Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions, 46148-46157 [E7-16146]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46148
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1258.4 What reproductions are not
covered by the NARA fee schedule?
2. Amend § 1258.4 by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
I
*
*
*
*
(d) Reproduction of the following
types of records using the specified
order form:
*
Type of record
Order form
(1) Passenger arrival lists .....................................................................................................
(2) Federal Census requests ................................................................................................
(3) Eastern Cherokee applications to the Court of Claims ..................................................
(4) Land entry records ..........................................................................................................
(5) Full pension file more than 75 years old (Civil War and after), up to and including 100
pages.
(6) Full pension file (pre-Civil War) ......................................................................................
(7) Pension documents packet (selected records) ...............................................................
(8) Bounty land warrant application files ..............................................................................
(9) Military service files more than 75 years old ..................................................................
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 1258.10 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 1258.10
policy?
What is NARA’s mail order
(a) There is a minimum fee of $15.00
per order for reproductions that are sent
by mail to the customer.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Revise § 1258.12 to read as follows:
§ 1258.12 NARA reproduction fee
schedule.
Fee
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Paper-to-paper copy made by the
customer on a NARA self-service
copier in the Washington, DC,
area ...............................................
Paper-to-paper copy made by the
customer on a NARA self-service
copier outside the Washington,
DC, area (regional archives and
Presidential libraries) ....................
Paper-to-paper copy made by NARA
Paper-to-paper copy made by NARA
for full Civil War pension files
(NATF Form 85) beyond the first
100 pages .....................................
Microfilm-to-paper copy made by the
customer on a NARA self-service
copier ............................................
Form
Form
Form
Form
Form
81
82
83
84
85
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
$25.00
25.00
25.00
40.00
75.00
NATF
NATF
NATF
NATF
Form
Form
Form
Form
85
85
85
86
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
50.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
Dated: August 13, 2007.
Allen Weinstein,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. E7–16233 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(a) Certification: $15.00.
(b) Electrostatic copying (in order to
preserve certain records that are in poor
physical condition, NARA may restrict
customers to photographic or other
kinds of copies instead of electrostatic
copies):
Service
NATF
NATF
NATF
NATF
NATF
date, we will charge the fees in effect at
the time the order was received.
*
[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–0465; FRL–8453–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Revised Denver and
Longmont Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plans, and Approval of
Related Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Colorado. On
September 25, 2006, the Governor’s
0.20 designee submitted revised carbon
0.75 monoxide (CO) maintenance plans for
the Denver metropolitan and Longmont
areas for the CO National Ambient Air
0.65 Quality Standard (NAAQS). These
revised maintenance plans address
maintenance of the CO standard for a
0.50 second ten-year period beyond
redesignation, extends the horizon
(c) Unlisted processes: For
years, and contains revised
reproductions not covered by this fee
transportation conformity budgets. In
schedule, see also § 1258.4. Fees for
addition, Regulation No. 11, ‘‘Motor
other reproduction processes are
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program,’’
computed upon request.
and Regulation No. 13, ‘‘Oxygenated
Fuels Program,’’ are removed from
I 5. Revise § 1258.16 to read as follows:
Denver’s and Longmont’s revised CO
§ 1258.16 Effective date.
maintenance plans. EPA is approving
The fees in this part are effective on
Denver’s and Longmont’s revised CO
October 1, 2007. If your order was
maintenance plans, and the revised
received by NARA before this effective
transportation conformity budgets. In
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
$0.25
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Fee
addition, EPA is also approving the
removal of Regulation No. 11 and
Regulation No. 13 from Denver’s and
Longmont’s revised CO maintenance
plans. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
on October 16, 2007 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse
comment by September 17, 2007. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket Number EPA–R08–
OAR–2007–0465, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and
fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director,
Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich,
Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2007–
0465. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available at https://
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.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 the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
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 https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g. CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129, phone (303) 312–
6493, and e-mail at:
fiedler.kerri@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. EPA’s Evaluation of Denver’s and
Longmont’s Revised CO Maintenance
Plans
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the Transportation
Conformity Requirements
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of Regulation No. 11
Revisions
VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Regulation No. 13
Revisions
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act
IX. Final Action
X. 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 https://
www.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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46149
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What is the purpose of this action?
In this action, we are approving
revised maintenance plans for the
Denver and Longmont CO attainment/
maintenance areas, that are designed to
keep the areas in attainment for CO for
a second ten-year period beyond
redesignation. In addition, we are
approving revised transportation
conformity motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs), and the removal of
Regulation No. 11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection Program,’’ and
Regulation No. 13, ‘‘Oxygenated Fuels
Program,’’ from Denver’s and
Longmont’s revised CO maintenance
plans.
We approved the original CO
redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Denver area on
December 14, 2001 (see 66 FR 64751),
and a revised CO maintenance plan for
the Denver area on September 16, 2004
(see 69 FR 55752). The State has made
the following changes: (1) Revised and
updated the mobile source CO
emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on
the pending removal of Regulation No.
11, the inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program, and Regulation No. 13, the
oxygenated fuels program; (2) updated
the transportation projections and
stationary source inventories; (3) revised
the MVEBs including applying a
selected amount of the available safety
margin to the transportation conformity
MVEBs; and, (4) extended the horizon
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
46150
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
year to 2021. We have determined that
these changes are approvable as further
described below.
We approved the original CO
redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Longmont area
on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR
51694), and a revised CO maintenance
plan for the Longmont area on
September 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 58264).
The State has made the following
changes: (1) Revised and updated the
mobile source CO emissions with
MOBILE6.2, based on the pending
removal of the I/M and oxygenated fuels
programs; (2) updated the transportation
projections and stationary source
inventories; (3) revised the MVEBs
including applying a selected amount of
the available safety margin to the
transportation conformity MVEBs; and,
(4) extended the horizon year to 2020.
We have determined that these changes
are approvable as further described
below.
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 State Implementation Plan (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.
The Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Denver and
Longmont carbon monoxide (CO)
maintenance plans, Regulation No. 11
and Regulation No. 13 on December 15,
2005. The AQCC adopted the revised
CO maintenance plans and removal of
Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No.
13 from Denver’s and Longmont’s
revised CO maintenance plans directly
after the hearing. This SIP revision
became State effective on March 2,
2006, and was submitted by the
Governor’s designee to us on September
25, 2006.
We have evaluated the revised
maintenance plans and have determined
that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As
required by 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 submittal was
administratively and technically
complete. Our completeness
determination was sent on February 21,
2007, through a letter from Robert E.
Roberts, Regional Administrator, to
Governor Bill Ritter.
IV. EPA’s evaluation of Denver’s and
Longmont’s Revised CO Maintenance
Plans
EPA has reviewed the State’s revised
CO maintenance plans for the Denver
and Longmont attainment/maintenance
areas and believes that approval is
warranted. The following are the key
aspects of these revisions along with our
evaluation of each:
(a) The State has revised the Denver
and Longmont CO maintenance plans
and has provided air quality data that
show continuous attainment of the CO
NAAQS.
As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the
national primary ambient air quality
standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts
per million (10 milligrams per cubic
meter) for an 8-hour average
concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8
continues by stating that the levels of
CO in the ambient air shall be measured
by a reference method based on 40 CFR
part 50, Appendix C and designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an
equivalent method designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The
original Denver CO maintenance plan,
approved by EPA on December 14,
2001, relied on ambient air quality data
from 1996 through 1999. The previously
revised Denver CO maintenance plan,
approved by EPA on September 16,
2004, relied on ambient air quality data
from 2000 through 2002. This revised
Denver CO maintenance plan submitted
September 25, 2006, relies on ambient
air quality data from 2002 through 2004.
Further, we have reviewed ambient air
quality data from 2005 and 2006 and the
Denver area shows continuous
attainment of the CO NAAQS from 2000
to present.
The original Longmont CO
maintenance plan, approved by EPA on
September 24, 1999, relied on ambient
air quality data from 1989 through 1996.
The previously revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan, approved by EPA on
September 30, 2004, relied on ambient
air quality data from 1993 through 2003.
This revised Longmont CO maintenance
plan submitted September 25, 2006,
relies on ambient air quality data from
1999 through 2004. Further, we have
reviewed ambient air quality data from
2005 and 2006 and the Longmont area
shows continuous attainment of the CO
NAAQS from 1993 to present. All the
above-referenced air quality data are
archived in our Aerometric Information
and Retrieval System (AIRS).
(b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission
factor model, the State updated the
attainment year, projected years and the
maintenance year emission inventories.
(1) The State updated the attainment
year (2001), projected years (2009, 2010,
2013, 2015, 2020) and the maintenance
year (2021) emission inventories for
Denver’s revised CO maintenance plan.
Denver’s revised CO maintenance
plan submitted on September 25, 2006,
included comprehensive inventories of
CO emissions for the Denver area. These
inventories include emissions from
stationary point sources, area sources,
non-road mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources. More detailed
descriptions of the 2001 attainment year
inventory, the revised 2013 projected
inventory, the new 2009, 2010, 2015,
and 2020 projected inventories, and the
2021 maintenance year projected
inventory are documented in the revised
maintenance plan in section C,
‘‘Emission Inventories’’ and in the
State’s Technical Support Document
(TSD). The State’s submittal contains
emission inventory information that was
prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance. Summary emission figures
from the 2001 attainment year and the
projected years are provided in Table
IV–1 below.
TABLE IV–1.—SUMMARY OF CO EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR DENVER
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
2001
Point Sources ...................................................................................................
Area Sources ...................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile Sources ...............................................................................
On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
2009
2010
2013
2015
2020
2021
15.3
74.1
199.4
1708.1
18.1
80.5
239.0
1476.8
18.5
81.2
241.3
1523.9
19.8
83.4
245.6
1429.2
20.4
84.9
250.4
1416.0
22.9
88.7
262.6
1362.7
23.3
89.4
265.6
1372.1
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
46151
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV–1.—SUMMARY OF CO EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR DENVER—Continued
2001
Total ..........................................................................................................
2009
2010
2013
2015
2020
2021
1997.0
1814.5
1864.9
1778.1
1771.7
1736.9
1750.3
Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the small contribution of certain source categories. They are not intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals may not add due to rounding.
(2) The State updated the attainment
year (1993), projected years (2009, 2010,
2015) and the maintenance year (2020)
emission inventories for Longmont’s
revised CO maintenance plan.
Longmont’s revised CO maintenance
plan submitted on September 25, 2006,
included comprehensive inventories of
CO emissions for the Longmont area.
These inventories include emissions
from stationary point sources, area
sources, non-road mobile sources, and
on-road mobile sources. More detailed
descriptions of the 1993 attainment year
inventory, the revised 2010, and 2015
projected inventories, the new 2009
projected inventory, and the 2020
maintenance year projected inventory
are documented in the revised
maintenance plan in section C,
‘‘Emission Inventories and Maintenance
Demonstration,’’ and in the State’s TSD.
The State’s submittal contains emission
inventory information that was prepared
in accordance with EPA guidance.
Summary emission figures from the
1993 attainment year and the projected
years are provided in Table IV–2 below.
TABLE IV–2.—SUMMARY OF CO EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR LONGMONT
Source category
1993
2009
2010
2015
2020
Point .....................................................................................................
Area .....................................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...................................................................................
0.18
3.503
6.36
43.255
0.053
2.948
5.983
39.952
0.055
2.956
6.012
40.452
0.059
3.0
5.829
36.459
0.066
3.048
5.988
35.456
Total ..............................................................................................
53.298
48.938
49.565
45.348
44.558
Note: The significant figures in this table
are used to show the small contribution of
certain source categories. They are not
intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the
inventories. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
The State’s approach follows EPA
guidance on projected emissions and we
believe it is acceptable.1 Further
information on these projected
emissions may also be found in the
State’s TSD. The revised mobile source
emissions show the largest change from
the original and previously revised
maintenance plans and this is primarily
due to the removal of the vehicle
inspection/maintenance (I/M)
(Regulation No. 11) and oxygenated
fuels (Regulation No. 13) programs,
effective January 1, 2008. The phase-out
of residual I/M program benefits is
estimated in the 2009 and 2010 analysis
years. January 1, 2009 will have half the
benefit of a biennial I/M program and
January 1, 2010 will have no residual
benefit due to the I/M program. The
MOBILE6.2 modeling information is
contained in the State’s TSD. Much of
the modeling data, input-output files,
fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input
parameters, etc. are on a compact disc
(CD), included with the docket for this
action, and available from either EPA or
the State. Other revisions to the mobile
sources categories were due to revised
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates
that were provided to the State from the
Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG) which is the
metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) for both the Denver and
Longmont areas. The revised VMT were
extracted from DRCOG’s 2030 Regional
Transportation Plan of January, 2005. In
summary, the revised maintenance
plans and State TSDs contain detailed
emission inventory information, that
was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance, and are acceptable to EPA.
(c) The State revised the maintenance
demonstration used in the original and
previously revised maintenance plans.
(1) Denver
The original Denver CO redesignation
maintenance plan, approved on
December 14, 2001, was revised and
approved by EPA on September 16,
2004. The State has revised and updated
the maintenance plan for a second tenyear period beyond redesignation.
The September 25, 2006 revised
maintenance plan updated mobile
source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2,
based on the pending removal of
Regulation No. 11, the vehicle I/M
program and Regulation No. 13, the
oxygenated fuels program (from the CO
maintenance plan), and using the most
recent planning assumptions for the
Denver metropolitan area from DRCOG’s
2030 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The modeling domain-wide
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are
presented in section C.2.(a) of Denver’s
revised CO maintenance plan and Table
IV–3 below.
TABLE IV–3.—ESTIMATED DAILY VMT
1 ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance
Demonstrations for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
2001
2005
2015
2020
2030
57,984,600
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Year
61,842,200
77,544,600
84,765,600
98,499,600
(CO) Nonattainment Areas’’, signed by D. Kent
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, November 30, 1993.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
46152
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Section C.2.(b) of Denver’s revised CO
maintenance plan contains a discussion
of the State’s assessment of point source
emissions. Point source inventories
were updated including new sources
permitted since the previously approved
maintenance plan. The State indicates
point sources have little or no impact on
the maintenance demonstration,
consistent with what EPA has approved
in previous maintenance plans. We find
the State’s overall analysis of revised
point source emissions acceptable.
For the non-road and area source
emissions, the State relied upon
updated demographic information from
DRCOG. Several of the non-road and
area source emissions are dependent on
demographic data as a surrogate
emission factor. DRCOG demographics
are presented below from section C.1
(Table 4) of Denver’s revised CO
maintenance plan and a further
discussion is presented in the State’s
TSD.
TABLE IV–4.—DEMOGRAPHICS
Year
2001
Population ................................................................................................
Households ..............................................................................................
Employment .............................................................................................
We have concluded that the revised
maintenance demonstration is
approvable.
(2) Longmont
The original Longmont CO
redesignation maintenance plan,
approved on September 24, 1999, was
revised and approved by EPA on
September 30, 2004. The State has
revised and updated the maintenance
plan for a second ten-year period
beyond redesignation.
This revised maintenance plan
updated mobile source CO emissions
with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending
removal of Regulation No. 11 and
Regulation No. 13 (from the CO
maintenance plan), and using the latest
transportation and demographic data
from DRCOG. All emission source
categories (point, area, non-road, and
mobile) were updated using the latest
version of applicable models (including
MOBILE6.2), transportation data sets,
emissions data, emission factors,
population figures and other
demographic information. As discussed
above, the State prepared emission
inventories for the years 1993, 2009,
2010, 2015 and 2020. The results of
these calculations are presented in
Table 3, ‘‘1993–2020 Longmont CO
Attainment Area Emissions (Tons per
Day),’’ on page 7 of the Longmont CO
revised maintenance plan and are also
summarized in our Table IV–2 above.
Emissions for all future years are less
than emissions for the 1993 attainment
year. Therefore, maintenance of the CO
NAAQS is demonstrated and is
approvable.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
(d) Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the CO
NAAQS in both the Denver and
Longmont areas depend, in part, on the
State’s efforts to track indicators
throughout the maintenance period.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
2005
2,304,700
916,480
1,306,800
2,454,300
988,000
1,267,100
This requirement is met in section F,
‘‘Monitoring Network/Verification of
Continued Attainment’’ of the revised
Denver CO maintenance plan and
section E, ‘‘Monitoring Network/
Verification of Continued Attainment’’
of the revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan. In these sections, the
State commits to continue operating the
CO monitors in both the Denver and
Longmont areas, and to annually review
the monitoring networks and make
changes as appropriate.
Also, in these sections, the State
commits to track CO emissions from
mobile sources (which are the largest
component of the inventories) through
the ongoing regional transportation
planning process done by DRCOG.
Since regular revisions to the
transportation improvement programs
are prepared every two years, and must
go through a transportation conformity
finding, the State will use this process
to periodically review the Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and mobile source
emissions projections used in the
revised maintenance plans. This
regional transportation process is
conducted by DRCOG in coordination
with the Regional Air Quality Council
(RAQC) (in Denver), the City of
Longmont (in Longmont), the State’s Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD), the
Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC), and EPA.
Based on the above, we are approving
these commitments as satisfying the
relevant requirements[R3] from
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
signed by John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992. We note that our
final rulemaking approval renders the
State’s commitments federally
enforceable. These commitments are
also the same as those we approved in
the original and the previously revised
maintenance plans.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2015
2,853,200
1,156,300
1,612,300
2020
3,099,300
1,262,300
1,721,300
2030
3,591,600
1,474,400
1,939,500
(e) Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires
that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this
requirement, the State has identified
appropriate contingency measures along
with a schedule for the development
and implementation of such measures.
As stated in section G of the revised
Denver CO maintenance plan and
section F of the revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan, the contingency
measures for both the Denver and
Longmont areas will be triggered by a
violation of the CO NAAQS. (However,
the maintenance plans note that an
exceedance of the CO NAAQS may
initiate a voluntary, local process by the
RAQC (in Denver) or the City of
Longmont (in Longmont), and APCD to
identify and evaluate potential
contingency measures.)
The RAQC (in Denver) or the City of
Longmont (in Longmont), in
coordination with the APCD and AQCC,
will initiate a subcommittee process to
begin evaluating potential contingency
measures no more than 60 days after
being notified by the APCD that a
violation of the CO NAAQS has
occurred. The subcommittee will
present recommendations within 120
days of notification and recommended
contingency measures will be presented
to the AQCC within 180 days of
notification. The AQCC will then hold
a public hearing to consider the
recommended contingency measures,
along with any other contingency
measures that the AQCC believes may
be appropriate to effectively address the
violation of the CO NAAQS. The
necessary contingency measures will be
adopted and implemented within one
year after the violation occurs.
The potential contingency measures
that are identified in section G.1 of
Denver’s revised CO maintenance plan
and section F.3 of Longmont’s revised
CO maintenance plan include: (1) A
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
3.1% oxygenated fuels program from
November 8 through February 7, with a
2.0% oxygen content required from
November 1 through November 7, and
(2) reinstatement of the enhanced I/M
program in effect before January 10,
2000. Denver’s revised CO maintenance
plan also includes a third potential
contingency measure: Transportation
Control Measures (TCM) such as
financial incentives for Ecopass, Auraria
transit pass, and improved traffic
signalization. Longmont’s revised CO
maintenance plan also includes a third
potential contingency measure:
Nonattainment New Source Review
permitting requirements.
Based on the above, we find that the
contingency measures provided in
Denver’s and Longmont’s revised CO
maintenance plans are sufficient and
meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA. We note the
contingency measures and methodology
to implement them are the same as
those we approved in the original and
previously revised maintenance plans.
(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan
Revisions
(1) Denver
The previously approved
maintenance plan addressed the period
2001 through 2013 and demonstrated, in
accordance with section 175A(a) of the
CAA, that the CO standard will be
maintained for the initial ten-year
period (through 2011). In accordance
with section 175A(b), Colorado has
submitted a revised maintenance plan
eight years after our approval of the
original redesignation. The purpose of
this revised maintenance plan is to
provide for maintenance of the CO
standard for the additional ten years
(through 2021) following the first tenyear period.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
(2) Longmont
The previously approved
maintenance plan addressed the period
1999 through 2009 and demonstrated, in
accordance with section 175A(a) of the
CAA, that the CO standard will be
maintained for the initial ten-year
period (through 2009). In accordance
with section 175A(b), Colorado has
submitted a revised maintenance plan
eight years after our approval of the
original redesignation. The purpose of
this revised maintenance plan is to
provide for maintenance of the CO
standard for the additional ten years
(through 2020) following the first tenyear period.
Based on our review of the
components of the revised Denver and
Longmont CO maintenance plans, as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
discussed in items IV.(a) through IV.(f)
above, we have concluded that the State
has met the necessary requirements for
us to fully approve the revised Denver
and Longmont CO maintenance plans. It
is important to note that neither the
maintenance plans nor the control
measures relied upon in these
maintenance plans simply go away after
the maintenance year (2021 for Denver,
2020 for Longmont). Both the
maintenance plans and control
measures relied upon in these
maintenance plans will continue to be
a part of Colorado’s SIP unless we
approve their removal. Both
maintenance plans will remain in effect
until they are revised and we approve
the revision.
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the
Transportation Conformity
Requirements
One key provision of our conformity
regulation requires a demonstration that
emissions from the Long Range
Transportation Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program
are consistent with the emissions
budgets in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and
93.124). The emissions budgets are
defined as the level of mobile source
emissions relied upon in the attainment
or maintenance demonstration to
maintain compliance with the NAAQS
in the nonattainment or maintenance
area. The rule’s requirements and EPA’s
policy on emissions budgets are found
in the preamble to the November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62193–62196) and in the sections of
the rule referenced above. With respect
to maintenance plans, our conformity
regulation requires that motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) must be
established for the last year of the
maintenance plan and may be
established for any other years deemed
appropriate (40 CFR 93.118).
For transportation plan analysis years
after the last year of the maintenance
plan, a conformity determination must
show that emissions are less than or
equal to the maintenance plan’s MVEBs
for the last year of the implementation
plan. EPA’s conformity regulation (40
CFR 93.124) also allows the
implementation plan to quantify
explicitly the amount by which motor
vehicle emissions could be higher while
still demonstrating compliance with the
maintenance requirement. The
implementation plan can then allocate
some, or all, of this additional safety
margin to the emissions budgets for
transportation conformity purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46153
(1) Denver
Section E.2 of the revised Denver CO
maintenance plan describes the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements and updated MVEBs for
the revised Denver CO maintenance
plan. The State has established a MVEB
for 2013 through 2020 and 2021 and
beyond. Specifically, the CO MVEBs are
defined as 1625 tons per day for 2013
through 2020, and 1600 tons per day for
2021 and beyond. As we explain more
fully below, we view these as the
budgets for 2013, and 2021 respectively.
Under our conformity rules, a MVEB
is established for a given year, not for
a range of years. This is because the
MVEB reflects the inventory value for
motor vehicle emissions in a given year,
plus, potentially, any safety margin in
that year. (We explain the concept of
safety margin more fully below.) It is not
possible to specify the same MVEB for
a range of years absent specific analysis
supporting the derivation of that budget
for each year in the range. As a practical
matter, this is not usually important
because our conformity rules also say
that a MVEB for a particular year
applies for conformity analyses of
emissions in that year and all
subsequent years before the next budget
year. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii),
‘‘Emissions in years for which no motor
vehicle emissions budget(s) are
specifically established must be less
than or equal to the motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) established for the
most recent prior year.’’ Therefore, the
‘‘2013 through 2020’’ and the ‘‘2021 and
beyond’’ budgets were derived from, the
2013 and 2021 inventory values,
respectively, for on-road vehicle
emissions and available safety margin.
Thus, we will refer to these as the 2013
and 2021 budgets in the remainder of
this action.
Section E. ‘‘Carbon Monoxide Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budget’’ of the
revised Denver CO maintenance plan
describes the applicable transportation
conformity requirements and updated
MVEBs. The State has revised the 2013
MVEB, and established a new MVEB for
the last year of the revised maintenance
plan, 2021. Based on this, in order for
a positive conformity determination to
be made, transportation plan analyses
for years between 2013 and 2020 must
show that motor vehicle emissions will
be less than or equal to the MVEB in
2013. In addition, transportation plan
analyses for years after 2021 must show
that motor vehicle emissions will be less
than or equal to the MVEB in 2021. Our
conformity regulation also allows the
implementation plan (maintenance plan
in this case) to quantify explicitly the
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
46154
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
amount motor vehicle emissions that
could be higher in 2013, while allowing
a demonstration of maintenance of the
NAAQS (40 CFR 93.124). This process
is known as allocating all or a portion
of the designated safety margin to the
MVEB and is further described in 40
CFR 93.124 and below.
In addition, our January 18, 2002
MOBILE6 policy states that ‘‘ * * *
regardless of the technique used for
attainment or maintenance
demonstrations, a more rigorous
assessment of the SIP’s demonstration
may be necessary if a State decides to
reallocate possible excess emission
reductions to the motor vehicle
emissions budget safety factor.’’ Since
the State decided to allocate available
excess emissions reductions in the
revised maintenance plan to the 2013
and 2021 MVEBs, we required a ‘‘more
rigorous assessment’’ in order to ensure
that even with the allocation of safety
margin to the 2013 and 2021 MVEBs,
the revised maintenance plan would
continue to demonstrate maintenance.
The ‘‘more rigorous assessment’’ is
described in section E.2 of the revised
Denver CO maintenance plan, in the
State’s TSD, and below.
In section E.2 of the revised Denver
CO maintenance plan, the State revises
the 2013 MVEB and establishes a MVEB
for 2021 and these MVEBs are
applicable to the boundaries of the
Denver CO attainment/maintenance
area. The revised maintenance plan
estimates the available safety margin
using the EPA recommended ‘‘more
rigorous assessment’’ methodology and
allocates a portion of the available safety
margin to the MVEBs in 2013 and 2021
as illustrated in Table V–2 below.
TABLE V–2.—DERIVATION OF THE MVEBS FOR 2013 AND 2021 AND ALLOCATION OF THE SAFETY MARGIN
2013
2021
Explanation
2001 Total Attainment Inventory ................
1997
1997
Area and Point Source Emissions .............
Mobile Source Emissions ...........................
349
1429
378
1372
2001 attainment year inventory from all sources that established attainment level of
emissions in the attainment/maintenance area.
Total estimated emissions from point and area sources.
Estimated mobile source emissions based on MOBILE6.2 and State control strategies.
Total Emission Inventory ............................
Potential Safety Margin ..............................
1778
219
1750
247
Allowable Mobile Source Emissions ..........
1648
1619
Available Safety Margin .............................
219
247
Portion of the Safety Margin Reserved .....
23
19
Safety Margin allocated to the MVEB ........
2013 and 2021 MVEBs ..............................
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Budget years
196
1625
228
1600
As stated above, our January 18, 2002
MOBILE6 policy required a ‘‘more
rigorous assessment’’ in order to ensure
that even with the allocation of safety
margin emissions to the MVEBs, the
revised maintenance plan would
continue to demonstrate maintenance.
We determined that a ‘‘more rigorous
assessment’’ for the revised Denver CO
maintenance plan would be an
intersection modeling analysis similar
to that performed by the State for the
original EPA-approved Denver CO
maintenance plan and the previously
revised EPA-approved Denver CO
maintenance plan. The State’s
intersection analysis used a background
CO concentration combined with
CAL3QHC intersection (‘‘hot spot’’)
modeling of the same six high-volume,
high congestion intersections that were
analyzed for the original and previously
revised maintenance plan.
The background CO concentration for
each intersection used the second
highest 8-hour maximum monitored
value at a nearby CO ambient air quality
monitor for the time period of 2000
through 2002. The CAL3QHC
intersection modeling used 2013 and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
Difference between the 2001 and 2013 and 2021 total emission inventories, respectively.
Total mobile source emissions that demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS
based on EPA’s recommended ‘‘more rigorous assessment’’.
Difference between allowable mobile source emissions and estimated mobile source
emissions which equals the available safety margin that may be allocated to the
MVEB.
Portion of the available safety margin that is reserved to account for point/area
growth and other modeling uncertainties.
Difference between available safety margin and the reserved safety margin.
Total of estimated mobile source emissions and safety margin assigned to the budget, which establishes the MVEB for 2013 and 2021.
2021 MOBILE6.2 mobile sources
emissions and DRCOG projected traffic
data. The background concentration and
results from the CAL3QHC modeling
were then combined for each
intersection. If the resulting
concentration was greater than 9 ppm
(the CO NAAQS), the background
concentration was reduced by the
necessary percentage to bring the total
intersection value below 9 ppm. Since
it is assumed that background
concentrations are influenced by
regional emissions of CO, the State, in
order to determine the allowable
regional emissions, reduced the base
regional emissions (1997 tons per day in
2001) by the same percentage it had to
reduce the initial background
concentration.
The State modeled the six
intersections based on the 2013 MVEB
of 1625 tons per day and the 2021
MVEB of 1600 tons per day of CO. The
results are shown in Table 13 on page
23, of the State’s revised maintenance
plan and are reproduced in Table V–3
below.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
TABLE V–3.—INTERSECTION
MODELING RESULTS
[In parts per million]
Intersection
28th & Arapahoe (Boulder)
University & Belleview ......
University & 1st Ave. ........
Foothills & Arapahoe
(Boulder) .......................
Wadsworth & Alameda .....
20th & Broadway (CAMP)
2013
Total
ppm
2021
Total
ppm
7.8
7.1
7.5
7.3
6.8
7.1
7.3
6.5
6.6
6.9
6.0
6.5
The modeling results presented in the
revised Denver CO maintenance plan
and the State’s TSD, and repeated in
Table V–3 above, show that CO
concentrations are not estimated to
exceed the 9.0 ppm 8-hour average CO
NAAQS for 2013 or 2021. We have
concluded that the State has
satisfactorily addressed the
requirements of our January 18, 2002
MOBILE6 policy for a ‘‘more rigorous
assessment’’ of MVEBs and has also
demonstrated maintenance of the CO
NAAQS while using a transportation
conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
46155
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
for 2013 and 1600 tons per day for 2021.
Therefore, we are approving the
transportation conformity MVEB of
1625 tons per day of CO, for the Denver
attainment/maintenance area, for 2013
and 1600 tons per day of CO, for the
Denver attainment/maintenance area,
for 2021.
Pursuant to § 93.118(e)(4) of EPA’s
transportation conformity rule, as
amended, EPA must determine the
adequacy of submitted MVEBs. EPA
reviewed the Denver CO 2021 budget for
adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4), and determined that the
2021 budget was adequate for
conformity purposes. EPA’s adequacy
determination was made in a letter to
the State on May 3, 2007, and was
announced in the Federal Register on
June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result
of this adequacy finding, the 2021
budget took effect for conformity
determinations in the Denver area on
June 28, 2007. However, we are not
bound by that determination in acting
on the maintenance plan.
(2) Longmont
Section D, ‘‘Transportation
Conformity and Mobile Source Carbon
Monoxide Emission Budgets,’’ of the
Longmont CO revised maintenance plan
briefly describes the applicable
transportation conformity requirements,
provides MVEB calculations, identifies
safety margin, and indicates that the
City of Longmont and DRCOG elected to
apply the identified safety margin to the
MVEB for 2010 through 2014, 2015
through 2019, and 2020 and beyond.
Specifically, the CO MVEBs are defined
as 43 tons per day for 2010 through
2014, 43 tons per day for 2015 through
2019, and 43 tons per day for 2020 and
beyond. As we explained more fully
above in V.(1), ‘‘Denver,’’ we view these
as the budgets for 2010, 2015, and 2020
respectively.
For the revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan, the safety margin is
the difference between the attainment
year (1993) total emissions and the
projected future year’s total emissions.
Part, or all, of the safety margin may be
added to projected mobile source CO
emissions to arrive at a motor vehicle
emissions budget to be used for
transportation conformity purposes. The
safety margins, less one ton per day,
were added to projected mobile source
CO emissions for 2010, 2015, and 2020.
The derivation and determination of
safety margins and motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the Longmont CO
maintenance plan is further illustrated
in Table V–4 below and in section D of
the revised maintenance plan.
TABLE V–4.—MOBILE SOURCES EMISSIONS, SAFETY MARGINS, AND MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS
In Tons of CO per Day (tpd)
Mobile
source
emissions
(tpd)
1993 ................
2010 ................
....................
40.452
53.298
49.565
2015 ................
36.459
45.348
2020 ................
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Year
35.456
44.558
Total
emissions
(tpd)
Our analysis indicates that the above
figures are consistent with maintenance
of the CO NAAQS throughout the
maintenance period. Therefore, we are
approving the 43 tons per day CO MVEB
for 2010, 2015, and 2020 for the
Longmont area.
As described above, EPA must
determine the adequacy of submitted
MVEBs. EPA reviewed the Longmont
CO 2020 budget for adequacy using the
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and
determined that the 2020 budget was
adequate for conformity purposes.
EPA’s adequacy determination was
made in a letter to the State on May 3,
2007, and was announced in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2007 (72
FR 32646). As a result of this adequacy
finding, the 2020 budget took effect for
conformity determinations in the
Longmont area on June 28, 2007.
However, we are not bound by that
determination in acting on the
maintenance plan.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
Margin of
safety
(tpd)
Math
53.298 ¥ 49.565 = 3.733 ..........................................................
3.733 ¥ 1 = 2.733 .....................................................................
2.733 + 40.452 = 43.185 ...........................................................
53.298 ¥ 45.348 = 7.95 ............................................................
7.95 ¥ 1 = 6.95 .........................................................................
6.95 + 36.459 = 43.409 .............................................................
53.298 ¥ 44.558 = 8.74 ............................................................
8.74 ¥ 1 = 7.74 .........................................................................
7.74 + 35.456 = 43.196 .............................................................
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the Regulation
No. 11 Revisions
Colorado’s Regulation No. 11 is
entitled, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program.’’ In developing the
revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the State conducted
a comprehensive reevaluation of mobile
source control programs with
MOBILE6.2 and the latest transportation
sets from DRCOG’s 2030 Regional
Transportation Plan. Based on the
results from the modeling
demonstration in the State’s TSD [R4],
Colorado’s Regulation No. 11 can be
removed from the revised Denver and
Longmont CO maintenance plans
effective December 31, 2007. These
revised maintenance plans reflect the
removal of Regulation No. 11 in that the
mobile source CO emissions were
calculated without the CO emissions
reduction benefit of an inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program starting
January 1, 2008 and continuing through
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Motor vehicle
emission
budget
(tpd)
2.733
43
6.95
43
7.74
43
2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont.
The phase-out of residual I/M program
benefits is estimated in the 2009 and
2010 analysis years. January 1, 2009 will
have half the benefit of a biennial I/M
program and January 1, 2010 will have
no residual benefit due to the I/M
program. Even with the elimination of
the I/M program from the revised
Denver and Longmont CO maintenance
plans beginning on January 1, 2008, the
areas were still able to meet our
requirements to demonstrate
maintenance of the CO standard through
2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont.
We note that the removal of the I/M
program from Denver’s revised CO
maintenance plan does not mean the I/
M program is eliminated. The State
relies on the
I/M program in Denver’s
1-hour ozone maintenance plan and
Denver’s 8-hour ozone Early Action
Compact (EAC). Therefore, the motor
vehicle I/M program will remain intact
in the Denver-metro area. We have
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
46156
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
reviewed and are approving the removal
of Regulation No. 11 from the revised
Denver and Longmont CO maintenance
plans.
Additionally, we note that the State
had made previous revisions to
Regulation No. 11 regarding the repeal
of the basic vehicle emissions
inspection program in the Fort Collins
and Greeley areas that were adopted by
the Colorado AQCC on November 17,
2005, and submitted to us for approval
by the Governor on August 8, 2006. We
previously approved Fort Collins’ and
Greeley’s revised CO maintenance plans
which eliminated the Basic I/M program
from the Federal SIP on July 22, 2003
and August 19, 2005, respectively (68
FR 43316 and 70 FR 48650). Without
the CO emissions reduction benefit of a
Basic I/M program, these areas were still
able to meet our requirements to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO
standard. The August 8, 2006 submittal
merely clarifies the geographical
applicability in Part A.1 and Part A.IV.
In addition, the August 8, 2006
submittal also eliminates the inspection
requirement for vehicles that have not
yet reached their fourth model year,
registering in the I/M program area for
the first time. This is consistent with the
regulation and the mobile source
modeling that the first four model years
are exempt from the I/M program. We
have reviewed and are approving Part
A.1 and Part A.IV of Regulation No. 11
as submitted on August 8, 2006, to
repeal the Basic Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program in the Fort Collins
and Greeley areas.[R5] Please note we are
not acting on other Regulation No. 11
revisions submitted on August 8, 2006
at this time. These other revisions are
located in Part F and revise the
emissions limits for motor vehicle
exhaust, evaporative and visible
emissions for light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles.
VII. EPA’s Evaluation of the Regulation
No. 13 Revisions
Colorado’s Regulation No. 13 is
entitled, ‘‘Oxygenated Fuels Program.’’
The purpose of this regulation is to
reduce CO emissions from gasoline
powered motor vehicles through the
wintertime use of oxygenated gasoline.
In developing the revised Denver and
Longmont CO maintenance plans, the
State conducted a comprehensive
reevaluation of mobile source control
programs with MOBILE6.2 and the
latest transportation sets from DRCOG’s
2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Based on the results from the modeling
demonstration in the State’s TSD[R6],
Colorado’s Regulation No. 13 can be
removed from the revised Denver and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
Longmont CO maintenance plans
effective December 31, 2007. These
maintenance plans reflect the removal
of Regulation No. 13 in that the mobile
source CO emissions were calculated
without the CO emissions reduction
benefit of an oxygenated fuels program
starting January 1, 2008 and continuing
through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for
Longmont. Even with the elimination of
the oxygenated fuels program from the
revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans beginning on
January 1, 2008, the areas were still able
to meet our requirements to demonstrate
maintenance of the CO standard through
2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont.
Additionally, we note that the State
had made previous revisions to
Regulation No. 13 regarding methyl tertbutyl ether (MTBE) that were adopted
by the Colorado AQCC on January 11,
2001, and submitted to us for approval
by the Governor on July 31, 2002. With
our approval of the removal of
Regulation No. 13 from the revised
Denver and Longmont CO maintenance
plans, the oxygenated fuels program is
not federally required and will no
longer be federally applicable in any
area. Regulation No. 13 will, however,
remain as a state only regulation.
Therefore, this July 31, 2002 submittal
does not require further EPA action. We
have reviewed and are approving the
removal of Regulation No. 13 from the
revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans.
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of
the Clean Air Act
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that
a SIP revision cannot be approved if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress towards attainment of a
NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. As stated
above, the revised CO maintenance
plans show continuous attainment of
the CO NAQAQS since 2001 for Denver
and 1993 for Longmont. The revised
maintenance plans along with the
removal of Regulation No. 11 and
Regulation No. 13 will not interfere with
attainment, reasonable further progress,
or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.
IX. Final Action
In this action, EPA is approving the
revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, that were submitted
on September 25, 2006, and we are also
approving the revised transportation
conformity motor vehicle emission
budgets for CO for the years 2013 and
2021 for Denver, and 2010, 2015, and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2020 for Longmont. Furthermore, we are
approving the removal of Regulation No.
11 (I/M) and Regulation No. 13
(Oxygenated Fuels) from the revised
Denver and Longmont CO maintenance
plans.
EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed
Rules’’ section of today’s Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing
a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision
if adverse comments are filed. This rule
will be effective October 16, 2007
without further notice unless the
Agency receives adverse comments by
September 17, 2007. If the EPA receives
adverse comments, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 159 / Friday, August 17, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Aug 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 16, 2007.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
46157
(m) Revisions to the Colorado State
Implementation Plan, revised Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Denver,
as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission on December 15,
2005, State effective on March 2, 2006,
and submitted by the Governor’s
designee on September 25, 2006.
(n) Revisions to the Colorado State
Implementation Plan, revised Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for
Longmont, as adopted by the Colorado
Air Quality Control Commission on
December 15, 2005, State effective on
March 2, 2006, and submitted by the
Governor’s designee on September 25,
2006.
[FR Doc. E7–16146 Filed 8–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2007–0110; FRL–8456–3]
Dated: July 31, 2007.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
follows:
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho and
Washington; Interstate Transport of
Pollution; Withdrawal of Direct Final
Rule
AGENCY:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G—Colorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(111) [R7]to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.320
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(111) On August 8, 2006, the
Governor of Colorado submitted SIP
revisions to Colorado’s Regulation No.
11 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program’’ that repeals the basic vehicle
emissions inspection program in the
Fort Collins and Greeley areas.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation No. 11 ‘‘Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection Program,’’
5CCR1001–13, Part A.1 and Part A.IV,
as adopted on November 17, 2005, and
effective January 30, 2006.
I 3. Section 52.349 is amended by
adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as
follows:
§ 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon
monoxide.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00019
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.
SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,
EPA is withdrawing the June 26, 2007
direct final rule (72 FR 35015) to
approve the actions of the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ) and the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) to
address the provisions of the Clean Air
Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the June
26, 2007 direct final rule, we stated that
if we received adverse comments by
July 26, 2007, EPA would publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
rule would not take effect. EPA
subsequently received adverse comment
on that direct final rule. EPA will
address all comments received in a
subsequent final action based upon the
proposed action also published on June
26, 2007 (72 FR 35022). EPA will not
institute a second comment period on
this document.
DATES: Effective Date: The direct final
rule published on June 26, 2007 (72 FR
35015) is withdrawn as of August 17,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claudia Vaupel, Office of Air, Waste
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 159 (Friday, August 17, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46148-46157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16146]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465; FRL-8453-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado.
On September 25, 2006, the Governor's designee submitted revised carbon
monoxide (CO) maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and
Longmont areas for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). These revised maintenance plans address maintenance of the CO
standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extends the
horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets.
In addition, Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program,'' and Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels Program,'' are
removed from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. EPA
is approving Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans, and
the revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, EPA is also
approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from
Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 16, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 17,
2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-0465, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and fiedler.kerri@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-0465. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available at http:/
/
[[Page 46149]]
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through https://
www.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 the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
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 https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g. CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone (303) 312-
6493, and e-mail at: fiedler.kerri@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. EPA's Evaluation of Denver's and Longmont's Revised CO
Maintenance Plans
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
VI. EPA's Evaluation of Regulation No. 11 Revisions
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Regulation No. 13 Revisions
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
IX. Final Action
X. 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
https://www.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 includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. What is the purpose of this action?
In this action, we are approving revised maintenance plans for the
Denver and Longmont CO attainment/maintenance areas, that are designed
to keep the areas in attainment for CO for a second ten-year period
beyond redesignation. In addition, we are approving revised
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs), and
the removal of Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program,'' and Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels Program,'' from
Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans.
We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Denver area on December 14, 2001 (see 66 FR
64751), and a revised CO maintenance plan for the Denver area on
September 16, 2004 (see 69 FR 55752). The State has made the following
changes: (1) Revised and updated the mobile source CO emissions with
MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11, the
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and Regulation No. 13, the
oxygenated fuels program; (2) updated the transportation projections
and stationary source inventories; (3) revised the MVEBs including
applying a selected amount of the available safety margin to the
transportation conformity MVEBs; and, (4) extended the horizon
[[Page 46150]]
year to 2021. We have determined that these changes are approvable as
further described below.
We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Longmont area on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR
51694), and a revised CO maintenance plan for the Longmont area on
September 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 58264). The State has made the following
changes: (1) Revised and updated the mobile source CO emissions with
MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of the I/M and oxygenated fuels
programs; (2) updated the transportation projections and stationary
source inventories; (3) revised the MVEBs including applying a selected
amount of the available safety margin to the transportation conformity
MVEBs; and, (4) extended the horizon year to 2020. We have determined
that these changes are approvable as further described below.
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 State Implementation Plan (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.
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Denver and Longmont carbon monoxide (CO)
maintenance plans, Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 on December
15, 2005. The AQCC adopted the revised CO maintenance plans and removal
of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from Denver's and Longmont's
revised CO maintenance plans directly after the hearing. This SIP
revision became State effective on March 2, 2006, and was submitted by
the Governor's designee to us on September 25, 2006.
We have evaluated the revised maintenance plans and have determined
that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public
hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by 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 submittal was administratively and
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on
February 21, 2007, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Bill Ritter.
IV. EPA's evaluation of Denver's and Longmont's Revised CO Maintenance
Plans
EPA has reviewed the State's revised CO maintenance plans for the
Denver and Longmont attainment/maintenance areas and believes that
approval is warranted. The following are the key aspects of these
revisions along with our evaluation of each:
(a) The State has revised the Denver and Longmont CO maintenance
plans and has provided air quality data that show continuous attainment
of the CO NAAQS.
As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating
that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a
reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The original Denver CO maintenance
plan, approved by EPA on December 14, 2001, relied on ambient air
quality data from 1996 through 1999. The previously revised Denver CO
maintenance plan, approved by EPA on September 16, 2004, relied on
ambient air quality data from 2000 through 2002. This revised Denver CO
maintenance plan submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air
quality data from 2002 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient
air quality data from 2005 and 2006 and the Denver area shows
continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS from 2000 to present.
The original Longmont CO maintenance plan, approved by EPA on
September 24, 1999, relied on ambient air quality data from 1989
through 1996. The previously revised Longmont CO maintenance plan,
approved by EPA on September 30, 2004, relied on ambient air quality
data from 1993 through 2003. This revised Longmont CO maintenance plan
submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air quality data from
1999 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data
from 2005 and 2006 and the Longmont area shows continuous attainment of
the CO NAAQS from 1993 to present. All the above-referenced air quality
data are archived in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
(AIRS).
(b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State updated
the attainment year, projected years and the maintenance year emission
inventories.
(1) The State updated the attainment year (2001), projected years
(2009, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020) and the maintenance year (2021) emission
inventories for Denver's revised CO maintenance plan.
Denver's revised CO maintenance plan submitted on September 25,
2006, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the Denver
area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point
sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile
sources. More detailed descriptions of the 2001 attainment year
inventory, the revised 2013 projected inventory, the new 2009, 2010,
2015, and 2020 projected inventories, and the 2021 maintenance year
projected inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in
section C, ``Emission Inventories'' and in the State's Technical
Support Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains emission
inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance. Summary emission figures from the 2001 attainment year and
the projected years are provided in Table IV-1 below.
Table IV-1.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2009 2010 2013 2015 2020 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................... 15.3 18.1 18.5 19.8 20.4 22.9 23.3
Area Sources..................................... 74.1 80.5 81.2 83.4 84.9 88.7 89.4
Non-Road Mobile Sources.......................... 199.4 239.0 241.3 245.6 250.4 262.6 265.6
On-Road Mobile Sources........................... 1708.1 1476.8 1523.9 1429.2 1416.0 1362.7 1372.1
[[Page 46151]]
Total........................................ 1997.0 1814.5 1864.9 1778.1 1771.7 1736.9 1750.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the small contribution of certain source
categories. They are not intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals may not add due
to rounding.
(2) The State updated the attainment year (1993), projected years
(2009, 2010, 2015) and the maintenance year (2020) emission inventories
for Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan.
Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan submitted on September 25,
2006, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the
Longmont area. These inventories include emissions from stationary
point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the 1993 attainment year
inventory, the revised 2010, and 2015 projected inventories, the new
2009 projected inventory, and the 2020 maintenance year projected
inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in section C,
``Emission Inventories and Maintenance Demonstration,'' and in the
State's TSD. The State's submittal contains emission inventory
information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary
emission figures from the 1993 attainment year and the projected years
are provided in Table IV-2 below.
Table IV-2.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for Longmont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 1993 2009 2010 2015 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................ 0.18 0.053 0.055 0.059 0.066
Area......................................... 3.503 2.948 2.956 3.0 3.048
Non-Road Mobile.............................. 6.36 5.983 6.012 5.829 5.988
On-Road Mobile............................... 43.255 39.952 40.452 36.459 35.456
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 53.298 48.938 49.565 45.348 44.558
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the
small contribution of certain source categories. They are not
intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals
may not add due to rounding.
The State's approach follows EPA guidance on projected emissions
and we believe it is acceptable.\1\ Further information on these
projected emissions may also be found in the State's TSD. The revised
mobile source emissions show the largest change from the original and
previously revised maintenance plans and this is primarily due to the
removal of the vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) (Regulation No. 11)
and oxygenated fuels (Regulation No. 13) programs, effective January 1,
2008. The phase-out of residual I/M program benefits is estimated in
the 2009 and 2010 analysis years. January 1, 2009 will have half the
benefit of a biennial I/M program and January 1, 2010 will have no
residual benefit due to the I/M program. The MOBILE6.2 modeling
information is contained in the State's TSD. Much of the modeling data,
input-output files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input parameters, etc. are
on a compact disc (CD), included with the docket for this action, and
available from either EPA or the State. Other revisions to the mobile
sources categories were due to revised vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
estimates that were provided to the State from the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG) which is the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) for both the Denver and Longmont areas. The revised
VMT were extracted from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan of
January, 2005. In summary, the revised maintenance plans and State TSDs
contain detailed emission inventory information, that was prepared in
accordance with EPA guidance, and are acceptable to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas'', signed by D.
Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division,
November 30, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The State revised the maintenance demonstration used in the
original and previously revised maintenance plans.
(1) Denver
The original Denver CO redesignation maintenance plan, approved on
December 14, 2001, was revised and approved by EPA on September 16,
2004. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a
second ten-year period beyond redesignation.
The September 25, 2006 revised maintenance plan updated mobile
source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of
Regulation No. 11, the vehicle I/M program and Regulation No. 13, the
oxygenated fuels program (from the CO maintenance plan), and using the
most recent planning assumptions for the Denver metropolitan area from
DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The modeling domain-
wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are presented in section C.2.(a) of
Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and Table IV-3 below.
Table IV-3.--Estimated Daily VMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2001 2005 2015 2020 2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57,984,600 61,842,200 77,544,600 84,765,600 98,499,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46152]]
Section C.2.(b) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan contains a
discussion of the State's assessment of point source emissions. Point
source inventories were updated including new sources permitted since
the previously approved maintenance plan. The State indicates point
sources have little or no impact on the maintenance demonstration,
consistent with what EPA has approved in previous maintenance plans. We
find the State's overall analysis of revised point source emissions
acceptable.
For the non-road and area source emissions, the State relied upon
updated demographic information from DRCOG. Several of the non-road and
area source emissions are dependent on demographic data as a surrogate
emission factor. DRCOG demographics are presented below from section
C.1 (Table 4) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and a further
discussion is presented in the State's TSD.
Table IV-4.--Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2001 2005 2015 2020 2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population..................................... 2,304,700 2,454,300 2,853,200 3,099,300 3,591,600
Households..................................... 916,480 988,000 1,156,300 1,262,300 1,474,400
Employment..................................... 1,306,800 1,267,100 1,612,300 1,721,300 1,939,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have concluded that the revised maintenance demonstration is
approvable.
(2) Longmont
The original Longmont CO redesignation maintenance plan, approved
on September 24, 1999, was revised and approved by EPA on September 30,
2004. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a
second ten-year period beyond redesignation.
This revised maintenance plan updated mobile source CO emissions
with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11 and
Regulation No. 13 (from the CO maintenance plan), and using the latest
transportation and demographic data from DRCOG. All emission source
categories (point, area, non-road, and mobile) were updated using the
latest version of applicable models (including MOBILE6.2),
transportation data sets, emissions data, emission factors, population
figures and other demographic information. As discussed above, the
State prepared emission inventories for the years 1993, 2009, 2010,
2015 and 2020. The results of these calculations are presented in Table
3, ``1993-2020 Longmont CO Attainment Area Emissions (Tons per Day),''
on page 7 of the Longmont CO revised maintenance plan and are also
summarized in our Table IV-2 above. Emissions for all future years are
less than emissions for the 1993 attainment year. Therefore,
maintenance of the CO NAAQS is demonstrated and is approvable.
(d) Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in both the Denver and
Longmont areas depend, in part, on the State's efforts to track
indicators throughout the maintenance period. This requirement is met
in section F, ``Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued
Attainment'' of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan and section E,
``Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment'' of the
revised Longmont CO maintenance plan. In these sections, the State
commits to continue operating the CO monitors in both the Denver and
Longmont areas, and to annually review the monitoring networks and make
changes as appropriate.
Also, in these sections, the State commits to track CO emissions
from mobile sources (which are the largest component of the
inventories) through the ongoing regional transportation planning
process done by DRCOG. Since regular revisions to the transportation
improvement programs are prepared every two years, and must go through
a transportation conformity finding, the State will use this process to
periodically review the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and mobile source
emissions projections used in the revised maintenance plans. This
regional transportation process is conducted by DRCOG in coordination
with the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) (in Denver), the City of
Longmont (in Longmont), the State's Air Pollution Control Division
(APCD), the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), and EPA.
Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements[R3] from ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' signed by
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4,
1992. We note that our final rulemaking approval renders the State's
commitments federally enforceable. These commitments are also the same
as those we approved in the original and the previously revised
maintenance plans.
(e) Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures.
As stated in section G of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan
and section F of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, the
contingency measures for both the Denver and Longmont areas will be
triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS. (However, the maintenance
plans note that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary,
local process by the RAQC (in Denver) or the City of Longmont (in
Longmont), and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency
measures.)
The RAQC (in Denver) or the City of Longmont (in Longmont), in
coordination with the APCD and AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee
process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures no more than
60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation of the CO
NAAQS has occurred. The subcommittee will present recommendations
within 120 days of notification and recommended contingency measures
will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC
will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency
measures, along with any other contingency measures that the AQCC
believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation of the
CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and
implemented within one year after the violation occurs.
The potential contingency measures that are identified in section
G.1 of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and section F.3 of
Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan include: (1) A
[[Page 46153]]
3.1% oxygenated fuels program from November 8 through February 7, with
a 2.0% oxygen content required from November 1 through November 7, and
(2) reinstatement of the enhanced I/M program in effect before January
10, 2000. Denver's revised CO maintenance plan also includes a third
potential contingency measure: Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
such as financial incentives for Ecopass, Auraria transit pass, and
improved traffic signalization. Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan
also includes a third potential contingency measure: Nonattainment New
Source Review permitting requirements.
Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided
in Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans are sufficient
and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA. We note the
contingency measures and methodology to implement them are the same as
those we approved in the original and previously revised maintenance
plans.
(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
(1) Denver
The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 2001
through 2013 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of
the CAA, that the CO standard will be maintained for the initial ten-
year period (through 2011). In accordance with section 175A(b),
Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan eight years after our
approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised
maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the CO standard for
the additional ten years (through 2021) following the first ten-year
period.
(2) Longmont
The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 1999
through 2009 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of
the CAA, that the CO standard will be maintained for the initial ten-
year period (through 2009). In accordance with section 175A(b),
Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan eight years after our
approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised
maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the CO standard for
the additional ten years (through 2020) following the first ten-year
period.
Based on our review of the components of the revised Denver and
Longmont CO maintenance plans, as discussed in items IV.(a) through
IV.(f) above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary
requirements for us to fully approve the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans. It is important to note that neither the maintenance
plans nor the control measures relied upon in these maintenance plans
simply go away after the maintenance year (2021 for Denver, 2020 for
Longmont). Both the maintenance plans and control measures relied upon
in these maintenance plans will continue to be a part of Colorado's SIP
unless we approve their removal. Both maintenance plans will remain in
effect until they are revised and we approve the revision.
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Long Range Transportation Plan
and the Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the
emissions budgets in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions
budgets are defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon
in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance
with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's
requirements and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62193-62196) and in the sections of the rule referenced above. With
respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation requires that
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) must be established for the last
year of the maintenance plan and may be established for any other years
deemed appropriate (40 CFR 93.118).
For transportation plan analysis years after the last year of the
maintenance plan, a conformity determination must show that emissions
are less than or equal to the maintenance plan's MVEBs for the last
year of the implementation plan. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR
93.124) also allows the implementation plan to quantify explicitly the
amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher while still
demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement. The
implementation plan can then allocate some, or all, of this additional
safety margin to the emissions budgets for transportation conformity
purposes.
(1) Denver
Section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan describes the
applicable transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs for
the revised Denver CO maintenance plan. The State has established a
MVEB for 2013 through 2020 and 2021 and beyond. Specifically, the CO
MVEBs are defined as 1625 tons per day for 2013 through 2020, and 1600
tons per day for 2021 and beyond. As we explain more fully below, we
view these as the budgets for 2013, and 2021 respectively.
Under our conformity rules, a MVEB is established for a given year,
not for a range of years. This is because the MVEB reflects the
inventory value for motor vehicle emissions in a given year, plus,
potentially, any safety margin in that year. (We explain the concept of
safety margin more fully below.) It is not possible to specify the same
MVEB for a range of years absent specific analysis supporting the
derivation of that budget for each year in the range. As a practical
matter, this is not usually important because our conformity rules also
say that a MVEB for a particular year applies for conformity analyses
of emissions in that year and all subsequent years before the next
budget year. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii), ``Emissions in years for
which no motor vehicle emissions budget(s) are specifically established
must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
established for the most recent prior year.'' Therefore, the ``2013
through 2020'' and the ``2021 and beyond'' budgets were derived from,
the 2013 and 2021 inventory values, respectively, for on-road vehicle
emissions and available safety margin. Thus, we will refer to these as
the 2013 and 2021 budgets in the remainder of this action.
Section E. ``Carbon Monoxide Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget'' of
the revised Denver CO maintenance plan describes the applicable
transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs. The State has
revised the 2013 MVEB, and established a new MVEB for the last year of
the revised maintenance plan, 2021. Based on this, in order for a
positive conformity determination to be made, transportation plan
analyses for years between 2013 and 2020 must show that motor vehicle
emissions will be less than or equal to the MVEB in 2013. In addition,
transportation plan analyses for years after 2021 must show that motor
vehicle emissions will be less than or equal to the MVEB in 2021. Our
conformity regulation also allows the implementation plan (maintenance
plan in this case) to quantify explicitly the
[[Page 46154]]
amount motor vehicle emissions that could be higher in 2013, while
allowing a demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS (40 CFR 93.124).
This process is known as allocating all or a portion of the designated
safety margin to the MVEB and is further described in 40 CFR 93.124 and
below.
In addition, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy states that `` * *
* regardless of the technique used for attainment or maintenance
demonstrations, a more rigorous assessment of the SIP's demonstration
may be necessary if a State decides to reallocate possible excess
emission reductions to the motor vehicle emissions budget safety
factor.'' Since the State decided to allocate available excess
emissions reductions in the revised maintenance plan to the 2013 and
2021 MVEBs, we required a ``more rigorous assessment'' in order to
ensure that even with the allocation of safety margin to the 2013 and
2021 MVEBs, the revised maintenance plan would continue to demonstrate
maintenance. The ``more rigorous assessment'' is described in section
E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan, in the State's TSD, and
below.
In section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan, the State
revises the 2013 MVEB and establishes a MVEB for 2021 and these MVEBs
are applicable to the boundaries of the Denver CO attainment/
maintenance area. The revised maintenance plan estimates the available
safety margin using the EPA recommended ``more rigorous assessment''
methodology and allocates a portion of the available safety margin to
the MVEBs in 2013 and 2021 as illustrated in Table V-2 below.
Table V-2.--Derivation of the MVEBs for 2013 and 2021 and Allocation of
the Safety Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget years 2013 2021 Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Total Attainment Inventory. 1997 1997 2001 attainment year
inventory from all
sources that
established attainment
level of emissions in
the attainment/
maintenance area.
Area and Point Source Emissions. 349 378 Total estimated
emissions from point
and area sources.
Mobile Source Emissions......... 1429 1372 Estimated mobile source
emissions based on
MOBILE6.2 and State
control strategies.
Total Emission Inventory........ 1778 1750
Potential Safety Margin......... 219 247 Difference between the
2001 and 2013 and 2021
total emission
inventories,
respectively.
Allowable Mobile Source 1648 1619 Total mobile source
Emissions. emissions that
demonstrate maintenance
of the CO NAAQS based
on EPA's recommended
``more rigorous
assessment''.
Available Safety Margin......... 219 247 Difference between
allowable mobile source
emissions and estimated
mobile source emissions
which equals the
available safety margin
that may be allocated
to the MVEB.
Portion of the Safety Margin 23 19 Portion of the available
Reserved. safety margin that is
reserved to account for
point/area growth and
other modeling
uncertainties.
Safety Margin allocated to the 196 228 Difference between
MVEB. available safety margin
and the reserved safety
margin.
2013 and 2021 MVEBs............. 1625 1600 Total of estimated
mobile source emissions
and safety margin
assigned to the budget,
which establishes the
MVEB for 2013 and 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy required a
``more rigorous assessment'' in order to ensure that even with the
allocation of safety margin emissions to the MVEBs, the revised
maintenance plan would continue to demonstrate maintenance. We
determined that a ``more rigorous assessment'' for the revised Denver
CO maintenance plan would be an intersection modeling analysis similar
to that performed by the State for the original EPA-approved Denver CO
maintenance plan and the previously revised EPA-approved Denver CO
maintenance plan. The State's intersection analysis used a background
CO concentration combined with CAL3QHC intersection (``hot spot'')
modeling of the same six high-volume, high congestion intersections
that were analyzed for the original and previously revised maintenance
plan.
The background CO concentration for each intersection used the
second highest 8-hour maximum monitored value at a nearby CO ambient
air quality monitor for the time period of 2000 through 2002. The
CAL3QHC intersection modeling used 2013 and 2021 MOBILE6.2 mobile
sources emissions and DRCOG projected traffic data. The background
concentration and results from the CAL3QHC modeling were then combined
for each intersection. If the resulting concentration was greater than
9 ppm (the CO NAAQS), the background concentration was reduced by the
necessary percentage to bring the total intersection value below 9 ppm.
Since it is assumed that background concentrations are influenced by
regional emissions of CO, the State, in order to determine the
allowable regional emissions, reduced the base regional emissions (1997
tons per day in 2001) by the same percentage it had to reduce the
initial background concentration.
The State modeled the six intersections based on the 2013 MVEB of
1625 tons per day and the 2021 MVEB of 1600 tons per day of CO. The
results are shown in Table 13 on page 23, of the State's revised
maintenance plan and are reproduced in Table V-3 below.
Table V-3.--Intersection Modeling Results
[In parts per million]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2021
Intersection Total Total
ppm ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28th & Arapahoe (Boulder)............................. 7.8 7.3
University & Belleview................................ 7.1 6.8
University & 1st Ave.................................. 7.5 7.1
Foothills & Arapahoe (Boulder)........................ 7.3 6.9
Wadsworth & Alameda................................... 6.5 6.0
20th & Broadway (CAMP)................................ 6.6 6.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeling results presented in the revised Denver CO maintenance
plan and the State's TSD, and repeated in Table V-3 above, show that CO
concentrations are not estimated to exceed the 9.0 ppm 8-hour average
CO NAAQS for 2013 or 2021. We have concluded that the State has
satisfactorily addressed the requirements of our January 18, 2002
MOBILE6 policy for a ``more rigorous assessment'' of MVEBs and has also
demonstrated maintenance of the CO NAAQS while using a transportation
conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day
[[Page 46155]]
for 2013 and 1600 tons per day for 2021. Therefore, we are approving
the transportation conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day of CO, for the
Denver attainment/maintenance area, for 2013 and 1600 tons per day of
CO, for the Denver attainment/maintenance area, for 2021.
Pursuant to Sec. 93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity
rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted MVEBs.
EPA reviewed the Denver CO 2021 budget for adequacy using the criteria
in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2021 budget was
adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made
in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this
adequacy finding, the 2021 budget took effect for conformity
determinations in the Denver area on June 28, 2007. However, we are not
bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan.
(2) Longmont
Section D, ``Transportation Conformity and Mobile Source Carbon
Monoxide Emission Budgets,'' of the Longmont CO revised maintenance
plan briefly describes the applicable transportation conformity
requirements, provides MVEB calculations, identifies safety margin, and
indicates that the City of Longmont and DRCOG elected to apply the
identified safety margin to the MVEB for 2010 through 2014, 2015
through 2019, and 2020 and beyond. Specifically, the CO MVEBs are
defined as 43 tons per day for 2010 through 2014, 43 tons per day for
2015 through 2019, and 43 tons per day for 2020 and beyond. As we
explained more fully above in V.(1), ``Denver,'' we view these as the
budgets for 2010, 2015, and 2020 respectively.
For the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, the safety margin is
the difference between the attainment year (1993) total emissions and
the projected future year's total emissions. Part, or all, of the
safety margin may be added to projected mobile source CO emissions to
arrive at a motor vehicle emissions budget to be used for
transportation conformity purposes. The safety margins, less one ton
per day, were added to projected mobile source CO emissions for 2010,
2015, and 2020. The derivation and determination of safety margins and
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Longmont CO maintenance plan is
further illustrated in Table V-4 below and in section D of the revised
maintenance plan.
Table V-4.--Mobile Sources Emissions, Safety Margins, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
In Tons of CO per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile
source Total Margin of Motor vehicle
Year emissions emissions Math safety (tpd) emission
(tpd) (tpd) budget (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.......................... ........... 53.298
2010.......................... 40.452 49.565 53.298 - 49.565 = 2.733 43
3.733.
3.733 - 1 = 2.733.....
2.733 + 40.452 =
43.185.
2015.......................... 36.459 45.348 53.298 - 45.348 = 7.95 6.95 43
7.95 - 1 = 6.95.......
6.95 + 36.459 = 43.409
2020.......................... 35.456 44.558 53.298 - 44.558 = 8.74 7.74 43
8.74 - 1 = 7.74.......
7.74 + 35.456 = 43.196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with
maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period.
Therefore, we are approving the 43 tons per day CO MVEB for 2010, 2015,
and 2020 for the Longmont area.
As described above, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted
MVEBs. EPA reviewed the Longmont CO 2020 budget for adequacy using the
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2020 budget
was adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was
made in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this
adequacy finding, the 2020 budget took effect for conformity
determinations in the Longmont area on June 28, 2007. However, we are
not bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan.
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions
Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program.'' In developing the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of
mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest
transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Based on the results from the modeling demonstration in the State's TSD
[R4], Colorado's Regulation No. 11 can be removed from the
revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans effective December 31,
2007. These revised maintenance plans reflect the removal of Regulation
No. 11 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without
the CO emissions reduction benefit of an inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program starting January 1, 2008 and continuing through 2021 for
Denver and 2020 for Longmont. The phase-out of residual I/M program
benefits is estimated in the 2009 and 2010 analysis years. January 1,
2009 will have half the benefit of a biennial I/M program and January
1, 2010 will have no residual benefit due to the I/M program. Even with
the elimination of the I/M program from the revised Denver and Longmont
CO maintenance plans beginning on January 1, 2008, the areas were still
able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the CO
standard through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont.
We note that the removal of the I/M program from Denver's revised
CO maintenance plan does not mean the I/M program is eliminated. The
State relies on the I/M program in Denver's 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan and Denver's 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore,
the motor vehicle I/M program will remain intact in the Denver-metro
area. We have
[[Page 46156]]
reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 from the
revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans.
Additionally, we note that the State had made previous revisions to
Regulation No. 11 regarding the repeal of the basic vehicle emissions
inspection program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas that were
adopted by the Colorado AQCC on November 17, 2005, and submitted to us
for approval by the Governor on August 8, 2006. We previously approved
Fort Collins' and Greeley's revised CO maintenance plans which
eliminated the Basic I/M program from the Federal SIP on July 22, 2003
and August 19, 2005, respectively (68 FR 43316 and 70 FR 48650).
Without the CO emissions reduction benefit of a Basic I/M program,
these areas were still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate
maintenance of the CO standard. The August 8, 2006 submittal merely
clarifies the geographical applicability in Part A.1 and Part A.IV. In
addition, the August 8, 2006 submittal also eliminates the inspection
requirement for vehicles that have not yet reached their fourth model
year, registering in the I/M program area for the first time. This is
consistent with the regulation and the mobile source modeling that the
first four model years are exempt from the I/M program. We have
reviewed and are approving Part A.1 and Part A.IV of Regulation No. 11
as submitted on August 8, 2006, to repeal the Basic Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas.[R5]
Please note we are not acting on other Regulation No. 11 revisions
submitted on August 8, 2006 at this time. These other revisions are
located in Part F and revise the emissions limits for motor vehicle
exhaust, evaporative and visible emissions for light-duty and heavy-
duty vehicles.
VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 13 Revisions
Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled, ``Oxygenated Fuels
Program.'' The purpose of this regulation is to reduce CO emissions
from gasoline powered motor vehicles through the wintertime use of
oxygenated gasoline. In developing the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of
mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest
transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Based on the results from the modeling demonstration in the State's
TSD[R6], Colorado's Regulation No. 13 can be removed from
the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans effective December
31, 2007. These maintenance plans reflect the removal of Regulation No.
13 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without the
CO emissions reduction benefit of an oxygenated fuels program starting
January 1, 2008 and continuing through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for
Longmont. Even with the elimination of the oxygenated fuels program
from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans beginning on
January 1, 2008, the areas were still able to meet our requirements to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard through 2021 for Denver and
2020 for Longmont.
Additionally, we note that the State had made previous revisions to
Regulation No. 13 regarding methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) that were
adopted by the Colorado AQCC on January 11, 2001, and submitted to us
for approval by the Governor on July 31, 2002. With our approval of the
removal of Regulation No. 13 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the oxygenated fuels program is not federally
required and will no longer be federally applicable in any area.
Regulation No. 13 will, however, remain as a state only regulation.
Therefore, this July 31, 2002 submittal does not require further EPA
action. We have reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation
No. 13 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans.
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. As stated above, the revised CO maintenance plans show
continuous attainment of the CO NAQAQS since 2001 for Denver and 1993
for Longmont. The revised maintenance plans along with the removal of
Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 will not interfere with
attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
IX. Final Action
In this action, EPA is approving the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, that were submitted on September 25, 2006, and we
are also approving the revised transportation conformity motor vehicle
emission budgets for CO for the years 2013 and 2021 for Denver, and
2010, 2015, and 2020 for Longmont. Furthermore, we are approving the
removal of Regulation No. 11 (I/M) and Regulation No. 13 (Oxygenated
Fuels) from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2007
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
September 17, 2007. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
[[Page 46157]]
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to
