Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance, Clean Screen Program and the Low Emitter Index, On-Board Diagnostics, and Associated Revisions, 53370-53378 [2016-18878]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53370
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 28, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016–18869 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0016; FRL–9950–37–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Motor Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance, Clean Screen
Program and the Low Emitter Index,
On-Board Diagnostics, and Associated
Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
three State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Colorado. The revisions involve
amendments to Colorado’s Regulation
Number 11 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program.’’ The revisions
address the implementation of the Low
Emitter Index component of Regulation
No. 11’s Clean Screen Program, the
implementation of the On-Board
Diagnostics component of Regulation
No. 11, and several other associated
revisions. The EPA is proposing
approval of these SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 12,
2016.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2016–0016 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim
Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop,
Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303)
312–6479, russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State’s process?
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2007
Revisions to the Low Emitter Index, Part
A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2012
Revisions to the On-Board Diagnostics
Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions
Test Exemption, the Gas Cap Retest, Part
A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and Part G
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2013
Revisions to Part A, Part C, Appendix A,
and Appendix B
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act
IX. Proposed Action
X. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to
the EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the 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:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register volume, date, and page
number);
• Follow directions and organize your
comments;
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
• Suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes;
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in
sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives;
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats; and,
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
In this action, the EPA is proposing
approval of SIP revisions to Regulation
No. 11 contained in three submittals
from Colorado. The State’s submittals
were dated June 11, 2008, March 15,
2013, and March 3, 2014. Much of the
content of the revisions involved minor
updates to several sections of Regulation
No. 11 and deletion of obsolete
language. The following background
discussion involves those revisions of
greater significance:
a.) Colorado’s 2007 Revisions to
Regulation No. 11 for the
Implementation of the Low Emitter
Index (LEI) Portion of the Clean Screen
Program Contained in Regulation No. 11
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Colorado’s Regulation No. 11
(hereafter ‘‘Reg. No. 11’’) addresses the
implementation of the State’s motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program. The I/M program consists
of an ‘‘enhanced’’ component that
utilizes a dynamometer-based EPA
IM240 test for 1982 and newer lightduty gasoline vehicles 1 and a two-speed
idle test (TSI) 2 for 1981 and older lightduty gasoline vehicles. To improve
motorist convenience and reduce
program implementation costs, the State
also administers a remote sensing-based
‘‘Clean Screen’’ program component of
the I/M program. Remote sensing is a
method for measuring vehicle
emissions, while simultaneously
photographing the license plate, when a
1 See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete
description of EPA’s IM240 test. The IM240 test is
essentially an enhanced motor vehicle emissions
test to measure mass tailpipe emissions while the
vehicle follows a computer generated driving cycle
trace for 240 seconds and while the vehicle is on
a dynamometer.
2 See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete
description of EPA’s two-speed idle test. The twospeed idle test essentially measures the mass
tailpipe emissions of a stationary vehicle; one
reading is at a normal idle of approximately 700 to
800 engine revolutions per minute (RPM) and one
reading at 2,500 RPM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
vehicle passes through infrared or
ultraviolet beams of light. Owners of
vehicles meeting the Clean Screen
criteria are notified by the County Clerk
that their vehicles have passed the
motor vehicle inspection process and
are exempt from their next regularly
scheduled IM240 test.
The Clean Screen program component
of Colorado’s Reg. No. 11 was originally
approved, for implementation in the
Metro-Denver area, with the EPA’s
approval of the original Denver carbon
monoxide (CO) redesignation to
attainment and the maintenance plan
(see: 66 FR 64751, December 14, 2001).
The Clean Screen criteria that was
approved in 2001 by the EPA (see: 66
FR 64751, December 14, 2001) required
two valid passing remote sensing
readings on different days or from
different sensors, that met the
applicable emissions reading
requirements in Part F of Reg. No. 11,
within a twelve-month period in order
to clean-screen a vehicle.
Colorado revised Reg. No. 11 to
expand the definition and requirements
for a ‘‘clean-screened vehicle’’ to also
include vehicles identified as low
emitting vehicles in the statedetermined Low Emitting Index (LEI)
which have one passing remote sensing
reading, prior to the vehicle’s
registration renewal date. As part of the
LEI process, the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division
(hereinafter, the ‘‘Division’’) develops
an LEI on or before July 1st of each year.
The LEI is based on a tabulation of the
previous calendar year’s IM240
inspection program results for specific
make, model, and model year vehicles
that passed IM240 vehicle inspections
the previous year at a minimum rate of
a 98%.
By a letter dated June 11, 2008, the
Governor of Colorado submitted the
above 2007 Reg. No. 11 LEI revisions
and other minor revisions involving
changes/additions to the definitions in
Reg. No. 11and the addition of
Attachment 1 to the Technical
Specifications in Appendix A. These
SIP revisions are discussed in further
detail below in section IV.
b.) Colorado’s 2012 Revisions to
Regulation No. 11 for the
Implementation of the On-Board
Diagnostics Test Requirements
Contained in Regulation No. 11 and the
Seven Model Year I/M Test Exemption
As noted above, Colorado’s Reg. No.
11 addresses the implementation of a
motor vehicle I/M program that consists
of a an ‘‘enhanced’’ component IM240
test for 1982 and newer light-duty
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53371
vehicles and a TSI test for 1981 and
older light-duty gas vehicles. In
addition, and beginning in January
2015, Colorado also began
implementing an On-Board Diagnostics
(OBD) test for certain model year
vehicles. An OBD I/M test essentially
means the electronic retrieval, by
connecting to the computer port data
link connector (DLC) in the vehicle with
an OBD test analyzer, of information
from a vehicle’s computer system. The
electronic information retrieved
addresses items such as stored readiness
status, diagnostic trouble codes (DTC),
malfunction indicator light (MIL)
illumination and other data from a
vehicle’s OBD system. Electronically
interrogating a vehicle’s OBD system
allows for the determination of whether
any emission related DTCs are present
and if the MIL is commanded on.
Should these aspects of an OBD test be
present, that would indicate the
existence of an emissions related
malfunction with the vehicle being
tested.
In addition, Colorado also extended
the Reg. No. 11 exemption from I/M
testing for new vehicles from four years
to seven years. This revision was based
on Colorado’s gathering of emissions
testing information over a period of
several years which demonstrated that
historically new and newer vehicles
typically did not fail the IM240 or OBD
emissions test within the first seven
years of the vehicle’s life.
By a letter dated March 15, 2013, the
Governor of Colorado submitted the
above 2012 Reg. No. 11 OBD test
requirements, the seven year test
exemption, and other minor revisions.
These SIP revisions are discussed in
further detail below in section V.
c.) Colorado’s 2013 Revisions to
Regulation No. 11, Appendix A,
Incorporation by Reference of Technical
Materials, the Addition of New
Technical Information/Requirements,
and Minor Revisions to Appendix B
Colorado further revised Reg. No. 11
by updating Appendix A and Appendix
B to remove text and incorporate by
reference certain Attachments to
Appendix A, to add new language to
Appendix A, and to add new language
and remove obsolete language in
Appendix B.
Appendix A was revised to remove
the text of three technical document
attachments and to note that the
documents are available at CDPHE’s
Emissions Technical Center Procedures
Manual. The technical documents are
incorporated by reference into Reg. No.
11. Appendix A. The technical
documents that are incorporated by
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
53372
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
reference into Reg. No. 11 are:
Attachment I ‘‘PDF 1000 Scanner,’’
Attachment II ‘‘Thermal Transfer
Printer,’’ and Attachment III ‘‘Colorado
Automobile Dealers Transient Mode
Test Analyzer System.’’ Appendix A
was also revised by adding Attachment
V ‘‘Specifications for Colorado OnBoard Diagnostic (OBD) Stand-Alone
Analyzer.’’
Appendix B, which is entitled
‘‘Standards and Specifications for
Calibration/Span Gas Suppliers,’’ was
revised with updated language in
Section 1 ‘‘Definitions,’’ Section 2
‘‘Basic & Enhanced Idle Air Program/
Technical Requirements,’’ Section 3,
‘‘Calibration/Span Gas Approval &
Labeling,’’ Section 4 ‘‘Cylinder Tracking
& Recall,’’ Section 5 ‘‘Enhanced IM & IG
240 Air Program/Technical
Requirements,’’ Section 6 ‘‘Colorado
Approval Process,’’ and Section 7
‘‘Blender Facility Requirements &
Documentation.’’ Obsolete language was
also removed from Appendix B.
By a letter dated March 3, 2014, the
Governor of Colorado submitted the
above 2013 Reg. No. 11 revisions to
Appendix A and Appendix B. These SIP
revisions are discussed in further detail
below in section VI.
III. What was the State’s process?
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires
that a state provide reasonable notice
and public hearing before adopting a
SIP revision and submitting it to us.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
a.) The State’s June 11, 2008 SIP
Submittal
On June 21, 2007 the Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission (AQCC)
conducted a public hearing to consider
the adoption of revisions and additions
to the Colorado SIP. The revisions
affecting the SIP involved Reg. No. 11,
the Clean Screen sections of Reg. No. 11,
the LEI portion of the Clean Screen
program, and associated revisions. After
reviewing written comments, dated
April 17, 2007, received from Rocky
Mountain Clean Air Action and after
conducting a public hearing, the AQCC
adopted the proposed revisions to Reg.
No. 11 on June 21, 2007. The SIP
revisions became State effective on
August 30, 2007.
We evaluated the State’s June 11,
2008 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of the SIP
and determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA. By a letter dated October
14, 2008, we advised James B. Martin,
Executive Director of the CDPHE, that
the SIP revisions submittal was deemed
to have met the minimum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
‘‘completeness’’ criteria found in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
b.) The State’s March 15, 2013 SIP
Submittal
On December 20, 2012, the AQCC
conducted a public hearing to consider
the adoption of revisions and additions
to the Colorado SIP. The revisions
affecting the SIP involved Reg. No. 11,
the OBD program, the seven model year
exemption from I/M testing, and
associated revisions. After reviewing
one supportive email written comment,
dated December 16, 2012, received from
Bob Armott and after conducting a
public hearing, the AQCC adopted the
proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on
December 20, 2012. The SIP revisions
became State effective on February 15,
2013.
We evaluated the State’s March 15,
2013 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of the SIP
and determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA. By operation of law under
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
State’s March 15, 2013 submittal was
deemed complete on September 15,
2013.
c.) The State’s March 3, 2014 SIP
Submittal
On November 21, 2013, the AQCC
conducted a public hearing to consider
the adoption of revisions and additions
to the Colorado SIP. The revisions
affecting the SIP included updating
Appendix A and Appendix B to Reg.
No. 11 to remove text, incorporate by
reference certain Attachments to
Appendix A, to add new language to
Appendix A, and to add new language
and remove obsolete language in
Appendix B. After conducting a public
hearing, which did not have any public
comments, the AQCC adopted the
proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on
November 21, 2013. The SIP revisions
became State effective on December 30,
2013.
We evaluated the State’s March 3,
2014 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of the SIP
and determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA. By operation of law under
section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
State’s March 3, 2014 submittal was
deemed complete on September 3, 2014.
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2007
Revisions to the Low Emitter Index,
Part A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A
a.) Evaluation of the Clean Screen
Program and LEI Component
We approved the Clean Screen
program component of Colorado’s Reg.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
No. 11, for implementation in the
Metro-Denver area with our approval of
the original Denver carbon monoxide
(CO) redesignation to attainment and
the associated maintenance plan (see: 66
FR 64751, December 14, 2001).
Additional discussion of the Clean
Screen program was provided in our
August 22, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR
44097). In evaluating the Clean Screen
program for the maintenance plan, the
State used EPA’s MOBILE5b motor
vehicle emissions calculation model
and the MOBILE model’s remote
sensing program credit utility dated
1996 3 and revised in 1998.4 Further
discussion is also provided in the
State’s Technical Support Document
(TSD) for the 2001 CO redesignation to
attainment, which is part of the EPA’s
final rule hard copy docket, and is also
available from the State on-line at:
https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/
tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=
open&file=codenfnl.pdf).
For the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we
approved on December 14, 2001, the
State used the above tools and other
data to evaluate the Clean Screen
program for its implementation in the
Metro-Denver area. Based on this
evaluation and the review of
information for the additional
implementation of a Clean Screen
program in Fort Collins (located in
Larimer County, Colorado) and Greeley
(located in Weld County, Colorado), the
state concluded there would be an
approximate 4% disbenefit for CO
emissions and a 7% disbenefit for
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions if it was
assumed that 35% of the eligible
vehicles were clean-screened.5
We note that the version of Reg. No.
11 that the EPA approved on December
14, 2001 included the Clean Screen
criteria which required an eligible
vehicle for inspection to have at least
two consecutive passing remote sensing
emissions readings performed on
different days, or at different approved
Clean Screen inspection sites, prior to
its registration renewal date.
With the 2007 Reg. No. 11 revisions,
the AQCC adopted modifications as
proposed by the Division that expanded
the Clean Screen criteria to also include
vehicles with one passing remote
sensing reading prior to its registration
3 ‘‘User Guide and Description For Interim
Remote Sensing Program Utility,’’ EPA/AA/AMD/
EIG/96–01, dated September, 1996.
4 ‘‘Program User Guide for Interim Vehicle Clean
Screening Credit Utility,’’ Draft Report, EPA420–P–
98–007, dated May, 1998.
5 ‘‘Revised Final Economic Impact Analysis for
Inspection and Maintenance per C.R.S. 25–7–
110.5(4)(I), Cost Effectiveness Economic Impact
Analysis, 2/1/99.’’
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
53373
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
date and that the vehicle is identified as
a low emitter on the LEI. To address the
LEI criteria of this revised Clean Screen
process, the Division develops a low
emitting vehicle index on or before July
1st of each year based on a tabulation
of the previous calendar year’s IM240
inspection program results for specified
make, model and model year vehicles.
This LEI is comprised of specific make,
model and model year vehicles that
passed IM240 vehicle inspections the
previous year at a minimum of a 98%
rate. However, in developing the LEI,
the Division may use passing criteria
greater than 98% if necessary to ensure
that the use of the LEI is equivalent or
better than the use of a second remote
sensing measurement in terms of air
quality benefits. This process is more
fully detailed in the CPDHE May, 2007
document entitled ‘‘Development and
Evaluation of Colorado’s Low Emitter
Index.’’
To assess the State’s Clean Screen
program and its LEI component, the
EPA reviewed the available CDPHE
Clean Screen annual reports for 2009,6
2011,7 2012,8 and 2013.9 The annual
reports detailed the overall effectiveness
of the Clean Screen program and also
contained the results of the random 2%
sampling for the LEI component. This
sampling procedure involved retaining
2% of the vehicles which had been
shown to pass one measurement with
RSD equipment and been on the LEI
index, and then requiring them to take
an IM240 test for comparison. The data,
including fleet coverage and emissions
reduction retention, are presented below
in Tables 1 and 2:
TABLE 1—TOTAL VEHICLES INSPECTED AND VEHICLES CLEAN-SCREENED
Total vehicles
inspected
Year of clean screen report
2009
2011
2012
2013
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
899,646
1,156,949
1,150,562
1,184,875
Vehicles that
were cleanscreened
199,344
246,768
248,224
233,760
Percent of
total vehicles
that were
cleanscreened
(%)
22.0
21.3
21.6
19.7
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED CLEAN SCREEN DISBENEFIT—BASED ON RETAINED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Retained HC
emission
reductions
(%)
Year of clean screen report
2009
2011
2012
2013
Retained CO
emission
reductions
(%)
Retained
NOX* emission
reductions
(%)
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
94.6
96.1
94.8
97.3
98.1
98.1
97.1
96.7
92.9
97.3
93.9
97.6
Average Clean Screen Disbenefit ...............................................................................................
4.3
2.5
4.6
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Nitrogen Oxides.
The data from the State’s Clean
Screen reports, as excerpted and
presented in the above tables,
demonstrate that the disbenefit from the
Clean Screen program and its LEI
component continue to be within the
original estimates from the Reg. No. 11
revisions that we approved on
December 14, 2001. Although those
original 2001 disbenefit estimates (4%
for CO, 7% for HC, and assuming 35%
clean-screened vehicles) were prepared
with then current tools, the Clean
Screen program and LEI component
continue to perform within those
estimates. Also, from the above four
years of Clean Screen annual reports
that we evaluated, the State’s Reg. No.
11 revisions original estimate of 35% of
the fleet being clean-screened has not
been achieved. Based on the four
referenced Clean Screen reports, we
note that 22% or less of the eligible
vehicles have been clean-screened.
Therefore, the actual emission reduction
disbenefit has been less than predicted,
as more vehicles have then been
required to go through the IM240 test.
6 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program
January–December, 2009,’’ Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, July, 2010.
7 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program
January–December, 2011,’’ Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, November, 2012.
8 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program
January–December, 2012,’’ Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, December, 2013.
9 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program
January–December, 2013,’’ Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, September, 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
b.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That
Were Revised With the State’s June 11,
2008 Submittal Were as Follows:
1.) Part A, section II: Modify
definition number 15 ‘‘Clean Screened
Vehicle’’ to reflect the addition of the
LEI; modify definition number 17
‘‘Colorado ’4’’ to clarify the use of the
BAR 90 test analyzer systems for use
after 1994; and add a new definition
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
‘‘Low Emitting Vehicle Index.’’
Renumber definitions number 18 and
higher.
2.) Part C, section XII: Modify section
XIIA.3 regarding the requirements and
procedures to clean screen an eligible
vehicle and add section XIIE.4 regarding
low emitting vehicles and the LEI.
3.) Part F, section VI: Renumber
section VI.B as VI.C; add new section
VI.B.1 which requires the development
of the LEI each year; add new section
VI.B.2 which establishes the 98%
minimum passing criteria for the LEI;
and add new section VI.B.3 which
allows the Division to use a greater than
98% passing criteria if needed to equate
to a second RSD reading.
4.) Appendix A, Technical
Specifications, Attachment 1: Sections
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
53374
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
of Attachment 1 of the Technical
Specifications contain the specifications
for the PDF 1000 Scanner; some sections
were unreadable and a full, retyped PDF
1000 Scanner section was provided.
5.) Appendix A, Technical
Specifications, Attachment 2: Sections
of Attachment 2 of the Technical
Specifications contain the specifications
for the Thermal Transfer Printer; some
sections were unreadable and a full,
retyped Thermal Transfer Printer
section was provided.
The EPA notes that Part F, section
III.A.2 of Reg. No. 11 was also provided
with the State’s June 11, 2008 submittal.
This section contains IM240 test light
duty vehicle emissions cutpoints for
1996 and newer vehicles (all in grams
per mile). The CO, HC, and NOX entries
for calendar year 2006 are incorrect as
the State had previously provided an
August 8, 2006 SIP revision submittal to
remove these 2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC
0.6, CO 10.0, and NOX 1.5). The EPA
approved the removal of these 2006
cutpoints on December 20, 2012 (77 FR
75388).
V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2012
Revisions to the On-Board Diagnostics
Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions
Test Exemption, the Gas Cap Retest,
Part A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and
Part G
a.) Evaluation of the OBD Test
Provisions
As we noted above, beginning in
January 2015, Colorado began
implementing an OBD test for certain
model year vehicles. An OBD I/M test
essentially means the electronic
retrieval, by connecting to the computer
port DLC in the vehicle with an OBD
test analyzer, of information from a
vehicle’s computer system addressing
items such as stored readiness status,
DTCs, MIL illumination and other
information from a vehicle’s OBD
system. Electronically interrogating a
vehicle’s OBD system allows for the
determination if any emission related
DTCs are present and if the MIL is
commanded on. Should these aspects of
an OBD test be present, that would
indicate the existence of an emissions
related malfunction with the vehicle
being tested. More detailed information
on OBD I/M testing is found in 40 CFR
85, Subpart W and at the EPA’s Office
of Transportation and Air Quality
(OTAQ) Web site at: https://
www3.epa.gov/obd/regtech/inspection.
htm. In addition, further information is
provided in the EPA’s OBD rulemaking
actions of April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18156),
December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75403), and
the EPA’s document addressing
performing OBD system checks as part
of an I/M program.10
The EPA has reviewed the OBD
information in the State’s
Administrative documentation with its
March 15, 2013 submittal, the OBD I/M
test procedures contained in the Reg.
No. 11 revisions to Part A, Part B, Part
C, and Part F, all as detailed further
below, and has concluded these
revisions meet the requirements of 40
CFR 85, Subpart W for OBD I/M testing
and the above cited EPA final rules.
We note the Colorado OBD test
provisions that were adopted in 2012
are applicable to a portion of the
vehicles that are subject to an I/M test.
The Reg. No. 11 revisions of 2012 also
increased the new vehicle model year
exemption from four to seven years,
required OBD testing for the next four
years (two inspection cycles for the 8th
through 11th years), and required I/M
240 testing to commence with the third
inspection cycle. In addition, the Reg.
No. 11 revisions of 2012 allowed OBD
testing for OBD equipped vehicles that
were otherwise hard to test with the
IM240 procedures (for example, too
short of a wheelbase for the
dynamometer treadmills, vehicles with
very large or small wheel/tire
combinations, and certain all-wheeldrive vehicles with very sensitive
traction control systems), eliminated the
visual inspection for 1996 and newer
vehicles (because of OBD testing), and
required a full emissions retest for
vehicles initially failing the gas cap test.
The 2012 Reg. No. 11 revisions retained
other aspects of the I/M program
including the use of Clean Screen
technology to clean screen vehicles and
annual TSI testing for 1981 and older
vehicles.
In consideration of the OBD testing
component of the I/M program and the
extension from four years to seven years
to exempt new vehicles from I/M testing
(discussed further below), the State
prepared an estimated emissions benefit
for the implementation of both the OBD
testing and extended test exemption for
seven years. This estimated emissions
benefit information is contained in the
Administrative Documentation, that is
part of the State’s March 15, 2013 SIP
submittal, and is provided in the section
entitled ‘‘SIP Emission Reduction
Equivalency Demonstration.’’ The
information notes that the Division
conducted modeling of the 2012
revisions using the then current I/M
program, as implemented in the seven
Metro-Denver counties area, and the
new program (OBD plus the seven-year
testing exemption) as fully implemented
in 2017. The year 2017 was selected as
that would reflect the full completion of
a two-year OBD inspection cycle on
applicable vehicles. The Division’s
results are provided below in Table 3:
TABLE 3—SEVEN COUNTY METRO-DENVER AREA I/M PROGRAM ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN 2017
TGH *
Current I/M Program ...................................................................................................................
Revised I/M Program ..................................................................................................................
NOX
6.008 tpd ** ....
6.052 ..............
4.849 tpd ........
5.004 ..............
CO
68.843 tpd.
64.916.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons.
**tons per day (tpd).
As shown in Table 3 above,
implementation of the Reg. No. 11
provisions of the OBD component and
the seven-year exemption from I/M
testing were estimated to result in a
small increase in CO emissions and a
slight reduction in ozone precursor
emissions (NOX and TGH).
The EPA has evaluated this negligible
increase in estimated CO emissions and
has concluded it will not have a
detrimental effect on the most recently-
approved revised Metro-Denver CO
maintenance plan (72 FR 46148, August
17, 2007).11 Our evaluation considered
the negligible increase in CO emissions
of four tpd to the CO mobile sources
emission inventory data in the Metro-
10 ‘‘Performing Onboard Diagnostic System
Checks as Part of a Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program,’’ EPA–420–R–01–015, dated
June, 2001.
11 ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised
Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related
Revisions,’’ 72 FR 46148, dated August 17, 2007.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Denver maintenance plan for the
projected 2015 mobile source CO
emissions of 1,416 tpd and the
maintenance plan’s final maintenance
year of 2021 projected mobile source CO
emissions of 1,372.10 tpd. The four tpd
emissions would be 0.28% of the 2015
CO mobile source emissions and 0.29%
of the 2021 CO mobile source emissions.
In addition, we also reviewed statecertified and EPA-reviewed ambient CO
air quality monitoring data that are
located in the EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) database. We reviewed data from
2007 through 2015. We did not find any
exceedances or violations of the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Therefore, the Metro-Denver
CO maintenance area continues to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO
NAAQS.
We do note that the slight reduction
in ozone precursor emissions of NOX
and TGH will be beneficial as the MetroDenver/North Front Range (NFR) 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment
area continues to work towards
attainment of that NAAQS. Additional
information regarding the Metro
Denver/NFR ozone nonattainment area
and its status can be found in the EPA’s
2008 ozone NAAQS proposed SIP
Requirements rule (80 FR 51992, August
27, 2015) 12 and final rule (81 FR 26697,
May 4, 2016).13
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
b.) Evaluation of the Extension of the
I/M Test Exemption From Four to Seven
Years
Included with the March 15, 2013
Reg. No. 11 SIP revision submittal were
revised provisions to increase the I/M
test exemption for newer vehicles from
the EPA-approved four-year exemption
to seven years. Additional information
and rationale were provided by the
Division in the ‘‘Air Quality Control
Commission Regulation Number 11
Motor Vehicle Emissions Detailed Issue
Statement’’ which was part of the SIP
submittal’s Administrative
Documentation.
The Division’s AQCC issue statement
noted that the revision to Reg. No. 11,
to increase new vehicle model year
exemptions from four years to seven
years, was allowed by Colorado law
which authorizes the AQCC to extend
12 ‘‘Determinations of Attainment by the
Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment
Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas
Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 80 FR 51992,
dated August 27, 2015.
13 ‘‘Determinations of Attainment by the
Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment
Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas
Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 81 FR 26697,
dated May 4, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
the duration for which new vehicles are
exempt from I/M testing; 42–4–
310(1)(a)(II)(C) and 42–4–306(8)(b),
Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.)
The Division noted that the revision
to extend the new vehicle model year
exemption results in an overall cost
savings and increased convenience to
the public for tests not performed. In
addition, the Division stated that the
population of vehicles in this age group,
and their vehicle miles traveled, are
relatively high; however, since they are
relatively new vehicles, their emissions
are lower than those of older vehicles.
The Division concluded that
increasing the duration of the new
vehicle exemption increases emissions
from the entire fleet. However, the EPA
notes that with this particular revision
to Reg. No. 11, the State simultaneously
included revisions to Reg. No. 11 to
initiate OBD testing requirements for
applicable vehicles. As discussed above
and as presented in Table 3 above, the
net result of the implementation of both
the seven-year extended exemption for
I/M test and OBD testing showed a
negligible increase of CO emissions and
a slight decrease in NOX and TGH
emissions. Based on our above analysis
of the Metro-Denver CO maintenance
plan and relevant ambient CO air
quality monitoring data, the EPA finds
that the increase in the new vehicle
seven-year I/M test exemption will not
have an adverse effect on the approved
revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance
plan (72 FR 46148, August 17, 2007).
We also find that the emissions from the
revised seven-year I/M test exemption
are offset by the additional reduction in
ozone precursor emissions of NOX and
TGH realized through the State’s
implementation of OBD testing that
covers the Metro-Denver/NFR 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area.
c.) Gas Cap Full Retest Clarification and
Other Minor Non-Substantive Revisions
There was a clarification to the gas
cap test requirements and several other
minor revisions included with the
March 15, 2013 Reg. No. 11 SIP revision
submittal.
The state revised Reg. No. 11 to clarify
that, in accordance with federal law, a
full I/M retest is required after a test
failure due to the lack of a gas cap or
a faulty gas cap. The EPA notes that
missing or malfunctioning gas caps
automatically cause a test failure and
require replacement of the cap and then
a full emissions retest. The full retest is
necessary because the gas cap seals and
pressurizes the entire fuel evaporative
emissions control system. If other
components of the evaporative system
are functional, there will be no effect on
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53375
tailpipe emissions; however, if other
elements of the evaporative system are
faulty replacing a faulty or missing gas
cap can trigger a tailpipe emissions
failure. In addition, the inclusion or
replacement of a malfunctioning gas cap
will reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from a vehicle’s fuel
tank. This is a beneficial as VOCs are a
precursor emission to the formation of
ground level ozone.
The Reg. No. 11 revisions also include
several ‘housekeeping’ items including:
Correcting typographical and
grammatical errors; deleting obsolete
language and implementation dates;
removing titles and text that were
inadvertently left unchanged from prior
Reg. No. 11 changes; and renumbering
and recodifications according to
adopted language additions and
deletions.
d.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That
Were Revised With the State’s March 15,
2013 Submittal Were as Follows:
1.) Part A, section I: Minor wording
changes to add new language and
remove obsolete language in sections
I.B, I.C.3, I.C.3.a, I.C.3.b, I.C.3.c, I.C.4,
I.C.7, I.C.7.c, I.C.8, and I.C.9.b.
Part A, section II: A new definition
number 20 was added entitled
‘‘Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Test Analyzer System;’’ a new definition
number 22 was added entitled
‘‘Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC);’’ and,
definitions number 23 to 43 were
renumbered. A new definition number
44 was added and entitled ‘‘On-Board
Diagnostics II (OBD or OBDII) Test’’ and
definitions numbered 45 to 52 were
renumbered.
Part A, section IV: Section IV. D was
removed which involved obsolete
language and section IV.E was
renumbered IV.D and also had obsolete
language removed.
2.) Part B, section IX: Section IX was
added and is entitled ‘‘Approval of the
Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Test Analyzer System. Also, Part B,
section X was added and is entitled
‘‘The Colorado On-Board Diagnostic
(OBD) Test Analyzer System.’’
3.) Part C, title: The title was modified
by adding ‘‘On-Board Diagnostics
(OBD).’’
Part C, section I.C.3: This involved
minor language changes to clarify data
transmission and analyzer requirements.
Part C, section II.A: This section was
renumbered from II.A through II.F to
instead become II.A.1 through II.A.11.
Minor clarification language was added
along with revised references to sections
in Part C.
Part C, section II.G: This section was
renumbered to II.B and clarifying
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53376
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
language was added regarding OBD
testing. Sections II.G.1 through II.G.6
were renumbered II.B.1 through II.B.6.
Section II.B.4 had clarifying language
added regarding applicable vehicles that
were unable to be tested with the IM240
test would then be OBD tested.
Part C, section II.C: A new section II.C
(II.C 1 through II.C.9) was added which
specifies which vehicles are to be OBD
tested and the requirements and testing
procedures for an OBD test.
Part C, section III.A: This section had
clarifying language added and sections
III.B and III.C were removed as they
addressed the model year 1996 and
newer visual inspection procedures.
The remaining applicable portions of
section III.C were then renumbered III.B.
Sections III.D and III.E were renumbered
to III.C and III.D.
Part C, section IV: A new section IV
was added which addressed the
requirements for applicable vehicles
(1996 through those vehicles that had
reached their 11th model year of age) to
be evaluated with and OBD test.
Part C, prior section IV: The existing
section IV was renumbered section V
and also modified with clarifying
language regarding the requirement for
a full retest of vehicles which
previously had a missing or
malfunctioning gas cap.
Part C, section VIII.A.2: A new section
VIII.A.2 was added which states that
vehicles in their model years seven
through 10 need to meet the OBD
passing criteria in Part F, section VII.
Sections VIII.A.2 through VIII.A.4 were
renumbered VIII.A.3 through VIII.A.5.
Part C, sections VIII.B.1, VIII.B.2, and
VIII.B.3: These sections had minor
wording changes and deletion of
obsolete language.
Part C, sections VIII.D.A through
VIII.D.E: These sections were
renumbered VIII.D.1 through VIII.D.5.
Part C, sections IX.G and X.A: These
sections had minor clarifying language
added.
4.) Part F, section V: This section was
entitled ‘‘Visible Smoke.’’
Part F, section VII: A new section VII
was added (sections VII.A through
VII.F) which stated the required OBD
diagnostic inspection test passing
criteria.
5.) Part G: This part had previously
contained obsolete high-emitting
vehicle identification pilot project
language which was removed and Part
G was retitled ‘‘Reserved.’’
VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2013
Revisions to Part A, Part C, Appendix
A, and Appendix B
In 2013, the AQCC adopted several
minor changes to Reg. No. 11. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
revisions were subsequently submitted
to the EPA on March 3, 2014. The
sections of Reg. No. 11 that were revised
with the State’s March 3, 2014 submittal
were as follows:
a.) Part A, section I.C.3.c: This section
was revised to clarify that the seven year
new vehicle exemption, which excused
vehicles from an I/M test for seven years
and was previously adopted by the
AQCC in December 2012, would take
effect on January 1, 2015. Also, this
exemption would apply retroactively to
existing vehicles in their fourth, fifth,
and sixth years of service.
b.) Part A, sections I.C.8, I.C.9, and
I.C.10: These sections were revised to
clarify ambiguous, contradictory and
obsolete Reg. No. 11 language
concerning the issuance of and duration
periods for ‘‘Verification of Emissions
Test’’ exemption windshield stickers
issued by motor vehicle dealers. Part A,
section I.C.8 was further clarified to
note that vehicles in their fourth, fifth,
and sixth years of service would have
the seven year exemption applied
retroactively.
c.) Part A, section I.C.3 and Part C,
sections III and IV: These sections were
revised to clarify that the seven-year
new vehicle exemption from I/M
testing, OBD testing requirements and
procedures, and other changes made to
Reg. No. 11 by the AQCC in December
2012, would go into effect January 1,
2015. In addition, the I/M visual
inspection procedures for 1996 and
newer vehicles would be retained
through December 2014.
d.) Part C, section C VIII.B.3: This
section was revised to codify in Reg. No.
11 the vehicle emissions repair cost
waiver amount of $715. The AQCC has
previously directed the Division to
change the amount from $450 to $715 in
November 2002, which was done.
However, at that time, the AQCC had
declined to note the changed repair
amount in the text of Reg. No. 11.
e.) Part C, section VIII.D.4: This
section was revised regarding the
qualifying criteria for an economic
hardship waiver for a vehicle failing its
emissions test. Section VIII.D.4 was
further revised to allow the economic
hardship waiver to apply to households
owning two vehicles rather than
restricting hardship waivers to
households owning only one vehicle.
f.) Appendix A of Reg. No. 11 was
revised as follows:
1.) Appendix A was revised to remove
the text of three technical document
attachments and to note that the
documents are available at CDPHE’s
Emissions Technical Center Procedures
Manual. The technical documents are
incorporated by reference into Reg. No.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11. Appendix A. The technical
documents that are incorporated by
reference into Reg. No. 11 are:
Attachment I ‘‘PDF 1000 Scanner,’’
Attachment II ‘‘Thermal Transfer
Printer,’’ and Attachment III ‘‘Colorado
Automobile Dealers Transient Mode
Test Analyzer System.’’
2.) Updated Attachment IV, entitled
‘‘Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment Specification for
Colorado 97 Analyzer,’’ to reflect
technological changes to data
specifications, communications
protocols, and forms generation.
3.) Included a new Attachment V
‘‘Test Analyzer Specification for Onboard Diagnostics’’ for licensed fleets
who self-inspect their own vehicles.
Note: Part B section X required this Test
Analyzer Specification to be in place by
December 31, 2013.
g.) Appendix B of Reg. No. 11 was
revised as follows:
1.) Attachment II; the ‘‘Calibration
Span Gas’’ labels were updated to reflect
the current version of the State-official
labels.
h.) Overall revised formatting and
other non-substantive changes were
made throughout Reg. No. 11.
VII. Conclusion
Our review of the State’s Reg. No. 11
revisions, as presented above in sections
IV, V, and VI, involved: 1.) The Low
Emitter Index (LEI) and Clean Screen
program components, 2.) The On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) I/M testing program
component, 3.) The seven model-year
exemption from I/M testing provisions,
4.) The requirement for a full I/M retest
after the replacement of a missing or
malfunctioning gas cap, 5.) New
definitions, clarification language, and
removal of obsolete language, 6.)
Numerous revisions to Reg. No. 11 Parts
A, B, C, F, G, Appendix A, and
Appendix B, and 7.) Overall formatting,
correction of typographic errors and
other non-substantive changes. Based on
our review and evaluation discussion
presented above, we have determined
that the Reg. No. 11 SIP revisions,
submitted by the State in letters dated
June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013 and
March 3, 2014 sufficiently address
applicable provisions in 40 CFR 51,
Subpart S, 40 CFR 85, Subpart W, and
applicable EPA guidance for I/M
programs and that our approval is
warranted.
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(1) of
the Clean Air Act
Section 110(1) of the CAA states that
a SIP revision cannot be approved if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
attainment and reasonable further
progress towards attainment of a
NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. The only
portions of the Reg. No. 11 revisions
that we described above which we
believe require further consideration
with regard to section 110(l) of the CAA
are the revisions to the Clean Screen
program to add the LEI component and
the seven-year I/M test exemption.
For the LEI component of the Clean
Screen program, we noted above that
with our December 14, 2001 approval
the Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan
and implementation of the Clean Screen
program as adopted at that time, the
State concluded there would be an
approximate 4% disbenefit for CO
emissions and a 7% disbenefit for HC
emissions if it was assumed that 35% of
the eligible vehicles were cleanscreened. Our further evaluation of the
LEI component of the Clean Screen
program, as discussed above in section
IV, involved the review of the State’s
Clean Screen annual reports for 2009,
2011, 2012 and 2013. The annual
reports detailed the overall effectiveness
of the Clean Screen program and also
contained the results of the random 2%
sampling for the LEI component. The
data from the State’s Clean Screen
reports demonstrate that the disbenefit
from the Clean Screen program,
including its LEI component, continue
to be within the original estimates from
the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we
approved on December 14, 2001.
Although those original 2001 disbenefit
estimates (4% for CO, 7% for HC, and
35% vehicles being clean-screened)
were prepared with then current tools,
the Clean Screen program and LEI
component continue to perform within
those estimates. Also, from the above
four years of Clean Screen annual
reports that we evaluated, the State’s
Reg. No. 11 revisions original estimate
of 35% of the fleet being clean-screened
has not be been achieved. Based on the
four referenced Clean Screen reports, we
note that 22% or less of the eligible
vehicles have been clean-screened.
Therefore, the actual emissions
reduction disbenefit has been less than
predicted as more vehicles have then
been required to go through the IM240
test.
With regard to the seven-year new
vehicle exemption from I/M testing, as
explained above in section V, we noted
that with the implementation of the Reg.
No. 11 provisions of the combination of
the OBD testing component and the
seven-year exemption from I/M testing
there was estimated to be a small
increase in CO emissions and a minor
reduction in ozone precursor emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
(NOX and TGH). As noted above, the
EPA evaluated this small increase in
estimated CO emissions and has
concluded it will not have a detrimental
effect on the approved revised MetroDenver CO maintenance plan (72 FR
46148, August 17, 2007). Our evaluation
considered the negligible increase in CO
emissions of approximately four tons
per day as compared to the CO mobile
sources emission inventory data in the
Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan. As
we noted above, the maintenance plan’s
estimated 2015 mobile source CO
emissions are 1,416 tpd and the
estimated 2021 (last year of the
maintenance plan) mobile source CO
emissions are 1,372.10 tpd. Therefore,
the four tpd increase would be 0.28% of
the 2015 mobile source CO emissions
and the 0.29% of the 2021 mobile
source CO emissions. We also reviewed
available state-certified and EPAreviewed ambient CO air quality
monitoring data from the EPA’s AQS
database from 2007 through 2015. These
data show no exceedance or violation of
the CO NAAQS. We further noted that
the minor increase in reductions of
ozone precursor emissions of NOX and
TGH will be beneficial as the MetroDenver/NFR 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area continues to work
towards attainment of that NAAQS.
With respect to other NAAQS that
have the potential to be affected by our
proposed approval of the above Reg. No.
11 revisions, we note that the MetroDenver area is designated
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 1hour NO2 NAAQS 14 and the annual and
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 15 (see: 40 CFR
81.306). We reviewed available statecertified and EPA-reviewed ambient air
quality monitoring data for the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS, and the annual and 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Our review
involved EPA’s AQS database and
relevant data from 2007 through 2015.
The data demonstrate continued
attainment of the 1-hour NO2 and PM2.5
annual and 24-hour NAAQS in the
Metro-Denver area.
In addition to the above, we have
determined the revisions to Reg. No. 11
contained in all three SIP revision
submittals involving the language
changes necessary to implement the LEI
and Clean Screen program components,
the OBD I/M testing program
component, the seven model-year
exemption from I/M testing provisions,
the requirement for a full I/M retest after
14 1-hour NO NAAQS: 75 FR 6474, February 9,
2
2010.
15 PM
2.5 NAAQS: Annual NAAQS (78 FR 3086,
January 15, 2013); 2006 24-hour NAAQS (71 FR
61144, October 17, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53377
the replacement of a missing or
malfunctioning gas cap, new
definitions, clarification language,
removal of obsolete language, numerous
minor revisions to Parts A, B, C, F, G,
Appendix A and Appendix B of Reg.
No. 11, overall formatting, correction of
typographic errors and other nonsubstantive changes do not affect
emissions and therefore do not have
CAA section 110(l) implications.
In view of the above, the EPA
proposes to find that the revisions to
Colorado’s Reg. No. 11 that are
contained in the State’s SIP submittals
dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013
and March 3, 2014 will not interfere
with attainment, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
IX. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing approval of the
June 11, 2008 submitted SIP revisions to
Colorado’s Regulation Number 11, Part
A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A. The
EPA notes that Part F, section III.A.2
was also provided with the State’s June
11, 2008 submittal. This section
contains IM240 test light duty vehicle
emissions cutpoints for 1996 and newer
vehicles (all in grams per mile). The CO,
HC, and NOX entries for calendar year
2006 are incorrect as the State had
previously provided an August 8, 2006
SIP revision submittal to remove these
2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 0.6, CO 10.0,
and NOX 1.5). EPA approved the
removal of these 2006 cutpoints on
December 20, 2012 (77 FR 75388).
In addition, the EPA is proposing
approval of the March 15, 2013
submitted SIP revisions to Regulation
Number 11, Part A, Part B, Part C, Part
F, and Part G. Finally, the EPA is
proposing approval of the March 3, 2014
submitted SIP revisions to Regulation
Number 11, Part A, Part C, Appendix A,
and Appendix B.
X. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission, Regulation Number 11 as
discussed in section IX of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these documents generally
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
53378
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
XI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations
[42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)].
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves some state law
as meeting federal requirements and
disapproves other state law because it
does not meet federal requirements; this
proposed action does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
Oct. 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
Country, the rule does not have tribal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:23 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 26, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016–18878 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0724; FRL–9950–51–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa
Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner’s
Order
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) on
October 16, 2015. The submittal consists
of an order issued by the Commissioner
of IDEM (Commissioner’s Order No.
2015–01) approving alternative control
technology requirements for Abengoa
Bioenergy of Indiana (Abengoa). These
requirements include the use of a
carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system
with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% to control volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
from the ethanol loading racks at
Abengoa. A continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) must be used
to monitor the carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery
system for breakthrough of VOC
emissions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 12, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0724, at https://
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832,
Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should 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
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53370-53378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18878]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0016; FRL-9950-37-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance, Clean
Screen Program and the Low Emitter Index, On-Board Diagnostics, and
Associated Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of three State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted
by the State of Colorado. The revisions involve amendments to
Colorado's Regulation Number 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program.'' The revisions address the implementation of the Low Emitter
Index component of Regulation No. 11's Clean Screen Program, the
implementation of the On-Board Diagnostics component of Regulation No.
11, and several other associated revisions. The EPA is proposing
approval of these SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 12,
2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2016-0016 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-
6479, russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2007 Revisions to the Low
Emitter Index, Part A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A
V. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2012 Revisions to the On-Board
Diagnostics Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions Test Exemption, the
Gas Cap Retest, Part A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and Part G
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2013 Revisions to Part A, Part
C, Appendix A, and Appendix B
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
IX. Proposed Action
X. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 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:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
Follow directions and organize your comments;
Explain why you agree or disagree;
Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
[[Page 53371]]
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in
sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and,
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
In this action, the EPA is proposing approval of SIP revisions to
Regulation No. 11 contained in three submittals from Colorado. The
State's submittals were dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013, and March
3, 2014. Much of the content of the revisions involved minor updates to
several sections of Regulation No. 11 and deletion of obsolete
language. The following background discussion involves those revisions
of greater significance:
a.) Colorado's 2007 Revisions to Regulation No. 11 for the
Implementation of the Low Emitter Index (LEI) Portion of the Clean
Screen Program Contained in Regulation No. 11
Colorado's Regulation No. 11 (hereafter ``Reg. No. 11'') addresses
the implementation of the State's motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. The I/M program consists of an ``enhanced''
component that utilizes a dynamometer-based EPA IM240 test for 1982 and
newer light-duty gasoline vehicles \1\ and a two-speed idle test (TSI)
\2\ for 1981 and older light-duty gasoline vehicles. To improve
motorist convenience and reduce program implementation costs, the State
also administers a remote sensing-based ``Clean Screen'' program
component of the I/M program. Remote sensing is a method for measuring
vehicle emissions, while simultaneously photographing the license
plate, when a vehicle passes through infrared or ultraviolet beams of
light. Owners of vehicles meeting the Clean Screen criteria are
notified by the County Clerk that their vehicles have passed the motor
vehicle inspection process and are exempt from their next regularly
scheduled IM240 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete description of
EPA's IM240 test. The IM240 test is essentially an enhanced motor
vehicle emissions test to measure mass tailpipe emissions while the
vehicle follows a computer generated driving cycle trace for 240
seconds and while the vehicle is on a dynamometer.
\2\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete description of
EPA's two-speed idle test. The two-speed idle test essentially
measures the mass tailpipe emissions of a stationary vehicle; one
reading is at a normal idle of approximately 700 to 800 engine
revolutions per minute (RPM) and one reading at 2,500 RPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clean Screen program component of Colorado's Reg. No. 11 was
originally approved, for implementation in the Metro-Denver area, with
the EPA's approval of the original Denver carbon monoxide (CO)
redesignation to attainment and the maintenance plan (see: 66 FR 64751,
December 14, 2001). The Clean Screen criteria that was approved in 2001
by the EPA (see: 66 FR 64751, December 14, 2001) required two valid
passing remote sensing readings on different days or from different
sensors, that met the applicable emissions reading requirements in Part
F of Reg. No. 11, within a twelve-month period in order to clean-screen
a vehicle.
Colorado revised Reg. No. 11 to expand the definition and
requirements for a ``clean-screened vehicle'' to also include vehicles
identified as low emitting vehicles in the state-determined Low
Emitting Index (LEI) which have one passing remote sensing reading,
prior to the vehicle's registration renewal date. As part of the LEI
process, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division (hereinafter, the ``Division'')
develops an LEI on or before July 1st of each year. The LEI is based on
a tabulation of the previous calendar year's IM240 inspection program
results for specific make, model, and model year vehicles that passed
IM240 vehicle inspections the previous year at a minimum rate of a 98%.
By a letter dated June 11, 2008, the Governor of Colorado submitted
the above 2007 Reg. No. 11 LEI revisions and other minor revisions
involving changes/additions to the definitions in Reg. No. 11and the
addition of Attachment 1 to the Technical Specifications in Appendix A.
These SIP revisions are discussed in further detail below in section
IV.
b.) Colorado's 2012 Revisions to Regulation No. 11 for the
Implementation of the On-Board Diagnostics Test Requirements Contained
in Regulation No. 11 and the Seven Model Year I/M Test Exemption
As noted above, Colorado's Reg. No. 11 addresses the implementation
of a motor vehicle I/M program that consists of a an ``enhanced''
component IM240 test for 1982 and newer light-duty vehicles and a TSI
test for 1981 and older light-duty gas vehicles. In addition, and
beginning in January 2015, Colorado also began implementing an On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) test for certain model year vehicles. An OBD I/M test
essentially means the electronic retrieval, by connecting to the
computer port data link connector (DLC) in the vehicle with an OBD test
analyzer, of information from a vehicle's computer system. The
electronic information retrieved addresses items such as stored
readiness status, diagnostic trouble codes (DTC), malfunction indicator
light (MIL) illumination and other data from a vehicle's OBD system.
Electronically interrogating a vehicle's OBD system allows for the
determination of whether any emission related DTCs are present and if
the MIL is commanded on. Should these aspects of an OBD test be
present, that would indicate the existence of an emissions related
malfunction with the vehicle being tested.
In addition, Colorado also extended the Reg. No. 11 exemption from
I/M testing for new vehicles from four years to seven years. This
revision was based on Colorado's gathering of emissions testing
information over a period of several years which demonstrated that
historically new and newer vehicles typically did not fail the IM240 or
OBD emissions test within the first seven years of the vehicle's life.
By a letter dated March 15, 2013, the Governor of Colorado
submitted the above 2012 Reg. No. 11 OBD test requirements, the seven
year test exemption, and other minor revisions. These SIP revisions are
discussed in further detail below in section V.
c.) Colorado's 2013 Revisions to Regulation No. 11, Appendix A,
Incorporation by Reference of Technical Materials, the Addition of New
Technical Information/Requirements, and Minor Revisions to Appendix B
Colorado further revised Reg. No. 11 by updating Appendix A and
Appendix B to remove text and incorporate by reference certain
Attachments to Appendix A, to add new language to Appendix A, and to
add new language and remove obsolete language in Appendix B.
Appendix A was revised to remove the text of three technical
document attachments and to note that the documents are available at
CDPHE's Emissions Technical Center Procedures Manual. The technical
documents are incorporated by reference into Reg. No. 11. Appendix A.
The technical documents that are incorporated by
[[Page 53372]]
reference into Reg. No. 11 are: Attachment I ``PDF 1000 Scanner,''
Attachment II ``Thermal Transfer Printer,'' and Attachment III
``Colorado Automobile Dealers Transient Mode Test Analyzer System.''
Appendix A was also revised by adding Attachment V ``Specifications for
Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Stand-Alone Analyzer.''
Appendix B, which is entitled ``Standards and Specifications for
Calibration/Span Gas Suppliers,'' was revised with updated language in
Section 1 ``Definitions,'' Section 2 ``Basic & Enhanced Idle Air
Program/Technical Requirements,'' Section 3, ``Calibration/Span Gas
Approval & Labeling,'' Section 4 ``Cylinder Tracking & Recall,''
Section 5 ``Enhanced IM & IG 240 Air Program/Technical Requirements,''
Section 6 ``Colorado Approval Process,'' and Section 7 ``Blender
Facility Requirements & Documentation.'' Obsolete language was also
removed from Appendix B.
By a letter dated March 3, 2014, the Governor of Colorado submitted
the above 2013 Reg. No. 11 revisions to Appendix A and Appendix B.
These SIP revisions are discussed in further detail below in section
VI.
III. What was the State's process?
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that a state provide
reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and
submitting it to us.
a.) The State's June 11, 2008 SIP Submittal
On June 21, 2007 the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC)
conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of revisions and
additions to the Colorado SIP. The revisions affecting the SIP involved
Reg. No. 11, the Clean Screen sections of Reg. No. 11, the LEI portion
of the Clean Screen program, and associated revisions. After reviewing
written comments, dated April 17, 2007, received from Rocky Mountain
Clean Air Action and after conducting a public hearing, the AQCC
adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on June 21, 2007. The SIP
revisions became State effective on August 30, 2007.
We evaluated the State's June 11, 2008 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of
the SIP and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By a letter dated October 14, 2008, we advised James B. Martin,
Executive Director of the CDPHE, that the SIP revisions submittal was
deemed to have met the minimum ``completeness'' criteria found in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
b.) The State's March 15, 2013 SIP Submittal
On December 20, 2012, the AQCC conducted a public hearing to
consider the adoption of revisions and additions to the Colorado SIP.
The revisions affecting the SIP involved Reg. No. 11, the OBD program,
the seven model year exemption from I/M testing, and associated
revisions. After reviewing one supportive email written comment, dated
December 16, 2012, received from Bob Armott and after conducting a
public hearing, the AQCC adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11
on December 20, 2012. The SIP revisions became State effective on
February 15, 2013.
We evaluated the State's March 15, 2013 submittal for Reg. No. 11
of the SIP and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
State's March 15, 2013 submittal was deemed complete on September 15,
2013.
c.) The State's March 3, 2014 SIP Submittal
On November 21, 2013, the AQCC conducted a public hearing to
consider the adoption of revisions and additions to the Colorado SIP.
The revisions affecting the SIP included updating Appendix A and
Appendix B to Reg. No. 11 to remove text, incorporate by reference
certain Attachments to Appendix A, to add new language to Appendix A,
and to add new language and remove obsolete language in Appendix B.
After conducting a public hearing, which did not have any public
comments, the AQCC adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on
November 21, 2013. The SIP revisions became State effective on December
30, 2013.
We evaluated the State's March 3, 2014 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of
the SIP and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
State's March 3, 2014 submittal was deemed complete on September 3,
2014.
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2007 Revisions to the Low Emitter
Index, Part A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A
a.) Evaluation of the Clean Screen Program and LEI Component
We approved the Clean Screen program component of Colorado's Reg.
No. 11, for implementation in the Metro-Denver area with our approval
of the original Denver carbon monoxide (CO) redesignation to attainment
and the associated maintenance plan (see: 66 FR 64751, December 14,
2001). Additional discussion of the Clean Screen program was provided
in our August 22, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 44097). In evaluating the
Clean Screen program for the maintenance plan, the State used EPA's
MOBILE5b motor vehicle emissions calculation model and the MOBILE
model's remote sensing program credit utility dated 1996 \3\ and
revised in 1998.\4\ Further discussion is also provided in the State's
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2001 CO redesignation to
attainment, which is part of the EPA's final rule hard copy docket, and
is also available from the State on-line at: https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=open&file=codenfnl.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``User Guide and Description For Interim Remote Sensing
Program Utility,'' EPA/AA/AMD/EIG/96-01, dated September, 1996.
\4\ ``Program User Guide for Interim Vehicle Clean Screening
Credit Utility,'' Draft Report, EPA420-P-98-007, dated May, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we approved on December 14,
2001, the State used the above tools and other data to evaluate the
Clean Screen program for its implementation in the Metro-Denver area.
Based on this evaluation and the review of information for the
additional implementation of a Clean Screen program in Fort Collins
(located in Larimer County, Colorado) and Greeley (located in Weld
County, Colorado), the state concluded there would be an approximate 4%
disbenefit for CO emissions and a 7% disbenefit for hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions if it was assumed that 35% of the eligible vehicles were
clean-screened.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Revised Final Economic Impact Analysis for Inspection and
Maintenance per C.R.S. 25-7-110.5(4)(I), Cost Effectiveness Economic
Impact Analysis, 2/1/99.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the version of Reg. No. 11 that the EPA approved on
December 14, 2001 included the Clean Screen criteria which required an
eligible vehicle for inspection to have at least two consecutive
passing remote sensing emissions readings performed on different days,
or at different approved Clean Screen inspection sites, prior to its
registration renewal date.
With the 2007 Reg. No. 11 revisions, the AQCC adopted modifications
as proposed by the Division that expanded the Clean Screen criteria to
also include vehicles with one passing remote sensing reading prior to
its registration
[[Page 53373]]
date and that the vehicle is identified as a low emitter on the LEI. To
address the LEI criteria of this revised Clean Screen process, the
Division develops a low emitting vehicle index on or before July 1st of
each year based on a tabulation of the previous calendar year's IM240
inspection program results for specified make, model and model year
vehicles. This LEI is comprised of specific make, model and model year
vehicles that passed IM240 vehicle inspections the previous year at a
minimum of a 98% rate. However, in developing the LEI, the Division may
use passing criteria greater than 98% if necessary to ensure that the
use of the LEI is equivalent or better than the use of a second remote
sensing measurement in terms of air quality benefits. This process is
more fully detailed in the CPDHE May, 2007 document entitled
``Development and Evaluation of Colorado's Low Emitter Index.''
To assess the State's Clean Screen program and its LEI component,
the EPA reviewed the available CDPHE Clean Screen annual reports for
2009,\6\ 2011,\7\ 2012,\8\ and 2013.\9\ The annual reports detailed the
overall effectiveness of the Clean Screen program and also contained
the results of the random 2% sampling for the LEI component. This
sampling procedure involved retaining 2% of the vehicles which had been
shown to pass one measurement with RSD equipment and been on the LEI
index, and then requiring them to take an IM240 test for comparison.
The data, including fleet coverage and emissions reduction retention,
are presented below in Tables 1 and 2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2009,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, July,
2010.
\7\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2011,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
November, 2012.
\8\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2012,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
December, 2013.
\9\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2013,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
September, 2014.
Table 1--Total Vehicles Inspected and Vehicles Clean-Screened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Vehicles that total vehicles
Year of clean screen report Total vehicles were clean- that were
inspected screened clean-screened
(%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................................ 899,646 199,344 22.0
2011............................................................ 1,156,949 246,768 21.3
2012............................................................ 1,150,562 248,224 21.6
2013............................................................ 1,184,875 233,760 19.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Estimated Clean Screen Disbenefit--Based on Retained Emission Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained HC Retained CO Retained NOX*
Year of clean screen report emission emission emission
reductions (%) reductions (%) reductions (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................................ 94.6 98.1 92.9
2011............................................................ 96.1 98.1 97.3
2012............................................................ 94.8 97.1 93.9
2013............................................................ 97.3 96.7 97.6
-----------------------------------------------
Average Clean Screen Disbenefit................................. 4.3 2.5 4.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Nitrogen Oxides.
The data from the State's Clean Screen reports, as excerpted and
presented in the above tables, demonstrate that the disbenefit from the
Clean Screen program and its LEI component continue to be within the
original estimates from the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we approved on
December 14, 2001. Although those original 2001 disbenefit estimates
(4% for CO, 7% for HC, and assuming 35% clean-screened vehicles) were
prepared with then current tools, the Clean Screen program and LEI
component continue to perform within those estimates. Also, from the
above four years of Clean Screen annual reports that we evaluated, the
State's Reg. No. 11 revisions original estimate of 35% of the fleet
being clean-screened has not been achieved. Based on the four
referenced Clean Screen reports, we note that 22% or less of the
eligible vehicles have been clean-screened. Therefore, the actual
emission reduction disbenefit has been less than predicted, as more
vehicles have then been required to go through the IM240 test.
b.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That Were Revised With the State's June
11, 2008 Submittal Were as Follows:
1.) Part A, section II: Modify definition number 15 ``Clean
Screened Vehicle'' to reflect the addition of the LEI; modify
definition number 17 ``Colorado '4'' to clarify the use of the BAR 90
test analyzer systems for use after 1994; and add a new definition
``Low Emitting Vehicle Index.'' Renumber definitions number 18 and
higher.
2.) Part C, section XII: Modify section XIIA.3 regarding the
requirements and procedures to clean screen an eligible vehicle and add
section XIIE.4 regarding low emitting vehicles and the LEI.
3.) Part F, section VI: Renumber section VI.B as VI.C; add new
section VI.B.1 which requires the development of the LEI each year; add
new section VI.B.2 which establishes the 98% minimum passing criteria
for the LEI; and add new section VI.B.3 which allows the Division to
use a greater than 98% passing criteria if needed to equate to a second
RSD reading.
4.) Appendix A, Technical Specifications, Attachment 1: Sections
[[Page 53374]]
of Attachment 1 of the Technical Specifications contain the
specifications for the PDF 1000 Scanner; some sections were unreadable
and a full, retyped PDF 1000 Scanner section was provided.
5.) Appendix A, Technical Specifications, Attachment 2: Sections of
Attachment 2 of the Technical Specifications contain the specifications
for the Thermal Transfer Printer; some sections were unreadable and a
full, retyped Thermal Transfer Printer section was provided.
The EPA notes that Part F, section III.A.2 of Reg. No. 11 was also
provided with the State's June 11, 2008 submittal. This section
contains IM240 test light duty vehicle emissions cutpoints for 1996 and
newer vehicles (all in grams per mile). The CO, HC, and NOX
entries for calendar year 2006 are incorrect as the State had
previously provided an August 8, 2006 SIP revision submittal to remove
these 2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 0.6, CO 10.0, and NOX 1.5).
The EPA approved the removal of these 2006 cutpoints on December 20,
2012 (77 FR 75388).
V. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2012 Revisions to the On-Board
Diagnostics Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions Test Exemption, the
Gas Cap Retest, Part A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and Part G
a.) Evaluation of the OBD Test Provisions
As we noted above, beginning in January 2015, Colorado began
implementing an OBD test for certain model year vehicles. An OBD I/M
test essentially means the electronic retrieval, by connecting to the
computer port DLC in the vehicle with an OBD test analyzer, of
information from a vehicle's computer system addressing items such as
stored readiness status, DTCs, MIL illumination and other information
from a vehicle's OBD system. Electronically interrogating a vehicle's
OBD system allows for the determination if any emission related DTCs
are present and if the MIL is commanded on. Should these aspects of an
OBD test be present, that would indicate the existence of an emissions
related malfunction with the vehicle being tested. More detailed
information on OBD I/M testing is found in 40 CFR 85, Subpart W and at
the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web site at:
https://www3.epa.gov/obd/regtech/inspection.htm. In addition, further
information is provided in the EPA's OBD rulemaking actions of April 5,
2001 (66 FR 18156), December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75403), and the EPA's
document addressing performing OBD system checks as part of an I/M
program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Performing Onboard Diagnostic System Checks as Part of a
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' EPA-420-R-01-015,
dated June, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has reviewed the OBD information in the State's
Administrative documentation with its March 15, 2013 submittal, the OBD
I/M test procedures contained in the Reg. No. 11 revisions to Part A,
Part B, Part C, and Part F, all as detailed further below, and has
concluded these revisions meet the requirements of 40 CFR 85, Subpart W
for OBD I/M testing and the above cited EPA final rules.
We note the Colorado OBD test provisions that were adopted in 2012
are applicable to a portion of the vehicles that are subject to an I/M
test. The Reg. No. 11 revisions of 2012 also increased the new vehicle
model year exemption from four to seven years, required OBD testing for
the next four years (two inspection cycles for the 8th through 11th
years), and required I/M 240 testing to commence with the third
inspection cycle. In addition, the Reg. No. 11 revisions of 2012
allowed OBD testing for OBD equipped vehicles that were otherwise hard
to test with the IM240 procedures (for example, too short of a
wheelbase for the dynamometer treadmills, vehicles with very large or
small wheel/tire combinations, and certain all-wheel-drive vehicles
with very sensitive traction control systems), eliminated the visual
inspection for 1996 and newer vehicles (because of OBD testing), and
required a full emissions retest for vehicles initially failing the gas
cap test. The 2012 Reg. No. 11 revisions retained other aspects of the
I/M program including the use of Clean Screen technology to clean
screen vehicles and annual TSI testing for 1981 and older vehicles.
In consideration of the OBD testing component of the I/M program
and the extension from four years to seven years to exempt new vehicles
from I/M testing (discussed further below), the State prepared an
estimated emissions benefit for the implementation of both the OBD
testing and extended test exemption for seven years. This estimated
emissions benefit information is contained in the Administrative
Documentation, that is part of the State's March 15, 2013 SIP
submittal, and is provided in the section entitled ``SIP Emission
Reduction Equivalency Demonstration.'' The information notes that the
Division conducted modeling of the 2012 revisions using the then
current I/M program, as implemented in the seven Metro-Denver counties
area, and the new program (OBD plus the seven-year testing exemption)
as fully implemented in 2017. The year 2017 was selected as that would
reflect the full completion of a two-year OBD inspection cycle on
applicable vehicles. The Division's results are provided below in Table
3:
Table 3--Seven County Metro-Denver Area I/M Program Estimated Reductions in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGH * NOX CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current I/M Program............... 6.008 tpd **............ 4.849 tpd............... 68.843 tpd.
Revised I/M Program............... 6.052................... 5.004................... 64.916.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons.
**tons per day (tpd).
As shown in Table 3 above, implementation of the Reg. No. 11
provisions of the OBD component and the seven-year exemption from I/M
testing were estimated to result in a small increase in CO emissions
and a slight reduction in ozone precursor emissions (NOX and
TGH).
The EPA has evaluated this negligible increase in estimated CO
emissions and has concluded it will not have a detrimental effect on
the most recently-approved revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan (72
FR 46148, August 17, 2007).\11\ Our evaluation considered the
negligible increase in CO emissions of four tpd to the CO mobile
sources emission inventory data in the Metro-
[[Page 53375]]
Denver maintenance plan for the projected 2015 mobile source CO
emissions of 1,416 tpd and the maintenance plan's final maintenance
year of 2021 projected mobile source CO emissions of 1,372.10 tpd. The
four tpd emissions would be 0.28% of the 2015 CO mobile source
emissions and 0.29% of the 2021 CO mobile source emissions. In
addition, we also reviewed state-certified and EPA-reviewed ambient CO
air quality monitoring data that are located in the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database. We reviewed data from 2007 through 2015. We did
not find any exceedances or violations of the CO National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the Metro-Denver CO maintenance
area continues to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions,'' 72
FR 46148, dated August 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do note that the slight reduction in ozone precursor emissions
of NOX and TGH will be beneficial as the Metro-Denver/North
Front Range (NFR) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area continues
to work towards attainment of that NAAQS. Additional information
regarding the Metro Denver/NFR ozone nonattainment area and its status
can be found in the EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS proposed SIP Requirements
rule (80 FR 51992, August 27, 2015) \12\ and final rule (81 FR 26697,
May 4, 2016).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several
Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' 80 FR 51992, dated August 27, 2015.
\13\ ``Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several
Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' 81 FR 26697, dated May 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b.) Evaluation of the Extension of the I/M Test Exemption From Four to
Seven Years
Included with the March 15, 2013 Reg. No. 11 SIP revision submittal
were revised provisions to increase the I/M test exemption for newer
vehicles from the EPA-approved four-year exemption to seven years.
Additional information and rationale were provided by the Division in
the ``Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 11 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Detailed Issue Statement'' which was part of the SIP
submittal's Administrative Documentation.
The Division's AQCC issue statement noted that the revision to Reg.
No. 11, to increase new vehicle model year exemptions from four years
to seven years, was allowed by Colorado law which authorizes the AQCC
to extend the duration for which new vehicles are exempt from I/M
testing; 42-4-310(1)(a)(II)(C) and 42-4-306(8)(b), Colorado Revised
Statute (C.R.S.)
The Division noted that the revision to extend the new vehicle
model year exemption results in an overall cost savings and increased
convenience to the public for tests not performed. In addition, the
Division stated that the population of vehicles in this age group, and
their vehicle miles traveled, are relatively high; however, since they
are relatively new vehicles, their emissions are lower than those of
older vehicles.
The Division concluded that increasing the duration of the new
vehicle exemption increases emissions from the entire fleet. However,
the EPA notes that with this particular revision to Reg. No. 11, the
State simultaneously included revisions to Reg. No. 11 to initiate OBD
testing requirements for applicable vehicles. As discussed above and as
presented in Table 3 above, the net result of the implementation of
both the seven-year extended exemption for I/M test and OBD testing
showed a negligible increase of CO emissions and a slight decrease in
NOX and TGH emissions. Based on our above analysis of the
Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan and relevant ambient CO air quality
monitoring data, the EPA finds that the increase in the new vehicle
seven-year I/M test exemption will not have an adverse effect on the
approved revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan (72 FR 46148, August
17, 2007). We also find that the emissions from the revised seven-year
I/M test exemption are offset by the additional reduction in ozone
precursor emissions of NOX and TGH realized through the
State's implementation of OBD testing that covers the Metro-Denver/NFR
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area.
c.) Gas Cap Full Retest Clarification and Other Minor Non-Substantive
Revisions
There was a clarification to the gas cap test requirements and
several other minor revisions included with the March 15, 2013 Reg. No.
11 SIP revision submittal.
The state revised Reg. No. 11 to clarify that, in accordance with
federal law, a full I/M retest is required after a test failure due to
the lack of a gas cap or a faulty gas cap. The EPA notes that missing
or malfunctioning gas caps automatically cause a test failure and
require replacement of the cap and then a full emissions retest. The
full retest is necessary because the gas cap seals and pressurizes the
entire fuel evaporative emissions control system. If other components
of the evaporative system are functional, there will be no effect on
tailpipe emissions; however, if other elements of the evaporative
system are faulty replacing a faulty or missing gas cap can trigger a
tailpipe emissions failure. In addition, the inclusion or replacement
of a malfunctioning gas cap will reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from a vehicle's fuel tank. This is a beneficial as
VOCs are a precursor emission to the formation of ground level ozone.
The Reg. No. 11 revisions also include several `housekeeping' items
including: Correcting typographical and grammatical errors; deleting
obsolete language and implementation dates; removing titles and text
that were inadvertently left unchanged from prior Reg. No. 11 changes;
and renumbering and recodifications according to adopted language
additions and deletions.
d.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That Were Revised With the State's
March 15, 2013 Submittal Were as Follows:
1.) Part A, section I: Minor wording changes to add new language
and remove obsolete language in sections I.B, I.C.3, I.C.3.a, I.C.3.b,
I.C.3.c, I.C.4, I.C.7, I.C.7.c, I.C.8, and I.C.9.b.
Part A, section II: A new definition number 20 was added entitled
``Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Test Analyzer System;'' a new
definition number 22 was added entitled ``Diagnostic Trouble Code
(DTC);'' and, definitions number 23 to 43 were renumbered. A new
definition number 44 was added and entitled ``On-Board Diagnostics II
(OBD or OBDII) Test'' and definitions numbered 45 to 52 were
renumbered.
Part A, section IV: Section IV. D was removed which involved
obsolete language and section IV.E was renumbered IV.D and also had
obsolete language removed.
2.) Part B, section IX: Section IX was added and is entitled
``Approval of the Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Test Analyzer
System. Also, Part B, section X was added and is entitled ``The
Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Test Analyzer System.''
3.) Part C, title: The title was modified by adding ``On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD).''
Part C, section I.C.3: This involved minor language changes to
clarify data transmission and analyzer requirements.
Part C, section II.A: This section was renumbered from II.A through
II.F to instead become II.A.1 through II.A.11. Minor clarification
language was added along with revised references to sections in Part C.
Part C, section II.G: This section was renumbered to II.B and
clarifying
[[Page 53376]]
language was added regarding OBD testing. Sections II.G.1 through
II.G.6 were renumbered II.B.1 through II.B.6. Section II.B.4 had
clarifying language added regarding applicable vehicles that were
unable to be tested with the IM240 test would then be OBD tested.
Part C, section II.C: A new section II.C (II.C 1 through II.C.9)
was added which specifies which vehicles are to be OBD tested and the
requirements and testing procedures for an OBD test.
Part C, section III.A: This section had clarifying language added
and sections III.B and III.C were removed as they addressed the model
year 1996 and newer visual inspection procedures. The remaining
applicable portions of section III.C were then renumbered III.B.
Sections III.D and III.E were renumbered to III.C and III.D.
Part C, section IV: A new section IV was added which addressed the
requirements for applicable vehicles (1996 through those vehicles that
had reached their 11th model year of age) to be evaluated with and OBD
test.
Part C, prior section IV: The existing section IV was renumbered
section V and also modified with clarifying language regarding the
requirement for a full retest of vehicles which previously had a
missing or malfunctioning gas cap.
Part C, section VIII.A.2: A new section VIII.A.2 was added which
states that vehicles in their model years seven through 10 need to meet
the OBD passing criteria in Part F, section VII. Sections VIII.A.2
through VIII.A.4 were renumbered VIII.A.3 through VIII.A.5.
Part C, sections VIII.B.1, VIII.B.2, and VIII.B.3: These sections
had minor wording changes and deletion of obsolete language.
Part C, sections VIII.D.A through VIII.D.E: These sections were
renumbered VIII.D.1 through VIII.D.5.
Part C, sections IX.G and X.A: These sections had minor clarifying
language added.
4.) Part F, section V: This section was entitled ``Visible Smoke.''
Part F, section VII: A new section VII was added (sections VII.A
through VII.F) which stated the required OBD diagnostic inspection test
passing criteria.
5.) Part G: This part had previously contained obsolete high-
emitting vehicle identification pilot project language which was
removed and Part G was retitled ``Reserved.''
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2013 Revisions to Part A, Part C,
Appendix A, and Appendix B
In 2013, the AQCC adopted several minor changes to Reg. No. 11.
These revisions were subsequently submitted to the EPA on March 3,
2014. The sections of Reg. No. 11 that were revised with the State's
March 3, 2014 submittal were as follows:
a.) Part A, section I.C.3.c: This section was revised to clarify
that the seven year new vehicle exemption, which excused vehicles from
an I/M test for seven years and was previously adopted by the AQCC in
December 2012, would take effect on January 1, 2015. Also, this
exemption would apply retroactively to existing vehicles in their
fourth, fifth, and sixth years of service.
b.) Part A, sections I.C.8, I.C.9, and I.C.10: These sections were
revised to clarify ambiguous, contradictory and obsolete Reg. No. 11
language concerning the issuance of and duration periods for
``Verification of Emissions Test'' exemption windshield stickers issued
by motor vehicle dealers. Part A, section I.C.8 was further clarified
to note that vehicles in their fourth, fifth, and sixth years of
service would have the seven year exemption applied retroactively.
c.) Part A, section I.C.3 and Part C, sections III and IV: These
sections were revised to clarify that the seven-year new vehicle
exemption from I/M testing, OBD testing requirements and procedures,
and other changes made to Reg. No. 11 by the AQCC in December 2012,
would go into effect January 1, 2015. In addition, the I/M visual
inspection procedures for 1996 and newer vehicles would be retained
through December 2014.
d.) Part C, section C VIII.B.3: This section was revised to codify
in Reg. No. 11 the vehicle emissions repair cost waiver amount of $715.
The AQCC has previously directed the Division to change the amount from
$450 to $715 in November 2002, which was done. However, at that time,
the AQCC had declined to note the changed repair amount in the text of
Reg. No. 11.
e.) Part C, section VIII.D.4: This section was revised regarding
the qualifying criteria for an economic hardship waiver for a vehicle
failing its emissions test. Section VIII.D.4 was further revised to
allow the economic hardship waiver to apply to households owning two
vehicles rather than restricting hardship waivers to households owning
only one vehicle.
f.) Appendix A of Reg. No. 11 was revised as follows:
1.) Appendix A was revised to remove the text of three technical
document attachments and to note that the documents are available at
CDPHE's Emissions Technical Center Procedures Manual. The technical
documents are incorporated by reference into Reg. No. 11. Appendix A.
The technical documents that are incorporated by reference into Reg.
No. 11 are: Attachment I ``PDF 1000 Scanner,'' Attachment II ``Thermal
Transfer Printer,'' and Attachment III ``Colorado Automobile Dealers
Transient Mode Test Analyzer System.''
2.) Updated Attachment IV, entitled ``Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment Specification for Colorado 97 Analyzer,'' to
reflect technological changes to data specifications, communications
protocols, and forms generation.
3.) Included a new Attachment V ``Test Analyzer Specification for
On-board Diagnostics'' for licensed fleets who self-inspect their own
vehicles. Note: Part B section X required this Test Analyzer
Specification to be in place by December 31, 2013.
g.) Appendix B of Reg. No. 11 was revised as follows:
1.) Attachment II; the ``Calibration Span Gas'' labels were updated
to reflect the current version of the State-official labels.
h.) Overall revised formatting and other non-substantive changes
were made throughout Reg. No. 11.
VII. Conclusion
Our review of the State's Reg. No. 11 revisions, as presented above
in sections IV, V, and VI, involved: 1.) The Low Emitter Index (LEI)
and Clean Screen program components, 2.) The On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)
I/M testing program component, 3.) The seven model-year exemption from
I/M testing provisions, 4.) The requirement for a full I/M retest after
the replacement of a missing or malfunctioning gas cap, 5.) New
definitions, clarification language, and removal of obsolete language,
6.) Numerous revisions to Reg. No. 11 Parts A, B, C, F, G, Appendix A,
and Appendix B, and 7.) Overall formatting, correction of typographic
errors and other non-substantive changes. Based on our review and
evaluation discussion presented above, we have determined that the Reg.
No. 11 SIP revisions, submitted by the State in letters dated June 11,
2008, March 15, 2013 and March 3, 2014 sufficiently address applicable
provisions in 40 CFR 51, Subpart S, 40 CFR 85, Subpart W, and
applicable EPA guidance for I/M programs and that our approval is
warranted.
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act
Section 110(1) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning
[[Page 53377]]
attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a
NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The only portions
of the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we described above which we believe
require further consideration with regard to section 110(l) of the CAA
are the revisions to the Clean Screen program to add the LEI component
and the seven-year I/M test exemption.
For the LEI component of the Clean Screen program, we noted above
that with our December 14, 2001 approval the Metro-Denver CO
maintenance plan and implementation of the Clean Screen program as
adopted at that time, the State concluded there would be an approximate
4% disbenefit for CO emissions and a 7% disbenefit for HC emissions if
it was assumed that 35% of the eligible vehicles were clean-screened.
Our further evaluation of the LEI component of the Clean Screen
program, as discussed above in section IV, involved the review of the
State's Clean Screen annual reports for 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The
annual reports detailed the overall effectiveness of the Clean Screen
program and also contained the results of the random 2% sampling for
the LEI component. The data from the State's Clean Screen reports
demonstrate that the disbenefit from the Clean Screen program,
including its LEI component, continue to be within the original
estimates from the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we approved on December
14, 2001. Although those original 2001 disbenefit estimates (4% for CO,
7% for HC, and 35% vehicles being clean-screened) were prepared with
then current tools, the Clean Screen program and LEI component continue
to perform within those estimates. Also, from the above four years of
Clean Screen annual reports that we evaluated, the State's Reg. No. 11
revisions original estimate of 35% of the fleet being clean-screened
has not be been achieved. Based on the four referenced Clean Screen
reports, we note that 22% or less of the eligible vehicles have been
clean-screened. Therefore, the actual emissions reduction disbenefit
has been less than predicted as more vehicles have then been required
to go through the IM240 test.
With regard to the seven-year new vehicle exemption from I/M
testing, as explained above in section V, we noted that with the
implementation of the Reg. No. 11 provisions of the combination of the
OBD testing component and the seven-year exemption from I/M testing
there was estimated to be a small increase in CO emissions and a minor
reduction in ozone precursor emissions (NOX and TGH). As
noted above, the EPA evaluated this small increase in estimated CO
emissions and has concluded it will not have a detrimental effect on
the approved revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan (72 FR 46148,
August 17, 2007). Our evaluation considered the negligible increase in
CO emissions of approximately four tons per day as compared to the CO
mobile sources emission inventory data in the Metro-Denver CO
maintenance plan. As we noted above, the maintenance plan's estimated
2015 mobile source CO emissions are 1,416 tpd and the estimated 2021
(last year of the maintenance plan) mobile source CO emissions are
1,372.10 tpd. Therefore, the four tpd increase would be 0.28% of the
2015 mobile source CO emissions and the 0.29% of the 2021 mobile source
CO emissions. We also reviewed available state-certified and EPA-
reviewed ambient CO air quality monitoring data from the EPA's AQS
database from 2007 through 2015. These data show no exceedance or
violation of the CO NAAQS. We further noted that the minor increase in
reductions of ozone precursor emissions of NOX and TGH will
be beneficial as the Metro-Denver/NFR 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area continues to work towards attainment of that NAAQS.
With respect to other NAAQS that have the potential to be affected
by our proposed approval of the above Reg. No. 11 revisions, we note
that the Metro-Denver area is designated ``unclassifiable/attainment''
for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS \14\ and the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS \15\ (see: 40 CFR 81.306). We reviewed available
state-certified and EPA-reviewed ambient air quality monitoring data
for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, and the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Our review involved EPA's AQS database and
relevant data from 2007 through 2015. The data demonstrate continued
attainment of the 1-hour NO2 and PM2.5 annual and
24-hour NAAQS in the Metro-Denver area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 1-hour NO2 NAAQS: 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010.
\15\ PM2.5 NAAQS: Annual NAAQS (78 FR 3086, January
15, 2013); 2006 24-hour NAAQS (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above, we have determined the revisions to Reg.
No. 11 contained in all three SIP revision submittals involving the
language changes necessary to implement the LEI and Clean Screen
program components, the OBD I/M testing program component, the seven
model-year exemption from I/M testing provisions, the requirement for a
full I/M retest after the replacement of a missing or malfunctioning
gas cap, new definitions, clarification language, removal of obsolete
language, numerous minor revisions to Parts A, B, C, F, G, Appendix A
and Appendix B of Reg. No. 11, overall formatting, correction of
typographic errors and other non-substantive changes do not affect
emissions and therefore do not have CAA section 110(l) implications.
In view of the above, the EPA proposes to find that the revisions
to Colorado's Reg. No. 11 that are contained in the State's SIP
submittals dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013 and March 3, 2014 will
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA.
IX. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing approval of the June 11, 2008 submitted SIP
revisions to Colorado's Regulation Number 11, Part A, Part C, Part F,
and Appendix A. The EPA notes that Part F, section III.A.2 was also
provided with the State's June 11, 2008 submittal. This section
contains IM240 test light duty vehicle emissions cutpoints for 1996 and
newer vehicles (all in grams per mile). The CO, HC, and NOX
entries for calendar year 2006 are incorrect as the State had
previously provided an August 8, 2006 SIP revision submittal to remove
these 2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 0.6, CO 10.0, and NOX 1.5).
EPA approved the removal of these 2006 cutpoints on December 20, 2012
(77 FR 75388).
In addition, the EPA is proposing approval of the March 15, 2013
submitted SIP revisions to Regulation Number 11, Part A, Part B, Part
C, Part F, and Part G. Finally, the EPA is proposing approval of the
March 3, 2014 submitted SIP revisions to Regulation Number 11, Part A,
Part C, Appendix A, and Appendix B.
X. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation Number 11
as discussed in section IX of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section of this preamble for more information).
[[Page 53378]]
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations [42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)]. Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 26, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-18878 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
