[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 25, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46279-46290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21933]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO-001-0032a; FRL-6410-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to 
Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, and 
Approval of a Related Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 19, 1998, the Governor of Colorado submitted a 
request to redesignate the Colorado Springs ``moderate'' carbon 
monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for the CO National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Governor also submitted a CO 
maintenance plan. In addition, on October 1, 1998, the Governor 
submitted revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels 
Program''. In this action, EPA is approving the Colorado Springs CO 
redesignation request, the maintenance plan, and the revisions to 
Regulation No. 13.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 25, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 24, 
1999. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Richard R. Long, 
Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 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 following 
offices:


[[Page 46280]]


United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Air and 
Radiation Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466; and,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

    Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection at: Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek 
Drive South, Denver, Colorado, 880246-1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 
Mailcode 8P-AR, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466 Telephone 
number: (303) 312-6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' are used we mean the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
I. What Is The Purpose of This Action?
    In this action, we are approving a change in the legal designation 
of the Colorado Springs area from nonattainment for CO to attainment, 
we're approving the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area 
in attainment for CO for the next 11 years, and we're also approving 
changes to the State's Regulation No. 13 for the implementation of the 
wintertime oxygenated fuels program.
    On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were 
enacted (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), we 
designated the Colorado Springs area as nonattainment for CO because 
the area had been designated as nonattainment before November 15, 1990. 
We originally designated Colorado Springs as nonattainment for CO under 
the provisions of the 1977 CAA Amendments (see 41 FR 28002, July 8, 
1976). This designation was reaffirmed by the 1990 CAA Amendments and 
Colorado Springs was classified as a ``moderate'' CO nonattainment area 
with a design value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million 
(ppm). See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. Further information regarding 
this classification and the accompanying requirements are described in 
the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990.'' See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.
    Under the CAA, we can change designations if acceptable data are 
available and if certain other requirements are met. See CAA section 
107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the 
Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment 
area to attainment unless:
    (i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the 
national ambient air quality standard;
    (ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);
    (iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and 
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions;
    (iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for 
the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
    (v) the State containing such area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    Before we can approve the redesignation request, we must decide 
that all applicable SIP elements have been fully approved. Approval of 
the applicable SIP elements may occur simultaneously with final 
approval of the redesignation request. That's why we are also approving 
the revisions to Regulation No. 13.

II. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of 
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur 
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
    The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public 
hearing for the Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for Colorado Springs on January 15, 1998. The AQCC 
adopted the redesignation request and maintenance plan directly after 
the hearing. This SIP revision became State effective March 30, 1998, 
and was submitted by the Governor to us on August 19, 1998.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have determined that 
the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing 
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By operation of law under section 
110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor's August 19, 1998, submittal 
became complete on February 19, 1999.
    For the Regulation No. 13 revisions, two public hearings were held. 
On April 17, 1997, the AQCC held a public hearing to consider the 
changes to Regulation No. 13 that involved shortening of the oxygenated 
fuels season by one week and reducing the minimum oxygen content in 
fuels for the first and last weeks of the program. The AQCC adopted 
these changes directly after the April 17, 1997, public hearing and 
they became State effective on June 30, 1997.
    On January 16, 1998, the AQCC held a public hearing to consider 
further changes to Regulation No. 13, in response to action by the 
Colorado General Assembly. The Colorado General Assembly approved the 
April 17, 1997, AQCC changes to Regulation No. 13; however, the General 
Assembly changed the implementation time frame from 1998-1999, as 
contained in the Regulation, to 1997-1998. (State Senate Bill 
SB(97)236, codified at Sec. 25-7-133.5(2)(n), C.R.S.) The purpose of 
the January 16, 1998, public hearing was for the AQCC to change 
Regulation No. 13 to match the implementation time frame of SB(97)236. 
This change was adopted by the AQCC directly after the January 16, 
1998, public hearing and became State effective on March 30, 1998. The 
Governor submitted both the April 17, 1997, and January 16, 1998, 
revisions to Regulation No. 13 to us on October 1, 1998.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have determined that 
the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing 
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. By operation of law under section 
110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the Governor's October 1, 1998, submittal 
became complete on April 1, 1999.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan

    EPA has reviewed the State's redesignation request and maintenance 
plan and believes that approval of the request is warranted, consistent 
with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The following are 
descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements are being 
addressed.
    (a). Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Attained the 
Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS

[[Page 46281]]

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA states that for an area to be 
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that the 
area has attained the applicable NAAQS. As described in 40 CFR 50.8, 
the national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide 
is 9 parts per million (10 milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour 
average concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40 
CFR 50.8 continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air 
shall be measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix C and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an 
equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. 
Attainment of the CO standard is not a momentary phenomenon based on 
short-term data. Instead, we consider an area to be in attainment if 
each of the CO ambient air quality monitors in the area doesn't have 
more than one exceedance of the CO standard over a one-year period. 40 
CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C. If any monitor in the area's 
CO monitoring network records more than one exceedance of the CO 
standard during a one-year calendar period, then the area is in 
violation of the CO NAAQS. In addition, our interpretation of the CAA 
and EPA national policy 1 has been that an area seeking 
redesignation to attainment must show attainment of the CO NAAQS for at 
least a continuous two-year calendar period. In addition, the area must 
also continue to show attainment through the date that we promulgate 
the redesignation in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Refer to EPA's September 4, 1992, John Calcagni policy 
memorandum entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colorado's CO redesignation request for the Colorado Springs area 
is based on an analysis of quality assured ambient air quality 
monitoring data that are relevant to the redesignation request. As 
presented in Section 2 of the State's maintenance plan, ambient air 
quality monitoring data for consecutive calendar years 1988 through 
1996 show a measured exceedance rate of the CO NAAQS of 1.0 or less per 
year, per monitor, in the Colorado Springs nonattainment area. Data are 
also available for calendar years 1997 and 1998 that also show no 
exceedances of the CO NAAQS. All of these data were collected and 
analyzed as required by EPA (see 40 CFR 50.8 and 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix C) and have been archived by the State in our Aerometric 
Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) national database. Further 
information on CO monitoring is presented in Section 2 of the 
maintenance plan and in the State's Technical Support Document (TSD). 
We have evaluated the ambient air quality data and have determined that 
the Colorado Springs area has not violated the CO standard and 
continues to demonstrate attainment.
    The Colorado Springs nonattainment area has quality-assured data 
showing no violations of the CO NAAQS for 1995 and 1996 which are the 
years the State used to support the redesignation request. In addition, 
data from the most recent consecutive two-calendar-year period (i.e., 
1997 and 1998) also show no violations. Therefore, the Colorado Springs 
area has met the first component for redesignation: demonstration of 
attainment of the CO NAAQS. We note too that the State of Colorado has 
also committed, in the maintenance plan, to continue the necessary 
operation of the CO monitors in compliance with all applicable federal 
regulations and guidelines.

(b). Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have Met All Applicable 
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    To be redesignated to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires 
that an area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 
and part D of the CAA. We interpret section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean 
that for a redesignation to be approved by us, the State must meet all 
requirements that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time 
of the submission of a complete redesignation request. In our 
evaluation of a redesignation request, we don't need to consider other 
requirements of the CAA that became due after the date of the 
submission of a complete redesignation request.
1. CAA Section 110 Requirements
    The Colorado Springs CO element of the Colorado SIP was adopted by 
the AQCC in June of 1982 and was approved by the EPA on December 12, 
1983 (48 FR 55284). The 1982 SIP element's emission control plan was 
based on emission reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 
Program (FMVCP), Automobile Inspection and Readjustment Program, 
Improved Public Transit, Carpool Locator Service, and Traffic Flow 
Improvements. The anticipated date for attaining the 8-hour CO NAAQS 
was December 31, 1987.
    Through a letter dated May 26, 1988, we notified the Governor of 
Colorado that the Colorado Springs area did not attain the CO NAAQS by 
the end of 1987. This letter stated that Colorado was to address 
deficiencies in the SIP and that the State would also have to address 
requirements in our forthcoming post-1987 policy for carbon monoxide. 
To partially address deficiencies in the Colorado Springs SIP element, 
the State included the Clean Air Campaign in the SIP, although no 
emissions reductions credits were assigned to this program. We approved 
the Clean Air Campaign into the SIP (see 54 FR 22893, May 30, 1989) for 
its underlying benefit to the area.
    EPA did not finalize its post-1987 policy for carbon monoxide 
because the Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended on November 15, 1990. Under 
section 186 of the CAA, Colorado Springs was designated nonattainment 
for CO, was classified as ``moderate'' with a design value of less than 
12.7 parts per million (ppm), and was required to attain the CO NAAQS 
by December 31, 1995. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. The new CAA 
requirements for moderate CO areas, such as Colorado Springs, required 
that the SIP be revised to include a 1990 base year emissions inventory 
(CAA section 187(a)(1)), corrections to existing motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance(I/M) programs (CAA section 187(a)(4)), 
periodic emission inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)), and the 
implementation of an oxygenated fuels program (CAA section 211(m)(1)).
    How the State met these requirements and our approvals, are 
described as follows:
    A. 1990 base year emissions inventory (CAA section 187(a)(1)): The 
Governor submitted a 1990 base year emissions inventory for Colorado 
Springs on December 31, 1992, with subsequent revisions being submitted 
on March 23, 1995. We approved this 1990 base year CO emissions 
inventory on December 23, 1996 (see 61 FR 67466).
    B. Corrections to the Colorado Springs basic I/M program (CAA 
section 187(a)(4)): On January 14, 1994, and June 24, 1994, the 
Governor submitted revisions to the Colorado basic I/M program portion 
of its SIP which included the program in Colorado Springs. We approved 
these basic I/M program revisions on March 19, 1996 (see 61 FR 11149).
    C. Periodic emissions inventories (CAA section 187(a)(5)): As the 
Governor did not submit a complete redesignation request and 
maintenance plan before September 30, 1995, a periodic emission 
inventory (for calendar year 1993) was required for Colorado Springs. 
On September 16, 1997, the Governor submitted a SIP revision for a 1993 
periodic emission inventory for Colorado Springs. We

[[Page 46282]]

approved this revision on July 15, 1998 (see 63 FR 38087).
    D. Oxygenated fuels program implementation (CAA section 211(m)): To 
address the oxygenated fuels requirements of the CAA, the Governor 
initially submitted a revision to Colorado's Regulation No. 13 on 
November 27, 1992. We approved this revision on July 24, 1994 (see 59 
FR 37698). Regulation 13 was again revised, to shorten the oxygenated 
fuels program season, and the Governor submitted further revisions to 
Regulation No. 13 on September 29, 1995, and December 22, 1995. We 
approved these revisions on March 10, 1997 (see 62 FR 10690).
    Based on the above actions by the State and us, EPA has determined 
that the SIP continues to satisfy the requirements of section 
110(a)(2).
2. Part D Requirements
    Before the Colorado Springs CO nonattainment area may be 
redesignated to attainment, the State must have fulfilled the 
applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Under part D, an area's 
classification indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. 
Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements 
applicable to all nonattainment areas, whether the area is classified 
or nonclassifiable for CO.
    The relevant Subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 
172(c) and 176. Our General Preamble (see 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) 
provides EPA's interpretations of the CAA requirements for moderate CO 
areas with design values of less than 12.7 ppm.
    Under section 172(b), the applicable section 172(c) requirements, 
as determined by the Administrator, were due November 15, 1992, for the 
Colorado Springs nonattainment area. As the Colorado Springs CO 
redesignation request and maintenance plan were not submitted by the 
Governor until well after November 15, 1992, (i.e., actually, August 
19, 1998), the General Preamble (see 57 FR 13529) provides that the 
applicable requirements of CAA section 172 were 172(c)(3) (emissions 
inventory), 172(c)(5)(new source review permitting program), 
172(c)(7)(the section 110(a)(2) air quality monitoring requirements)), 
and contingency measures (CAA section 172(c)(9)). It is also worth 
noting that we interpreted the requirements of sections 172(c)(1) 
(reasonable available control measures--RACM), 172(c)(2) (reasonable 
further progress--RFP), and 172(c)(6)(other measures), as being 
irrelevant to a redesignation request because they only have meaning 
for an area that is not attaining the standard. See EPA's September 4, 
1992, John Calcagni memorandum entitled, ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'', and the General 
Preamble, 57 FR at 13564, dated April 16, 1992. Finally, the State has 
not sought to exercise the options that would trigger sections 
172(c)(4)(identification of certain emissions increases) and 
172(c)(8)(equivalent techniques). Thus, these provisions are also not 
relevant to this redesignation request.
    Section 176 of the CAA contains requirements related to conformity. 
Although EPA's regulations (see 40 CFR 51.396) require that states 
adopt transportation conformity provisions in their SIPs for areas 
designated nonattainment or subject to an EPA-approved maintenance 
plan, we have decided that a transportation conformity SIP is not an 
applicable requirement for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in 
EPA's 1996 approval of the Boston carbon monoxide redesignation. (See 
61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996.)
    The applicable requirements of CAA section 172 are discussed below.

A. Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of all actual emissions from all sources in the 
Colorado Springs nonattainment area. As stated above for CAA section 
187(a)(1), the Governor submitted a 1990 base year emissions inventory 
for Colorado Springs on December 31, 1992, with subsequent revisions 
being submitted on March 23, 1995. We approved this 1990 base year CO 
emissions inventory on December 23, 1996 (see 61 FR 67466).

B. Section 172(c)(5) New Source Review (NSR)

    The CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several 
requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that 
increased emissions will not result from any new or modified stationary 
major sources and a general offset rule. The State of Colorado has a 
fully-approved NSR program (59 FR 42500, August 18, 1994) that meets 
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). The State also has a fully 
approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program (59 FR 
42500, August 18, 1994) that will apply after the redesignation to 
attainment is approved by us.

C. Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA section 110(a)(2): Air 
Quality Monitoring Requirements

    According to our interpretations presented in the General Preamble 
(57 FR 13498), CO nonattainment areas are to meet the ``applicable'' 
air quality monitoring requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA as 
explicitly referenced by sections 172 (b) and (c) of the CAA. With 
respect to this requirement, the State indicates in Section 3 of the 
maintenance plan (``Attainment of the Carbon Monoxide Standard''), that 
ambient CO monitoring data have been properly collected and uploaded to 
EPA's Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS) for the 
Colorado Springs area. Air quality data through 1996 are included in 
Section 3 of the maintenance plan and in the State's TSD. We recently 
polled the AIRS database and verified that the State has also uploaded 
additional ambient CO data through 1998. The data in AIRS indicate that 
the Colorado Springs area has shown, and continues to show, attainment 
of the CO NAAQS. Information concerning CO monitoring in Colorado is 
included in the Monitoring Network Review (MNR) prepared by the State 
and submitted to EPA. Our personnel have concurred with Colorado's 
annual network reviews and have agreed that the Colorado Springs 
network remains adequate. Finally, in Section 8, D. of the maintenance 
plan, the State commits to the continued operation of the existing CO 
monitors, according to all applicable Federal regulations and 
guidelines, even after the Colorado Springs area is redesignated to 
attainment for CO.

D. Section 172(c)(9) Contingency Measures

    According to our interpretations presented in the General Preamble 
(see 56 FR 13532), moderate CO nonattainment areas, such as Colorado 
Springs, were required to submit contingency measures to address the 
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. These contingency 
measures were to become effective, without further action by the State 
or us, upon a determination by us that an area had failed to achieve 
reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the CO NAAQS by December 
31, 1995. To address this CAA requirement, the Governor submitted 
contingency measures to EPA on February 18, 1994. We approved this 
submittal on December 23, 1997 (see 62 FR 67006).

[[Page 46283]]

(c). Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP 
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA states that for an area to be 
redesignated to attainment, it must be determined that the 
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for 
the area under section 110(k).
    As noted above, EPA previously approved SIP revisions based on the 
pre-1990 CAA as well as SIP revisions required under the 1990 
amendments to the CAA. On April 8, 1999 (64 FR 17102) we approved a SIP 
revision that removed a bus acquisition program from the Colorado 
Springs CO SIP and instead substituted emission reductions from the 
oxygenated fuels program. The bus acquisition program was not 
implemented due to a lack of federal funding. In this action, we are 
approving revisions to Regulation No. 13 and the State's commitment to 
maintain an adequate monitoring network (contained in the maintenance 
plan.) Thus, we have fully approved the Colorado Springs CO SIP under 
section 110(k) of the CAA.

(d). Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Show That the Improvement 
in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that for an area to 
be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must determine that 
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable 
implementation plan, implementation of applicable Federal air pollutant 
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
    The CO emissions reductions for Colorado Springs, that are further 
described in Sections 5. and 6. of the August 19, 1998, Colorado 
Springs maintenance plan, were achieved primarily through the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), a decentralized basic motor 
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, oxygenated fuels, and 
traffic flow improvements.
    In general, the FMVCP provisions require vehicle manufacturers to 
meet more stringent vehicle emission limitations for new vehicles in 
future years. These emission limitations are phased in (as a percentage 
of new vehicles manufactured) over a period of years. As new, lower 
emitting vehicles replace older, higher emitting vehicles (``fleet 
turnover''), emission reductions are realized for a particular area 
such as Colorado Springs. For example, EPA promulgated lower 
hydrocarbon (HC) and CO exhaust emission standards in 1991, known as 
Tier I standards for new motor vehicles (light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks) in response to the 1990 CAA amendments. These Tier I 
emissions standards were phased in with 40% of the 1994 model year 
fleet, 80% of the 1995 model year fleet, and 100% of the 1996 model 
year fleet.
    As stated in Section 5. of the maintenance plan, significant 
additional emission reductions were realized from Colorado Springs's 
basic I/M program. Colorado's Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Inspection Program'', contains a full description of the 
requirements for Colorado Springs's I/M program. We note that further 
improvements to the Colorado Springs area's basic I/M program were 
implemented in January, 1995, to meet the requirements of EPA's 
November 5, 1992, (57 FR 52950) I/M rule and were approved by us into 
the SIP on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11149).
    Oxygenated fuels are gasolines that are blended with additives that 
increase the level of oxygen in the fuel and, consequently, reduce CO 
tailpipe emissions. Colorado's Regulation 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels 
Program'', contains the oxygenated fuels provisions for the Colorado 
Springs nonattainment area. Regulation 13 requires all Colorado 
Springs-area gas stations to sell fuels containing a 2.7% minimum 
oxygen content (by weight) during the wintertime CO high pollution 
season. The use of oxygenated fuels has significantly reduced CO 
emissions and contributed to the area's attainment of the CO NAAQS.
    Colorado Springs has also implemented traffic flow improvements to 
alleviate congestion and shorten travel distances. These improvements 
involved throat widening, channelization, signalization, widening of 
existing roadways, construction of new roadways, or restriction of 
access to roadways. The specific traffic flow improvements that were 
identified for necessary action in the 1982 Colorado Springs SIP 
revision, involved the construction of the Union Boulevard extension 
and traffic signalization. These particular improvements have been 
accomplished and are now part of the permanent transportation 
infrastructure.
    We have evaluated the various State and Federal control measures, 
the original 1990 base year emission inventory (see 61 FR 67466, 
December 23, 1996), and the 1993 attainment year emission inventory, 
and have concluded that the improvement in air quality in the Colorado 
Springs nonattainment area has resulted from emission reductions that 
are permanent and enforceable.

(e). Redesignation Criterion: The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 
Maintenance Plan Under CAA Section 175A

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that for an area to be 
redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must have fully approved 
a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 
175A of the CAA.
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the 
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator 
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the 
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised 
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the 
subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance 
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the 
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for 
adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt 
correction of a violation. In addition, we issued further maintenance 
plan interpretations in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation 
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, 
April 16, 1992), ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (57 FR 18070, 
April 28, 1992), and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures 
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air 
Quality and Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 
dated September 4, 1992. In this Federal Register action, EPA is 
approving the maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs nonattainment 
area because we have determined, as detailed below, that the State's 
maintenance plan submittal meets the requirements of section 175A and 
is consistent with the documents referenced above. Our analysis of the 
pertinent maintenance plan requirements, with reference to the 
Governor's August 19, 1998, submittal, is provided as follows:

[[Page 46284]]

1. Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections
    EPA's interpretations of the CAA section 175A maintenance plan 
requirements are generally provided in the General Preamble and the 
September 4, 1992, policy memorandum referenced above. Under our 
interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to attainment for CO may 
demonstrate future maintenance of the CO NAAQS either by showing that 
future CO emissions will be equal to or less than the attainment year 
emissions or by providing a modeling demonstration. For the Colorado 
Springs area, the State selected the emissions inventory approach for 
demonstrating maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
    The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on August 19, 
1998, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the 
Colorado Springs area. These inventories include emissions from 
stationary point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and 
on-road mobile sources. The State selected 1993 as the year from which 
to develop the attainment year inventory and included interim-year 
projections out to 2010. More detailed descriptions of the 1993 
attainment year inventory and the projected inventories are documented 
in the maintenance plan in Section 8 and in the State's TSD. The 
State's submittal contains detailed emission inventory information that 
was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary emission figures 
from the 1993 attainment year and the interim projected years are 
provided in Table I.-1 below.

                    Table I.--1 Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day for Colorado Springs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1993            1997            2002            2005            2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................            4.54            4.80            5.20            5.40            5.78
Area Sources....................           69.49           70.40           71.50           72.20           73.31
Non-Road Mobile Sources.........           39.44           43.30           48.20           51.20           56.05
On-Road Mobile Sources..........          264.20          223.90          183.80          175.60          173.22
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          377.67          342.40          308.70          304.40          308.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstration of Maintenance--Projected Inventories
    As we noted above, total CO emissions were projected forward by the 
State for the years 1997, 2002, 2005, and 2010. The projected 
inventories show that CO emissions are not estimated to exceed the 1993 
attainment level during the time period 1993 through 2010 and, 
therefore, the Colorado Springs area has satisfactorily demonstrated 
maintenance.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Colorado Springs area 
depends, in part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout 
the maintenance period. This requirement is met in two sections of the 
maintenance plan. In Section 8 D. the State commits to continue the 
operation of the CO monitors in the Colorado Springs area and to 
annually review this monitoring network and make changes as 
appropriate. Also, in Section 8 E.1., the State commits to prepare a 
periodic emission inventory of CO emissions every three years after the 
maintenance plan is approved by EPA. With this action, we are approving 
these commitments as satisfying relevant requirements. Our approval 
renders the State's commitments federally enforceable.
4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has 
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for 
the development and implementation of such measures. As stated in 
Section 8 E. of the maintenance plan, the contingency measures for the 
Colorado Springs area will be initially triggered by an exceedance of 
the CO NAAQS. Upon an exceedance of the CO NAAQS, the Pike's Peak Area 
Council of Governments (PPACG) will recommend for adoption appropriate 
local contingency measures to correct a potential violation of the CO 
NAAQS (i.e., a second non-overlapping 8-hour average ambient CO 
measurement that exceeds 9.4 ppm at a single monitoring site during a 
calendar year is a violation of the 8-hour CO NAAQS). This process will 
take approximately six months. The Colorado AQCC will review the local 
contingency measures and if the AQCC concurs, the AQCC may endorse or 
approve the local measures without adopting State requirements. If, 
however, the AQCC finds that locally adopted contingency measures are 
inadequate, the AQCC will adopt State enforceable measures as deemed 
necessary to prevent additional exceedances or a violation. The 
maintenance plan further states that contingency measures will be 
adopted and fully implemented within one year of a CO NAAQS violation. 
The potential contingency measures that are identified in Section 
8.E.3. of the Colorado Springs maintenance plan include increasing the 
required 2.7 percent minimum oxygen content of gasoline to a level 
above the actual oxygen content of gasolines at the time of the 
violation, making improvements to Colorado Springs's I/M program, 
adopting of a motor vehicle enhanced inspection and maintenance 
program, establishing a high pollution day episodic woodburning 
curtailment program, adopting a mandatory Employer-Based Travel 
Reduction Program, adopting Employee Commute Options, re-implementing a 
carpool locator service, and adopting other measures that may be 
considered appropriate. A more complete description of the triggering 
mechanism and these contingency measures can be found in Section 8 E. 
of the maintenance plan.
    Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided 
in the State's maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the 
requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
5. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Colorado has 
committed to submit a revised maintenance plan SIP revision eight years 
after the approval of the redesignation. This provision for revising 
the maintenance plan is contained in Section 8 F. of the Colorado 
Springs maintenance plan.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements

    One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a 
demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and 
Transportation Improvement

[[Page 46285]]

Program are consistent with the emissions budgets in the SIP (40 CFR 
sections 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions budget is defined as the 
level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the attainment or 
maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the 
nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's requirements and EPA's 
policy on emissions budgets are found in the preamble to the November 
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and in the 
sections of the rule referenced above.
    Section 8 C. of the Colorado Springs maintenance plan describes an 
emissions budget for on-road mobile sources for the years 1998 through 
2009 as being 264 tons per day (TPD) of CO and for the year 2010 as 
being 212 TPD of CO. The PPACG and the State derived the 264 TPD number 
for 1998 through 2009 from the 1993 attainment year inventory value for 
on-road mobile sources. We cannot approve this 264 TPD value as a 
budget for conformity purposes because the budget is not consistent 
with maintenance of the NAAQS.2 The attainment year's mobile 
source budget of 264 tons per day does not provide for maintenance of 
the CO NAAQS when combined with the increasing emissions levels from 
non-mobile sources during the 1998-2009 period (i.e., use of the 264 
ton budget for any year after 1993 would push total emissions over the 
maintenance plan's attainment year level of 377 tons per day). Thus, we 
are taking no action on language in section 8 C. of the maintenance 
plan that purports to establish an emissions budget for 1998 through 
2009 of 264 TPD of CO. The effect of this is that PPACG and the State 
may not use 264 TPD as the budget for conformity purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pursuant to Section 93.118(e)(4) of the Transportation 
Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A), we previously reviewed 
the adequacy of the maintenance plan's carbon monoxide emissions 
budgets for purposes of conformity. In an April 29, 1999 letter, 
from Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, EPA 
Region VIII, to Margie Perkins, Director, Air Pollution Control 
Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, we 
determined that the emissions budget for 2010 and beyond (212 tons 
per day) was adequate for conformity purposes, and determined that 
the budget of 264 tons per year for the 1998-2009 period was 
inadequate. Although this action is consistent with our prior 
adequacy determination, it should be noted that, in taking final 
action on the maintenance plan, we are not bound by our prior 
adequacy determination. See 62 FR 43782, August 15, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our non-action on this budget is unlikely to have any practical 
consequences for conformity determinations. Because the most recent 
conformity determination for the PPACG 2020 Transportation Plan 
demonstrated conformity to the 212 ton per day budget for the years 
required to be analyzed under Section 93.118(b) of the conformity rule 
(e.g., 2010 and 2020), we do not believe that our determination that 
the 264 ton per day budget is unapprovable has any negative 
consequences for this existing conformity determination. And under 
Section 93.118(b) of the conformity rule, PPACG is unlikely to ever 
have to conduct a conformity analysis for any years in the 1998-2009 
time frame in the future. However, if such an analysis becomes 
necessary, it must be conducted in accordance with EPA's conformity 
rule, in particular 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i).
    We are approving the 2010 budget of 212 TPD of CO. This budget is 
consistent with the maintenance demonstration. The PPACG and the State 
established the on-road mobile source emissions budget for 2010 and 
beyond by using the 2010 on-road mobile source emission figures and a 
portion of the ``safety margin.'' The safety margin is the amount by 
which the attainment year emissions from all source categories exceed 
the projected year emissions from all source categories. (Table 5 of 
the maintenance plan identifies the total 1993 attainment year 
emissions as 377.69 TPD of CO. Table 6 of the maintenance plan 
identifies the total 2010 maintenance year emissions as 308.36 TPD of 
CO.) The total 1993 attainment year emissions exceed the total 2010 
maintenance year emissions by 69.33 TPD. Thus, 69.33 TPD constitutes 
the safety margin in 2010.) The PPACG and the State then used the 2010 
on-road mobile sources emissions (173.22 TPD) and 56.2% of the safety 
margin (38.96 TPD) to arrive at a 2010 on-road mobile sources emissions 
budget of 212.18 TPD of CO. The State then rounded this budget to 212 
TPD of CO. The 2010 budget will apply for 2010 and beyond. See 40 CFR 
93.118(b)(2)(ii).
    The emissions budget definition in the Colorado Ambient Air Quality 
Standards regulation (5 CCR 1001-14) conflicts with the language on 
page 8-14 of the maintenance plan and is internally inconsistent; it 
inadvertently applies both the invalid 264 TPD budget and the 212 TPD 
budget to the year 2010. Our interpretation, based on the language of 
the maintenance plan and our conformity rule, is that the maintenance 
plan's 212 TPD emission budget applies starting in 2010, superseding 
the incorrect language in 5 CCR 1001-14.

V. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 13 Revisions

    Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled ``Oxygenated Fuels 
Program.'' The purpose of this regulation is to reduce CO emissions 
from gasoline powered motor vehicles in Colorado's Front Range Area, 
which includes Colorado Springs, through the wintertime use of 
oxygenated gasolines. Section 211(m) of the CAA required the State to 
implement an oxygenated fuels program in the larger of the Consolidated 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
(MSA) in which the nonattainment areas are located. In Colorado these 
areas are the Colorado Springs MSA, Fort Collins-Loveland MSA, and the 
Denver-Boulder CMSA. Section 211(m) of the CAA states that the 
oxygenated fuels program must cover no less than a four month period 
each year unless EPA approves a shorter period. We can approve a 
shorter implementation period if a State submits a demonstration that, 
because of meteorological conditions, a reduced implementation period 
will still assure that there will be no exceedances of the CO NAAQS 
outside of this reduced period.
    EPA previously approved a revision to Regulation No. 13 that 
shortened the oxygenated fuels season by the last two weeks in 
February. See 62 FR 10690, March 10, 1997. The State of Colorado is 
seeking EPA's approval of further revisions to Regulation No. 13 that 
would shorten the oxygenated fuels season by an additional week and 
reduce the required oxygen content of the fuels in two other weeks. 
Specifically, the revisions are as follows:
    (a). The Oxygenated Gasoline Program Period, or ``control period'', 
would be reduced by one week. The control period formerly ran from 
November 1st through February 14th of each year; as amended, the 
control period would run from November 1st through February 7th of each 
year.
    (b). The fuel oxygenate content requirements were reduced for the 
week of November 1st through November 7th of each year. The minimum 
oxygen content for this period became 2.0% by weight for all areas 
covered by the regulation and there was no maximum blending or 3.1% 
averaging requirements for the Denver-Boulder area.
    (c). The maximum blending and 3.1% averaging requirements were 
revised so that they no longer apply to Denver-Boulder area for the 
week of February 1st through February 7th of each year.

[[Page 46286]]

    To address the CAA section 211(m) requirement and allow a 
shortening of the oxygenated fuels season, the APCD developed a 
predictive model for assessing the relative probability of a CO 
exceedance during any given week of the oxygenated fuels season. The 
use of this model in 1995 allowed the AQCC to approve the first 
shortening of the oxygenated fuels program during the last two weeks of 
February by demonstrating that the shortening would not result in an 
appreciable increase in the possibility of future CO exceedances for 
those two weeks.
    The APCD model uses a spreadsheet to adjust past monitored CO 
concentrations and project them into the future. Monitored CO 
concentrations, representing a twenty-year time period, are used in the 
spreadsheet database. The highest eight-hour average concentration for 
each monitored day of the data set are used. These known values are 
then adjusted by using the latest vehicle emission factor model 
(currently, MOBILE5) and local transportation traffic projections, in 
terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), to project CO concentrations 
into the future. After normalizing all data points, a statistical 
program is used to convert adjusted values to a predicted probability 
that any given week will have a CO exceedance. The use of twenty years 
worth of monitored data lets meteorological variability be minimized.
    When we approved the first shortening of the oxygenated fuels 
season, we required the State to demonstrate, based on worst-case 
meteorology for Denver for the last 20 years (as indicated by daily 
peak 8-hour CO concentrations), at least a 95% probability that there 
would be no exceedances of the CO standard during the last two weeks of 
February as a result of the shortening of the control period. We 
believe, that to implement the statutory requirement of assuring no 
exceedances, it is reasonable to require a State to show a very high 
probability of no exceedances and that 95% is a reasonable threshold 
for the State's demonstration here. Given the limitations of 
statistical analysis and the problems associated with proving a 
negative, we believe that a higher threshold would be inappropriate.
    For the 1998/1999 oxygenated fuels season revision, the State 
evaluated the probability of a carbon monoxide exceedance in the Denver 
area during the first week of November, 1998, and the first two weeks 
of February, 1999, based on four different levels of oxygenates in 
automotive fuels and all other elements of the Denver CO SIP being in 
place. The analysis was based on the measured daily peak carbon 
monoxide concentrations at the CAMP monitoring site in downtown Denver 
during the 20-year study period. The high concentrations at the CAMP 
site have generally been the highest measured at CO monitoring sites 
not only in the Denver-Boulder area, but the entire Front Range area. 
Also, of the Front Range CO monitoring sites, the CAMP site has shown 
the greatest number of exceedances of the CO NAAQS during the time 
periods being analyzed. The 20-year period is sufficiently long to 
provide statistically realistic estimates of worst-case atmospheric 
dispersion conditions. Carbon monoxide emissions in Denver are expected 
to decrease for the next several years, and are expected to remain 
below the 1998/1999 levels at least through 2010. Thus, the calculated 
probability of a CO NAAQS exceedance is at a maximum in 1998/1999 and 
will be lower at least through 2010.
    In order to normalize the effects of emissions changes over the 20-
year study period, measured concentrations were adjusted to reflect 
estimated changes in CO emissions between the measurement year and 
1998/1999. The resulting analysis provided a distribution of 
concentrations that would have occurred at the CAMP site had the same 
historical meteorological conditions occurred at 1998/1999 emission 
rates, at four different levels of oxygenates (including 0%.) The 
State's analysis showed the following: (1) For the period of November 
1st through the 7th of 1998, at a 2% oxygenate level, there's a 2.5% 
probability of a CO NAAQS exceedance; (2) for the period of February 
1st through the 7th, of 1999, at a 2.7% oxygenate level, there's a 0.2% 
probability of a CO NAAQS exceedance; and (3) for the period of 
February 8th through the 14th, at a 0.0% oxygenate level, there's a 
2.1% probability of a CO NAAQS exceedance.
    The State's analysis also showed that for the Colorado Springs and 
Fort Collins-Loveland areas, the probability of an exceedance in either 
of those MSA areas is lower than it is for the Denver CMSA area. 
Compared to the Denver area, these two areas have experienced 
significantly fewer exceedances of the CO standard and significantly 
lower ``high'' concentrations over the relevant time frame. Thus, the 
probability of an exceedance in the Colorado Springs area and the Fort 
Collins-Loveland area, with the changes in oxygenate concentration 
embodied in Regulation No. 13, is less than the probability projected 
at the CAMP monitor. This probability is expected to further decrease 
in years after 1998/1999 due to fleet turnover.
    The State also reviewed potential impacts of the Regulation No. 13 
revisions on the Denver PM10 SIP attainment demonstration 
(APCD/Mobile Sources Program March 24, 1997, Interoffice Memorandum 
from Barbara MacRae to Kim Livo). Relying on EPA's consideration of the 
elimination of the oxygenated fuels program for the last two weeks of 
February (see 61 FR 64649, December 6, 1996), the State concluded that 
the increment of benefit due to the oxygenated fuels program is 0.46 
ug/m3. When this value is added to the seventh-highest 
modeled concentration of 148.7 ug/m3 in the PM10 
SIP's maintenance year, the resulting value is still below the 24-hour 
PM10 standard of 150 ug/m3.
    The highest modeled values for the first week of November and the 
second week of February are significantly lower than the 148.7 ug/
m3 value. The State has no modeled value for the first week 
of February because the State only modeled the 105 worst meteorological 
days and none of these worst days occurred during the first week of 
February. Based on the above, the State concluded that the revisions to 
Regulation No. 13 would be unlikely to jeopardize the PM10 
SIP. We agree with the State's analysis regarding potential impacts to 
the Denver PM10 SIP, and do not believe that the reductions 
in oxygen content for the first week of November, and the first week of 
February, nor the removal of the oxygenated fuels program for the week 
of February 8th through the 14th, will impact the Denver 
PM10 SIP.
    Based on above, we have determined that we can approve the 
revisions to Regulation No. 13 as meeting the requirements of section 
211(m) of the CAA.
    The revisions to Regulation No. 13 were adopted by the AQCC 
directly after a public hearing on April 17, 1997, and became State 
effective on June 30, 1997.
    However, an issue arose after the AQCC's April 17, 1997, approval 
of these changes to Regulation No. 13.
    Colorado State law requires that any revision to the Colorado SIP 
must first by approved by the Colorado General Assembly prior to being 
forwarded to the Governor for his approval and submittal to EPA. The 
Colorado General Assembly modified the AQCC's April 17, 1997, revisions 
to Regulation No. 13. The Colorado General Assembly changed the first 
year for implementation of the revised oxygenated fuels program from 
the wintertime season of 1998-1999 to

[[Page 46287]]

1997-1998. Further, the Colorado General Assembly required the AQCC to 
amend the Regulation No. 13 revisions and incorporate this new (1997-
1998) implementation schedule.
    To address the Colorado General Assembly requirements, the AQCC 
held a public hearing on January 16, 1998, and revised Regulation No. 
13 so that the initial implementation of the changes to the oxygenated 
gasoline program, that the AQCC adopted on April 17, 1997, would occur 
in the wintertime season of 1997-1998. These January 16, 1998, 
amendments to Regulation No. 13 conformed to the language and 
requirements of Regulation No. 13 to section 25-7-133.5(2)(n), Colorado 
Revised Statutes.
    EPA was initially concerned about the changes the Colorado General 
Assembly enacted to move up the implementation date of the revisions to 
Regulation No. 13, from 1998-1999 to 1997-1998, as the State's 
demonstration for the revised Regulation did not address this time 
frame. However, this issue became moot as the necessary State 
regulatory and legal changes to accomplish this earlier implementation 
schedule were not State effective until March 30, 1998. Therefore, the 
shortened control period could not be implemented until the wintertime 
season of 1998-1999, which was originally analyzed in the State's 
demonstration.
    On October 1, 1998, the Governor submitted to EPA the revisions to 
Regulation No. 13 that were adopted on April 17, 1997 (effective June 
30, 1997), and January 16, 1998 (effective March 30, 1998). It is EPA's 
understanding that the January 16, 1998, version of Regulation No. 13 
replaces the April 17, 1997, version of the Regulation. Thus, although 
both versions of the regulation are acceptable to us, EPA is only 
approving the later (January 16, 1998) version of the regulation and is 
taking no action on the earlier version.

VI. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is approving the Colorado Springs carbon 
monoxide redesignation request, maintenance plan, and the revisions to 
Regulation No. 13.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 25, 1999 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
September 24, 1999.
    If EPA receives such comments, then we will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on October 25, 1999 and no further action will 
be taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

(a) Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

(b) Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on state, 
local, or tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

(c) Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health and safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

(d) Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
12084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

(e) Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the

[[Page 46288]]

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not 
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the 
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval 
does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship 
under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State 
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning 
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 
255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). Redesignation of an area to 
attainment under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act 
does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation 
to attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. 
Therefore, I certify that the approval of the redesignation request 
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

(f) Unfunded Mandates

    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 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 a 
redesignation to attainment and pre-existing requirements under State 
or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, will result from this action.

(g) Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

(h) Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 25, 1999. 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).)
    Nothing in this action should be construed as making any 
determination or expressing any position regarding Colorado's audit 
privilege and penalty immunity law, sections 13-25-126.5, 13-90-107, 
and 25-1-114.5, Colorado Revised Statutes (Colorado Senate Bill 94-139, 
effective June 1,1994), or its impact upon any approved provision in 
the SIP, including the revision at issue here. The action taken herein 
does not express or imply any viewpoint on the question of whether 
there are legal deficiencies in this or any other Clean Air Act program 
resulting from the effect of Colorado's audit privilege and immunity 
law. A state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state 
enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement 
authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean 
Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211, or 213, 
to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 21, 1999.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
    Chapter I, title 40, parts 52 and 81 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart G--COLORADO

    2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(86) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (86) On October 1, 1998, the Governor of Colorado submitted 
revisions to Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'' that 
shortened the effective time period of the oxygenated fuels program for 
Denver/Boulder, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Longmont carbon 
monoxide nonattainment areas and also reduced the required oxygen 
content during certain periods.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'', 5 CCR 1001-16, 
as adopted on January 16, 1998, effective March 30, 1998.
    3. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.349  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (c) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, Carbon 
Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Colorado 
Springs, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on 
January 15, 1998, State effective March 30, 1998, and submitted by the 
Governor on August 19, 1998.

[[Page 46289]]

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 81.306, the table entitled ``Colorado-Carbon Monoxide'' 
is amended by revising the entry for ``Colorado Springs Area'' to read 
as follows:


Sec. 81.306  Colorado.

* * * * *

                                                                Colorado--Carbon Monoxide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                                             Classification
           Designated Area           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date \1\                       Type                       Date \1\                       Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Colorado Springs Area...............  October 25, 1999...........  Attainment.................
        Urban Transportation Planing
         Study Area as defined in
         1989.
    Beginning near the Town of
     Palmer Lake, at the Northwest
     corner of the Study Area at a
     point on the El Paso/Douglas
     County line, also on the Pike
     National Forest boundary, then:
    east along the County line to
     Elbert Road; south on Elbert
     Road to Judge Orr Road; east on
     Judge Orr Road to Ellicott
     Highway; south on Ellicott
     Highway to Squirrel Creek Road;
     west on Squirrel Creek Road to
     Williams Creek; south along
     Williams Creek to the
     confluence of Williams and
     Fountain Creeks; south along
     Fountain Creek to the El Paso/
     Douglas County line; west on
     the County line to I-25; north
     on I-25 to Exit 132; west on
     McGrath to 35th; south on 35th
     to Specker; northwest on
     Specker to Titus Blvd.; west on
     Titus Blvd. to SH-115;
    south on SH-115 to Rock Creek;
        northwest along Rock Creek
         to the Pike National Forest
         boundary; north along the
         Forest boundary to Old
         Stage Road; southwest on
         Old Stage Road to Gold Camp
         Road; north on Gold Camp
         Road to High Drive; north
         on High Drive to Lower Gold
         Camp Road; north on Lower
         Gold Camp Road to the Pike
         National Forest boundary;
         west along the Forest
         boundary, following the
         boundary north, then east
         to US-24; northwest on US-
         24 to the Pikes Peak Toll
         Road; west on the Toll Road
         to the El Paso/Teller
         County line;
    north along the County line to
     Crystola Creek; west on
     Crystola Creek to County Road
     282, north on Road 282 to US-
     24; northeast on US-24 to Trout
     Creek Road; northwest on Trout
     Creek Road to Trout Creek;
     north along Trout Creek to the
     confluence of Trout and Mule
     Creeks; north along Mule Creek
     to Long Gulch; east along Long
     Gulch to White Gulch; east
     along White Gulch to Rampart
     Range Road; southeast on
     Rampart Range Road to the Pike
     National Forest Boundary; north
     along the Forest boundary to
     the El Paso/Douglas County
     line, to the point of origin.
El Paso County (part)
 Teller County (part)
 
                                         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.


[[Page 46290]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-21933 Filed 8-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P