone monitors
(from southern metropolitan Denver north to Fort Collins including
Rocky Mountain National Park), the State's ambient air quality data
assurance program, a description and commitment for continued operation
of the ozone monitoring network, and relevant 8-hour ozone monitoring
data from 1996 through 2003 with design values presented for data from
2001, 2002, and 2003.
B. Denver EAC Plan--``8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan'
1. Base Case Emissions Inventories
(a) As described in Chapter I of the Denver EAC plan, the State and
RAQC used demographic data that was provided by the metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO), DRCOG and North Front Range
Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (NFRTAQPC). Demographic
data were prepared for 2002, 2007, and 2012 and are presented in Table
4 of the Denver EAC plan.
(b) At the time that the emission inventories were being prepared
for the Denver EAC plan, EPA had not yet finalized the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment boundary for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley area \4\. The
State and RAQC prepared the EAC emission inventories for two situations
depending on EPA's final decision on the boundary: (1) inventories
based on Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas,
Jefferson, and Weld Counties, and (2) inventories based on Adams,
Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson,
Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties. These inventories address ozone
precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA promulgated the final 8-hour ozone nonattainment
boundary for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley area on April 30, 2004 (see
69 FR 23858.) The boundary includes all of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson Counties and the southern
halves of Larimer and Weld Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The 2002 and 2007 base case inventories incorporate control
measures that were in place in 2002 and were predicted to be in place
in 2007. The essential control measures are described in Chapter I of
the Denver EAC plan and are: (1) Federally-mandated regulations for
motor vehicle exhaust (or tailpipe) emissions and Federally-mandated
regulations for exhaust emissions from non-road engines, (2) Colorado's
Regulation No. 7 for the control of VOC emissions, and (3) Colorado's
Regulation No. 11, the State's Automobile Inspection and Readjustment
(A.I.R.) Program, which requires the application of the State's Basic
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program for vehicles older than 1982
and the Enhanced I/M program for vehicles of model year 1982 and newer.
With respect to the Basic I/M program, Chapter I, 2 of the EAC plan
states, ``The computer modeling does not include any credit for the
basic programs in Colorado Springs and Fort Collins/Greeley areas and
such basic programs are not part of, or being submitted for inclusion
in, the SIP.'' In addition to the above, Chapter I, 4 indicates that a
conventional gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 8.2 pounds per
square inch (psi) was used in the 2002 base case inventory and an RVP
of 9.0 was assumed for the 2007 base case inventory. Chapter I.,4 also
states that ``All of the inventories were developed using EPA-approved
emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and local VMT
data for on-road mobile source emissions, EPA's non-road model and
local demographic information for area and off-road sources, and
reported actual emissions for point sources.'' The 2002 and 2007 base
case VOC and NOX emission inventories are presented in Table
5a and Table 5b in Chapter I of the Denver EAC plan and are summarized
below in Tables VI-1 and VI-2.
Table VI-1.--Summary of Emission Inventories in Tons Per Day (TPD) Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
Douglas, Jefferson, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2002 VOCs 2002 NOX 2007 VOCs 2007 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............................................... 192.8 105.2 204.1 107.1
Area Sources................................................ 96.9 25.6 104.1 27.6
Non-Road Sources............................................ 73.1 87.99 53.7 82.5
On-Road Sources............................................. 152.8 157.8 117.5 119.3
Subtotal Anthropogenic...................................... 515.6 376.6 479.4 336.5
Biogenics................................................... 468.1 37.1 468.1 37.1
--------------
Total................................................... 983.7 413.7 947.5 373.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI-2.--Summary of Emission Inventories in Tons Per Day (TPD) Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 2002 VOCs 2002 NOX 2007 VOCs 2007 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............................................... 200.0 140.1 209.3 144.9
Area Sources................................................ 111.3 30.4 119.6 32.7
Non-Road Sources............................................ 84.9 104.6 62.6 92.4
On-Road Sources............................................. 172.6 177.6 135.1 136.6
Subtotal Anthropogenic...................................... 568.8 452.7 526.6 406.6
Biogenics................................................... 799.46 52.3 799.5 52.3
--------------
[[Page 28245]]
Total................................................... 1368.3 505.0 1326.1 458.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Control Measures
Chapter II of the Denver EAC plan describes the additional control
measures, above and beyond those assumed in the 2007 base case
emissions inventory, that will be implemented by December 31, 2005.
These additional control measures are incorporated into the SIP to
demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007, maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2012, and to meet the requirements of
the EAC Protocol.
(a) Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Chapter II A. of the Denver
EAC plan describes the RVP control measure. Since 1991, gasoline sold
in the Denver area during the summer ozone season (for gasoline RVP,
this is defined as June 1 through September 15) has been subject to an
EPA national rule that requires an RVP of 7.8 psi (see 55 FR 23658,
June 11, 1990, and 56 FR 64704, December 12, 1991.) This RVP
requirement of 7.8 psi was applicable to the Denver 1-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area as defined in the Federal Register (see 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991.) From 1992 through the 2003 summer ozone season, and
in response to waiver petitions from the Governor of Colorado, we
either waived or granted enforcement discretion for the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement for the Denver area and instead allowed the less stringent
9.0 psi RVP. Our decisions were based on evidence that demonstrated the
7.8 psi RVP was not necessary given the Denver area's record of
continued attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS using the 9.0 psi RVP
requirement and additional evidence presented by the State that showed
economic hardship to consumers and industry if the 7.8 psi RVP level
was imposed.
Since 1999, and in response to a request from the RAQC, refiners
serving the Denver area voluntarily provided gasoline with an RVP of
8.5 psi or lower to help reduce evaporative emissions of VOCs from
refueling and vehicle operations. Through the Denver EAC stakeholder
meetings, the RAQC, State, and industry elected to commit to a gasoline
RVP of 8.1 psi to help reduce VOC emissions. Therefore, the Denver EAC
plan and 2007 dispersion modeled attainment demonstration took credit
for the more stringent RVP level of 8.1 psi. On January 12, 2004, the
Colorado Petroleum Association (CPA) submitted a request to EPA for
enforcement discretion for the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for June 1, 2004
through September 15, 2004. In their January 12, 2004 letter, CPA
acknowledged their continuing efforts with CDPHE and the RAQC in
developing the Denver EAC plan using an RVP of 8.1 psi, but asked that
EPA grant enforcement discretion for a 9.0 psi RVP with CPA's offer to
meet the prior voluntary 8.5 psi RVP level. However, quality-assured
ozone monitoring data for 2001, 2002, and 2003 showed that three of the
ozone ambient air quality monitors in the Denver area's network
recorded violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In a letter dated March
25, 2004, we explained that primarily based on the monitored violations
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and public health issues, enforcement
discretion was not warranted and that the Federal requirement for 7.8
psi RVP gasoline for the Denver area would be effective beginning June
1, 2004. We note that, although the Denver EAC plan and attainment
demonstration dispersion modeling take credit for 8.1 psi RVP
conventional gasoline (9.1 psi RVP for ethanol blends), the Denver area
will instead be realizing greater evaporative VOC emissions reductions
due to EPA's requirement for 7.8 psi RVP. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The requirement for conventional gasoline is an RVP of 7.8
psi. However, the CAA allows an additional 1.0 psi increase for
gasoline blended with ethanol. In the Denver EAC attainment
demonstration dispersion modeling, the State assumes a 25 percent
market penetration for ethanol blended gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional RVP issue is found in the third paragraph in Chapter
II A. of the Denver EAC plan which states:
Therefore, since this EAC ozone action plan for the 8-hour ozone
standard relies on an RVP level of 8.1 psi (9.1 psi for ethanol
blends) in the 2007 control case inventory for the existing Denver
1-hour ozone attainment/maintenance area, the State of Colorado
requests a three year waiver establishing an 8.1 psi (9.1 psi for
ethanol blends) RVP level for the existing Denver 1-hour attainment/
maintenance area through the 2007 summer ozone season.
We view this and related language in the SIP as a petition to EPA
to establish an 8.1 psi RVP standard for the Denver area rather than
the currently applicable 7.8 psi RVP standard. A revision to the
federal RVP standard can only be done via rulemaking under section 211
of the CAA, and the authority to conduct such rulemaking cannot be
delegated from the Administrator of EPA to the Regional Administrator
of EPA Region VIII. Hence, Colorado's RVP petition cannot be addressed
in this SIP rulemaking. Our inability to act on Colorado's RVP petition
does not affect our ability to propose approval of the EAC plan because
the currently applicable standard--7.8 psi RVP--will reduce VOC
emissions more than the 8.1 psi RVP standard the State relied on to
model attainment in 2007.
(b) Oil and Gas Exploration and Production (E&P) Condensate Tank
Controls. The Denver EAC plan and attainment demonstration include a
reduction in flash emissions of VOCs from new control equipment to be
installed on E&P condensate collection, storage, processing and
handling operations. Revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7 (also
being proposed for approval with this action and described in section
VIII below) require the installation of air pollution control
technology to achieve at least a 47.5 percent reduction in VOC
emissions from E&P production operations, natural gas compressor
stations, and natural gas drip stations located in the Denver EAC plan
area.
(c) Controls for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE). The Denver EAC plan and attainment demonstration
include VOC and NOX emission reductions from new control
equipment to be installed on new and existing rich burn and lean burn
natural gas-fired RICE engines larger than 500 horsepower. Chapter II
C. states that emission control equipment for uncontrolled rich burn
RICE shall be non-selective catalyst reduction and an air fuel ratio
controller or other equally effective air pollution control technology.
Chapter II C. also states that for uncontrolled lean burn RICE,
emission control equipment shall be oxidation catalyst reduction or
other equally effective air pollution control technology. These RICE
controls are contained in revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7.
[[Page 28246]]
(d) Controls for Dehydration Units. Chapter II D. of the Denver EAC
plan and the attainment demonstration include VOC emission reductions
from new control equipment to be installed on new and existing
dehydration towers, with VOC emissions in excess of 15 tons per year,
located at oil and gas operations. These new control requirements are
contained in revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7.
(e) Revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11--Automobile
Inspection and Readjustment Program. Chapter II E. of the Denver EAC
plan and the attainment demonstration include VOC and NOX
emission reductions from revisions to Regulation No. 11. These
revisions reduce the coverage of the remote sensing clean screen area
in order to reduce the disbenefit of the clean screen program and to
reflect the practical reality of potential coverage. No more than 50%
of the fleet of gasoline vehicles in the enhanced I/M program area
(described in Regulation No. 11) of applicability will be evaluated
with remote sensing during any twelve-month period after December 31,
2005. These revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 are also being
proposed for approval with this action. For further discussion, see
section IX below.
3. Maintenance for Growth--Continuing Planning Process
The State's methodology and demonstration of maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS is described in Chapter III H. of the Denver EAC plan
and our evaluation is described further in section VII C. below. We
note, however, that an oversight occurred in which the State failed to
include a discussion in the Denver EAC plan as to how it would address
the Protocol's continuing planning process provisions. To address this
issue, the State submitted a commitment letter, dated March 22, 2005,
that detailed the specific measures it would use to address the
continuing planning requirements of the Protocol.
The State will periodically evaluate the data and growth
assumptions used in the attainment demonstration, review point source
growth, and review transportation patterns. If these periodic reviews
demonstrate a need to adopt additional control measures, the State will
evaluate and adopt the necessary controls for the Denver EAC plan. The
State also noted that the transportation patterns and emissions in the
Denver EAC plan's 8-hour ozone control area are already evaluated due
to the transportation conformity requirements of currently approved
maintenance plans (i.e., Denver PM10, Denver carbon monoxide, Denver 1-
hour ozone, Fort Collins carbon monoxide, Greeley carbon monoxide, and
Longmont carbon monoxide). The State's letter also contained a
commitment to amend the Denver EAC plan, as a SIP revision, to
incorporate the continuing planning process language from our Protocol.
This SIP revision will be performed in 2005. However, due to State-
internal SIP processing requirements, it will not be submitted to EPA
until 2006.
In addition to the above, we note that once the Denver area
receives an effective attainment designation in 2008, the area will
then have to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4) and 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4)(ii). To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii),
the State will have to submit a CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan
within three years of the designation of attainment (i.e., 2011). In
the State's March 22, 2005 letter, it acknowledges this obligation and
also states its intention to prepare this required maintenance plan in
an earlier time period.
Based on the contents of the March 22, 2005 commitment letter, we
have determined that the State has adequately addressed the continuing
planning process requirements of the Protocol.
VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan's
Attainment Demonstration
Chapter III of the Denver EAC plan contains descriptions and
results of the attainment demonstration photochemical dispersion
modeling, including relative reduction factors (RRF), 2007 design
values, 2007 control case inventories, a 2007 control case
demonstration, and weight of evidence analyses.
A. Photochemical Dispersion Modeling
1. Model Approach Selected. The State selected the EPA-approved
photochemical model ``Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions''
(CAMx). The State's contractors, ENVIRON International Corporation and
Alpine Geophysics Atmospheric Sciences Group performed the modeling
work. Meteorological fields for input into the CAMx model were produced
with the Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5). Emissions data,
previously described above, were processed with the Emissions
Processing System (EPS2x) for 2002 and 2007. The photochemical
dispersion modeling was performed in accordance with our then available
draft May 1999 modeling guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance on the Use
of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS.'' A more in-depth discussion of the modeling protocol
is located in appendix A (``Modeling Protocol, Episode Selection, and
Domain Definition'') of the State's TSD which is included with the
docket for this action.
2. Modeling Domain. The Denver EAC plan's air quality modeling
domains were defined on an MM5 system with 36 kilometer (km), 12 km,
and a 4 km nested-grid structure. This structure was utilized in
conjunction with the CAMx and EPS2x air quality and emissions modeling
during the episode periods that are described below. The larger 36km
domain was selected to address the impact of boundary condition
uncertainties for the Front Range area of Colorado, as CDPHE was
concerned there may be transport from Southern California and Texas.
The 12 km grid resolution domain essentially covers the central Rocky
Mountain states or portions thereof (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) The 4 km nested-grid was used for the period
encompassing the final, selected ozone episode of June 25, 2002 to July
1, 2002 to provide finer resolution of the emissions, transport, and
transformation, and to evaluate the selected control strategies for the
Denver EAC area and nearby Front Range cities. A more in-depth
discussion of the modeling domain is located in Appendix A (``Modeling
Protocol, Episode Selection and Domain Definition'') of the State's
TSD.
3. Episode Selection. Initially, the State, RAQC, and the modeling
contractors evaluated three 2002 ozone episodes. These episodes were
June 8 to June 12, June 25 to July 1, and July 18 to July 21. The June
8 to June 12 episode was removed from consideration due to the problems
associated with the Hayman wildfire that started on June 8, 2002. The
potential influx of emissions along with the effects of the large smoke
plume made this episode unsuitable for use. Both the June 25 to July 1
and July 18 to July 21 episodes were modeled. However, the results for
the July 18 to July 21 episode were unable to conform to the necessary
model performance standards required by our 8-hour ozone NAAQS modeling
guidance (``Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in
Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.'') It appears
that the poor model performance for this episode was due to convective
meteorological conditions that could not be resolved by MM5. However,
the results for the June 25 to July 1 episode were successful in
[[Page 28247]]
meeting our modeling guidance and were used for the Denver EAC ozone
plan's attainment demonstration. Additional discussion on episode
selection can be found in section D of our TSD and in Appendix B of the
State's TSD.
4. Base Case Relative Reduction Factors (RRF). The dispersion
modeling for the Denver EAC plan produced base case relative reduction
factors (RRF) for receptors in the modeling domain where ozone monitors
are located. In general, the RRF for each monitor is equal to the mean
2007 base case modeled 8-hour ozone concentration divided by the mean
2002 base case modeled 8-hour ozone concentration. Once the RRFs are
developed, the RRF for each monitoring site is multiplied by the
monitoring site's base case design value to determine a future case
design value (i.e., 2007) to indicate if attainment is demonstrated at
each site. This is further discussed in Chapter III B. and C. of the
Denver EAC plan. Twelve Front Range ozone monitors were considered by
the State, ranging from Fort Collins to the north of metropolitan
Denver, in Larimer County, to the Chatfield reservoir in the
southwestern portion of metropolitan Denver, and also including an
ozone monitor operated by the National Park Service (NPS) just outside
the eastern border of Rocky Mountain National Park in Larimer County.
The current (2001-2003) base case ozone design values used in the
Denver EAC plan and attainment demonstration are based on monitoring
data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. In these three years of data, three of
the twelve monitors were violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. They are:
(1) The Chatfield (hereafter Chatfield) reservoir monitor, located in
Douglas County, Air Quality System (AQS) site identification number
080350002, (2) the National Renewable Energies Laboratory (hereafter
NREL) monitor, located in Jefferson County, AQS identification number
080590011, and (3) the Rocky Flats North (hereafter Rocky Flats)
monitor, located in Jefferson County, AQS identification number
080590006. For the violating monitors, we have extracted RRF
information from Table 6 of the Denver EAC plan and present it below in
our Table VII-1:
Table VII-1.--RRF for Violating Monitors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-hour
ozone 8-hour
current Base case ozone
(2001-2003) relative future
Monitoring site name base case reduction (2007) base
design factors case design
values in (RRF) values in
ppm ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield........................ 0.085 0.9807 0.0834
NREL............................. 0.085 0.9946 0.0845
Rocky Flats...................... 0.087 0.9942 0.0865
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII-1 represents the 2007 base case modeling which relied on
expected emission reductions from existing State controls, existing
Federal rules, and anticipated reductions from new Federal rules. As is
clear from Table VII-1 above and the Denver EAC plan, additional
emission reductions are necessary to bring the Rocky Flats monitor
towards modeled attainment for 2007. The 2007 ``control case'' emission
inventories and modeling are described below and in Chapter III. E and
F of the Denver EAC plan. Further discussions are found in sections C
and D of our TSD and in Appendices F, J, K, and L of the State's TSD.
5. 2007 Control Case Emission Inventories. The 2007 control case
emission inventories reflect estimated VOC and NOX emission
reductions from the control strategies described in Chapter III. E of
the Denver EAC plan and in section VI B.2. above. In addition to
emission reductions from existing State and Federal rules, for 2007 the
State calculated the following:
(a) 10 tons per day (tpd) VOC reductions from an 8.1 psi RVP for
conventional gasoline with 9.1 psi RVP for ethanol blends (9 tpd from
on-road vehicles, 1 tpd from refueling, and assuming 25% market
penetration for ethanol blends),
(b) 55 tpd VOC reductions from control of oilfield flash emissions,
(c) 5.5 tpd VOC reductions and 19 tpd NOX reductions
from oilfield RICE controls, and,
(d) 0.5 tpd VOC reductions from the control of oilfield
dehydrators.
The State calculated total emission reductions from existing and
new State and Federal rules for the 2007 control case of 106 tpd of VOC
emissions and 58 tpd of NOX emissions for the eight-county
metropolitan Denver area (counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and Weld) and slightly greater
tons per day for the eleven-county area (adding Elbert, Larimer, and
Morgan counties to the other eight). These projected emission
reductions were extracted from Chapter III. E of the Denver EAC plan
(Tables 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b) and are presented below in our Tables VII-2
and VII-3:
Table VII-2.--Summary of Emissions Tons Per Average Episode Day (TPD)
Emissions for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas,
Jefferson, and Weld Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 VOCs 2007 NOX
Source category 2007 VOCs 2007 NOX control control
base case base case case case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............... 204.1 107.1 143.3 88.3
Area Sources................ 104.1 27.6 104.1 27.6
Non-Road Sources............ 53.7 82.5 53.5 82.6
On-Road Sources............. 117.5 119.3 108.4 119.0
Subtotal Anthropogenic...... 479.4 336.5 409.3 317.5
Biogenics................... 468.1 37.1 468.1 37.1
------------
[[Page 28248]]
Total................... 947.5 373.6 877.4 354.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII-3.--Summary of Emissions Tons Per Average Episode Day (TPD) Emissions for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 VOCs 2007 NOX
Source category 2007 VOCs 2007 NOX control control
base case base case case case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............................................... 209.3 144.9 148.1 126.1
Area Sources................................................ 119.6 32.7 119.6 32.7
Non-Road Sources............................................ 62.6 92.4 62.6 93.3
On-Road Sources............................................. 135.1 136.6 126.0 136.3
Subtotal Anthropogenic...................................... 526.6 406.6 456.4 388.4
Biogenics................................................... 799.5 52.3 799.5 52.3
--------------
Total................................................... 1326.1 458.9 1255.8 440.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 2007 Control Case Modeling Demonstration. The State modeled the
above base case and control case scenarios with CAMx. As discussed
above and in Chapter III. F of the Denver EAC plan, the 2007 base case
and 2007 control case modeling produce relative reduction factors (RRF)
for receptors in the modeling domain where ozone ambient air quality
monitors are located. Table VII-4 below presents the 2007 control case
RRFs, 2007 control case design values for modeled days greater than
0.070 ppm, and control case design values for modeled days greater than
0.080 ppm for the Chatfield, NREL, and Rocky Flats monitors. We note
that the nine other monitors listed in Table 9 of the Denver EAC plan
all show predicted attainment with values less than 0.081 ppm for both
evaluation days (i.e., modeled days greater than 0.070 ppm and greater
than 0.080 ppm.)
Table VII-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days > Days > Days > Days >
8-hour 0.070 (ppm) 0.070 (ppm) 0.080 (ppm) 0.080 (ppm)
ozone base ---------------------------------------------------
case design 2007 2007
Monitoring site name values 2001- 2007 control 2007 control
2003 (ppm) control case design control case design
case RRF values case RRF values
(ppm) (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield...................................... 0.085 0.9761 0.0830 0.9779 0.0831
NREL........................................... 0.085 0.9891 0.0841 0.9748 0.0829
Rocky Flats.................................... 0.087 0.9888 0.0860 0.9811 0.0854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section D of our TSD and in Appendix I of the State's TSD,
results are presented for the final modeling runs for the June 25, 2002
to July 1, 2002 episode. These results reflect incorporation of all the
control measures for the 2007 attainment year. However, CAMx still
predicts that the Rocky Flats monitor will marginally exceed the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The information is presented below in Table VII-5.
Table VII-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-2003 design 2007 predicted
Monitoring site value design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield........................ 85 ppb............ 82.9 ppb
NREL............................. 85 ppb............ 83.9 ppb
Rocky Flats...................... 87 ppb............ 85.9 ppb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen above in Tables VII-4, VII-5, and Table 9 of the
Denver EAC plan, th
