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 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 http:// 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 http://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 http:// 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: http://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: http:// 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 http:// 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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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: http://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: 
http://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