[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11149-11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6005]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[CO37-2-6290(a); FRL-5417-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Colorado; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Colorado. This revision establishes and 
requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado 
Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld Counties (Greeley). The 
intended effect of this action is approval of a basic motor vehicle I/M 
program. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air 
Act.

DATES: This action is effective on May 20, 1996, unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Douglas Skie, 
Chief, Air Programs Branch (8ART-AP), USEPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, 
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the documents 
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during 
normal business hours at the address listed above. Anyone wanting to 
view these documents must make an appointment at least 24 hours in 
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott P. Lee, Air Programs Branch, 
State Implementation Plan Section (8ART-AP), USEPA, Region 8, Denver, 
Colorado 80202, (303) 293-1887.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Clean Air Act Requirements

    The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAAA or Act), requires 
states to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or implement 
new ones. Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires any ozone nonattainment area 
which has been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant to section 181(a) 
of the Act) or worse with an existing I/M program that was part of a 
SIP, or any area that was required by the 1977 Amendments to the Act to 
have an I/M program, to immediately submit a SIP revision to bring the 
program up to the level required in past EPA guidance or to what had 
been committed to previously in the SIP whichever was more stringent. 
All carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas were also subject to this 
requirement to improve existing or previously required programs to this 
level.
    In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to 
publish updated guidance for state I/M programs, taking into 
consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations 
of these programs. The states were to incorporate this guidance into 
the SIP for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program.
    On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final 
regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182 
and 187 of the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart S, and requires states to submit an I/M SIP revision which 
includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40 
CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. The State of 
Colorado has met these requirements.
    The nonattainment designations for CO and ozone were published in 
the Federal Register (FR) on November 6, 1991, and November 30, 1992, 
and have been codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 56 
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), 
codified at 40 CFR 81.300 through 81.437. Based on these nonattainment 
designations, basic I/M programs are required in three of Colorado's 
Front Range Counties. These are: El Paso County (Colorado Springs area 
nonattainment for CO); Larimer County (Fort Collins area nonattainment 
for CO); and Weld County (Greeley area nonattainment for CO).
    By this action, the EPA is approving this submittal. The EPA has 
reviewed the State submittal against the statutory requirements and for 
consistency with the EPA regulations. EPA summarizes the requirements 
of the Federal I/M regulations as found in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373 
and its analysis of the State submittal below. Parties desiring 
additional details on the Federal I/M regulation are referred to the 
November 5, 1992 Federal Register document (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR 
51.350 through 51.373.

II. Background

    On January 14, 1994, and on June 24, 1994, the State of Colorado 
submitted its

[[Page 11150]]
basic I/M SIP revision for the Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and 
Greeley urbanized areas.
    The January 14, 1994, submittal included authorizing legislation 
(HB1340 adopted by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor); 
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation Number 11; 
Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, adopted and effective as an 
emergency rule December 16, 1993, and the SIP narrative with appendices 
entitled, ``State of Colorado Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and 
Maintenance State Implementation Plan'', adopted by the AQCC on 
November 12, 1993, and again on December 16, 1993, with no substantive 
changes. EPA reviewed the January 14, 1994, submittal and identified 
aspects which the State would need to address prior to EPA approval. 
EPA's primary concerns concentrated on: the need for the State to 
submit a final binding regulation to replace the since-lapsed, December 
16, 1993, emergency rule. Governor Romer's June 24, 1994, submittal 
included a binding regulation adopted by the State on March 17, 1994.

III. State Submittal

    The State submittal provides for the upgrading of the existing I/M 
program to an EPA approved basic I/M program in the Colorado Springs, 
Fort Collins, and Greeley urbanized areas. Colorado is implementing 
annual test-and-repair I/M programs which meet the requirements of 
EPA's performance standard and other requirements contained in the 
Federal I/M rule in the applicable urbanized areas. Testing will be 
performed by independent inspection stations with state oversight. 
Other aspects of the Colorado I/M program include: testing of all 
model-year gasoline-powered vehicles, a test fee to ensure the State/
Counties have adequate resources to implement the program, enforcement 
by registration denial, a repair effectiveness program, a commitment to 
testing convenience, quality assurance, data collection, three percent 
(3%) waiver rate, reporting, test equipment and test procedure 
specifications, a commitment to ongoing public information and consumer 
protection programs, inspector training and certification, and 
penalties against inspector incompetence. An analysis of how the 
Colorado I/M programs meet the Federal SIP requirements by section of 
the Federal I/M rule is provided below.

A. Applicability

    The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and, 
consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the legal authority or 
rules necessary to establish program boundaries. Colorado's I/M 
program, as authorized by Section 42-4-309(3) C.R.S. are to be 
implemented in the western half of El Paso County; Southeastern \2/3\ 
of Larimer County; and the Greeley metropolitain area including the 
cities of Evans, LaSalle, and Garden City. [Boundaries simplified--see 
C.R.S. for exact boundary deliniation].

B. Basic I/M Performance Standard

    The I/M programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a 
performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the 
affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard 
sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in 
order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the 
program will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with 
provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met. The 
State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer 
model, MOBILE 5a, showing that the basic performance standard is met in 
all of the affected urbanized areas.

C. Network Type

    The SIP needs to include a description of the network to be 
employed, the required legal authority, and, in the case of areas 
making claims for case-by-case equivalency, the required demonstration. 
Colorado has chosen to implement decentralized, test-and-repair basic 
I/M programs, which are comprised of independently operated facilities. 
The Colorado I/M programs, in each of the affected urbanized areas, 
allow fleet self-testing programs with oversight by Department of 
Revenue employees. Legal authority which is contained in Sections 42-4-
306.5 thru 42-4-316 C.R.S., authorizes the State Departments of Health 
and Revenue to implement and oversee these programs.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources

    The SIP needs to include a description of the resources that will 
be used for program operation, which include: (1) A detailed budget 
plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program 
administration, program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment, 
and any other requirements discussed throughout, for the period prior 
to the next biennial self-evaluation required in Federal I/M rule; and 
(2) a description of personnel resources, the number of personnel 
dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program 
administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions and the 
training attendant to each function.
    The SIP narrative and Regulation No. 11, and the authorizing 
legislation contained in the submittal, describe the budget, staffing 
support, and equipment and resources dedicated to the program meeting 
the requirements of the Federal Rule.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience

    The SIP needs to include the test schedule in detail, including the 
test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also, the 
SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and 
enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test 
frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.
    The Colorado basic I/M program requires annual inspections for all 
subject motor vehicles. For new vehicles the first test is required for 
re-registration four years after initial registration.

F. Vehicle Coverage

    The SIP needs to include a detailed description of the number and 
types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for how 
those vehicles are to be identified, including vehicles that are 
routinely operated in the area, but which may not be registered in the 
area. Also, the SIP needs to include a description of any special 
exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the 
percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such 
exemptions need to be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. 
In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority or rule 
necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
    Colorado's basic I/M program area vehicle coverage includes all 
model year gasoline-powered light-duty cars and trucks, and heavy-duty 
gasoline powered trucks registered or required to be registered within 
the affected urbanized areas. Additionally, all vehicles operated in 
the program area more than ninety days per year are required to comply 
with the program requirements. Vehicles are identified through random 
parking lot surveys and motor vehicles registration database queries.
    Vehicles exempted from the program include: motorcycles, farm 
plated vehicles, collector series vehicles, electric vehicles, two-
cycle powered vehicles, vehicles registered as horseless carriages, and 
diesel vehicles (required

[[Page 11151]]
to be inspected in diesel emission program). The exempted vehicles are 
accounted for in the modeling submitted by the State and documented in 
the SIP narrative as required.

G. Test Procedures and Standards

    The SIP needs to include a description of each test procedure used. 
The SIP also needs to include the rule, ordinance or law describing and 
establishing the test procedures.
    Colorado's I/M programs use EPA's Preconditioned two-speed idle 
test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/M-90-3 March 1990, Technical Report, 
``Recommended I/M Short Test Procedures for the 1990's: Six 
Alternatives.'' The Colorado95 Analyzer calibration specifications and 
emissions test procedures meet the minimum standard established in 
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S. Test procedures are established 
in Regulation No. 11 as contained in the SIP.

H. Test Equipment

    The SIP needs to include written technical specifications for all 
test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M rule. The 
specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the 
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance 
testing criteria and procedures.
    The Colorado I/M SIP commits to meeting the California BAR 90 
accuracy standards at a minimum. The Colorado SIP addresses the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and includes descriptions of performance 
features and functional characteristics of the Colorado95 computerized 
test systems. The necessary test equipment, required features, and 
acceptance testing criteria are also contained in the SIP.

I. Quality Control

    The SIP needs to include a description of quality control and 
recordkeeping procedures. The SIP also needs to include the procedures 
manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the 
quality control procedures and requirements. The Colorado I/M SIP 
narrative contains descriptions and requirements establishing the 
quality control procedures in accordance with the Federal I/M rule. 
These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are 
properly performed and recorded, as well as maintaining compliance 
document security. Additional requirements are documented in the SIP 
narrative, Regulation No. 11., and the authorizing legislation.

J. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection

    The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a 
percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be 
used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling 
analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver 
rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the 
emission reductions claimed accordingly.
    In addition, the SIP needs to describe the waiver criteria and 
procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance methods and 
measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP shall include the 
necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to issue waivers, set 
and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out any other functions 
necessary to administer the waiver system, including enforcement of the 
waiver provisions. The Colorado basic I/M program commits to a waiver 
rate of 3 percent or less. Waiver procedures are detailed in the 
Appendices to the SIP submittal, Regulation No. 11, and the authorizing 
legislation. Legal authority for waivers is contained in Section 42-4-
312 C.R.S.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

    The SIP needs to provide information concerning the enforcement 
process, including: (1) A description of the existing compliance 
mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the demonstration that 
it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial 
enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies responsible for 
performing each of the applicable activities in this section; (3) a 
description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and 
(4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car 
fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special classes of subject 
vehicles, e.g. those operated in (but not necessarily registered in) 
the program area. Also, the SIP needs to include a determination of the 
current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an 
estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and 
unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such 
loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism need to be 
supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include 
the legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the 
SIP needs to include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used 
for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
    The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented, by 
the Department of Revenue Motor Vehicles Division, which will take the 
lead in ensuring that owners of all subject vehicles are denied 
registration unless they provide valid proof of having received a 
certificate indicating they passed an emissions test or been granted a 
compliance waiver. State and local police agencies have the authority 
to cite motorists with expired registration tags and out-dated 
emissions windshield stickers.
    Current compliance rates are estimated at greater than 96 percent 
in the each of the urbanized areas. The SIP commits to a level of 
motorist enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less 
than 96 percent among subject vehicles.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

    The SIP needs to include a description of enforcement program 
oversight and information management activities. Penalties for failure 
to comply with the program are described in the authorizing legislation 
and the Colorado Revised Statutes. Fines of up to $1,000 can be imposed 
in cases where motorists are involved in fraudulently obtaining 
certificates of compliance, stickers, or registrations. Failure to 
register a vehicle also results in significant penalties, as described 
in the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding registration penalties. The 
State of Colorado has met EPA's requirements for the imposition of 
mandatory fines. The State commits to corrective action if a compliance 
rate of 96 percent is not maintained in practice.

M. Quality Assurance

    The SIP needs to include a description of the quality assurance 
program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert 
performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This 
requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of 
enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement 
process.
    The Colorado I/M SIP includes a description of its quality 
assurance program. The program includes operation and progress reports, 
and overt and covert audits of all emission inspectors and emission 
inspections. Overt and covert audits, and remote inspector audits will 
be performed by the Department of Revenue. Procedures and techniques 
for overt and covert

[[Page 11152]]

performance, recordkeeping, and equipment audits are given to auditors 
and updated as needed. Current auditor procedures are contained in the 
Appendices to the SIP.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors

    The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal 
authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license 
suspension, and revocations. In the case of state constitutional 
impediments to immediate suspension authority, the state Attorney 
General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the 
constitutional impediment, as well as relevant case law. Also, the SIP 
needs to describe the administrative and judicial procedures and 
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which 
agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute 
and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the 
program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function, 
and the source of those funds. In states without immediate suspension 
authority, the SIP needs to demonstrate that sufficient resources, 
personnel, and systems are in place to meet the three day case 
management requirement for violations that directly affect emission 
reductions.
    The Colorado submittal includes the legal authority to establish 
and impose penalties against stations, contractors and inspectors. The 
I/M SIP and regulations include penalty provisions for stations, 
contractors, and inspectors. These penalty schedules meet the Federal 
I/M regulation requirements and are approvable. The I/M program 
legislative authority gives the state auditors the authority to 
temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or certificates 
immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal includes a 
description of administrative and judicial procedures relevant to the 
enforcement process which meet Federal I/M regulations and are 
approvable.

O. Data Analysis and Reporting

    The SIP needs to describe the types of data to be collected. The 
State regulation requires the collection of data on each individual 
test conducted and describes the type of data to be collected. The type 
of test data collected meets the Federal I/M regulation requirements 
and is approvable. The appendices to the I/M SIP submittal contain a 
procedure manual that details the gathering and reporting requirements 
of the State required under 40 CFR Part 51.359 and is approvable. The 
Colorado I/M SIP provides reporting summary data based upon program 
activities taking place in the previous year. The report will provide 
statistics for the testing program, the quality control program, the 
quality assurance program, and the enforcement program. At a minimum, 
Colorado commits to address all of the data elements listed in section 
51.366 of the Federal I/M rule.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification

    The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the 
written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.
    The Colorado I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training, 
certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training 
will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule. 
All inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicles in 
the Colorado I/M program.

Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness

    The SIP needs to include a description of the technical assistance 
program to be implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria 
to be used in meeting the performance monitoring requirements of this 
section for enhanced I/M programs, and a description of the repair 
technician training resources available in the community.
    The Colorado SIP commits the program technical and supervisory 
staff to continue to work with both motor vehicle owners and the 
automotive service industry regarding their vehicles failing to meet 
the exhaust emission levels. These direct contacts are normally either 
by telephone or person-to-person. Customers with vehicles that present 
unusual testing problems or situations are referred to a State-run 
Technical Center for further testing and diagnostics.

IV. This Action

    In this action, the EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by 
the State of Colorado for purposes of implementing a Basic I/M program 
in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado Springs), Larimer (Fort 
Collins), and Weld Counties (Greeley). The EPA has reviewed this 
revision to the Colorado SIP and is approving it as submitted. The 
State's Basic I/M program revisions meet requirements pursuant to 
sections 182 and 187 of the Act and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. Thus, today's direct 
final action will be effective May 20, 1996, unless, by April 18, 1996, 
adverse or critical comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective May 20, 1996.
    The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the CAA. The EPA 
has determined that this action conforms with those requirements.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be considered separately 
in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and 
in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., the 
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact 
of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations that are 
less than 50,000.
    SIP revision approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D, 
of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the EPA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the

[[Page 11153]]
economic reasonableness of State actions. The CAA forbids the EPA to 
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. 
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-266 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 
7410(a)(2).
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), petitions 
for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control for hydrocarbons, Incorporation by Reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, 
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 28, 1995.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart G--Colorado

    2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (73) On January 14, 1994 and on June 24, 1994, Roy Romer, the 
Governor of Colorado, submitted SIP revisions to the State 
Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution. This revisions 
requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado 
Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld (Greeley) Counties meeting 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This material 
is being incorporated by reference for the enforcement of Colorado's 
basic I/M program only.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 42-4-306.5--42-4-316 adopted June 8, 
1993 as House Bill 93-1340, effective July 1, 1993.
    (B) Regulation No. 11 (Inspection/Maintenance Program) as adopted 
by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on March 17, 
1994, effective April 30, 1994.

[FR Doc. 96-6005 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P