[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58264-58269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21926]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2004-CO-0003; FRL-7822-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Longmont Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado. 
On April 12, 2004, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revised 
maintenance plan for the Longmont carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area 
for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised 
maintenance plan contains revised transportation conformity motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2010 through 2014 and for 2015 
and beyond. In this action, EPA is approving the Longmont CO revised 
maintenance plan and the revised transportation conformity motor 
vehicle emissions budgets. This action is being taken under section 110 
of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2004 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 1, 2004. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-
OAR-2004-CO-0003, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and 
comment system for regional actions, is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
     E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected].
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation 
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
     Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and 
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 
to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should 
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to RME Docket Number R08-OAR-
2004-CO-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov, or e-mail. EPA's Regional Materials in EDOCKET and 
federal regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous access'' systems, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA, without going through EDOCKET or 
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and 
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information 
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 
additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET online 
or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). For 
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. 
General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Regional 
Materials in EDOCKET index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in 
hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 
80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the 
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone (303) 312-
6479, and e-mail at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 58265]]

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
III. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VII. Final Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to 
certain words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean 
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard.
    (iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    (v) The word State means the State of Colorado, unless the 
context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit this information to EPA through Regional Materials in 
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    In this action, we are approving a revised maintenance plan for the 
Longmont CO attainment/maintenance area that is designed to keep the 
area in attainment for CO through 2015, and we're approving revised 
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB). We 
approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and maintenance 
plan for the Longmont area on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR 51694).
    The original Longmont CO maintenance plan that we approved on 
September 24, 1999 (hereafter September 24, 1999 maintenance plan) 
utilized the then applicable EPA mobile sources emission factor model, 
MOBILE5a. On January 18, 2002, we issued policy guidance for States and 
local areas to use to develop SIP revisions using the new, updated 
version of the model, MOBILE6. The policy guidance was entitled 
``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and 
Transportation Conformity'' (hereafter, January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 
policy). On November 12, 2002, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air 
Quality (OTAQ) issued an updated version of the MOBILE6 model, 
MOBILE6.2, and notified Federal, State, and local agency users of the 
model's availability. MOBILE6.2 contained additional updates for air 
toxics and particulate matter. However, the CO emission factors were 
essentially the same as in the MOBILE6 version of the model.
    For the years analyzed in the September 24, 1999 maintenance plan 
(1993, 2005, 2010, and 2015), the State revised and updated the mobile 
sources CO emissions using MOBILE6.2. With the revised maintenance 
plan, the State also provided emissions data for 2006. The State 
recalculated the CO MVEB for 2010 through 2014 and applied a selected 
amount of the available safety margin to the 2010 through 2014 
transportation conformity MVEB. The State recalculated the CO MVEB for 
2015 and beyond and also applied a selected amount of the available 
safety margin to the 2015 and beyond transportation conformity MVEB. We 
have determined that all the revisions noted above are Federally-
approvable, as described further below.

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

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of 
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur 
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
    The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public 
hearing for the revised Longmont Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan 
December 18, 2003. The AQCC adopted the revised maintenance plan 
directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became State effective on 
March 1, 2004, and was submitted by the Governor to us on April 12, 
2004.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the revised 
maintenance plan and have determined that the State met the 
requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA. We reviewed these SIP materials for conformance 
with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and 
determined that the submittal was administratively and technically 
complete. The Governor was advised of our completeness determination 
through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, dated 
June 17, 2004.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan

    EPA has reviewed the State's revised maintenance plan for the 
Longmont attainment/maintenance area and believes that approval is 
warranted. The following are the key aspects of this revision along 
with our evaluation of each:
    (a) The State has revised the Longmont maintenance plan and has air 
quality data that show continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS.
    As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air 
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10 
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average

[[Page 58266]]

concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 
continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be 
measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and 
designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method 
designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The September 24, 1999 
maintenance plan relied on ambient air quality data from 1989 through 
1996. In our consideration of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, 
submitted by the Governor on April 12, 2004, we reviewed ambient air 
quality data from 1993 through 2003 and the first calendar quarter of 
2004. The Longmont area shows continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS 
from 1993 to present. All of the above-referenced air quality data are 
archived in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS).
    (b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State revised 
the attainment year inventory (1993), prior projected years (2005, 
2010, and 2015) inventories and a new projected year (2006) emission 
inventory.
    The revised maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on April 
12, 2004 includes comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the 
Longmont area. These inventories include emissions from stationary 
point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road 
mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the revised 1993 
attainment year inventory, the revised 2005, 2010, and 2015 projected 
inventories, and the new projected 2006 inventory, are documented in 
the maintenance plan in section 2 entitled ``Emission Inventories and 
Maintenance Demonstration'' and in the State's Technical Support 
Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains emission inventory 
information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary 
emission figures from the 1993 attainment year and the projected years 
are provided in Table IV.-1 below.

                       Table IV.-1.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day for Longmont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source category                      1993         2005         2006         2010         2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..........................................         0.18         0.12         0.12         0.09         0.07
Area...........................................         2.69         1.92         1.86         1.60         1.28
Non-Road.......................................         6.58         7.91         8.03         8.47         9.02
On-Road........................................        43.26        33.97        35.32        28.01        25.99
                                                --------------
    Total......................................        52.71        43.92        45.33        38.17        36.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised mobile source emissions show the largest change from 
the September 24, 1999 maintenance plan and this is primarily due to 
the use of MOBILE6.2 instead of MOBILE5a. The MOBILE6.2 modeling 
information is contained in the State's TSD (see ``Mobile Source 
Emission Inventories,'' page 6) and on a compact disk we prepared (a 
copy is available upon request). The State's TSD information is also 
available on a compact disk that may be requested from the State or it 
can be downloaded directly from the State's Web site at http://apcd.state.co.us/documents/techdocs.html. The TSD compact disk contains 
much of the modeling data, input-output files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 
input parameters, and other information and is included with the docket 
for this action. Other revisions to the mobile sources category 
resulted from revised vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates that were 
provided to the State from the Denver Regional Council of Governments 
(DRCOG), which is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the 
Longmont area. In summary, the revised maintenance plan and State TSD 
contain detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in 
accordance with EPA guidance and is acceptable to EPA.
    (c) The State revised the maintenance demonstration used in the 
September 24, 1999 Longmont maintenance plan.
    As noted above, the State used the MOBILE6.2 model to revise the 
Longmont CO maintenance plan. Our January 18, 2002, MOBILE6 policy 
allows areas to revise their motor vehicle emission inventories and 
transportation conformity MVEBs using the MOBILE6 model without needing 
to revise the entire SIP or completing additional modeling if: (1) The 
SIP continues to demonstrate attainment or maintenance when the 
MOBILE5-based motor vehicle emission inventories are replaced with 
MOBILE6 base year and attainment/maintenance year inventories; and (2) 
the State can document that the growth and control strategy assumptions 
for non-motor vehicle emission sources continue to be valid and minor 
updates do not change the overall conclusion of the SIP. Our January 
18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy also speaks specifically to CO maintenance 
plans on page 10 of the policy. The first paragraph on page 10 of the 
policy states ``* * * if a carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan relied 
on either a relative or absolute demonstration, the first criterion 
could be satisfied by documenting that the relative emission reductions 
between the base year and the maintenance year are the same or greater 
using MOBILE6 as compared to MOBILE5.''
    The State could have used the streamlined approach described in our 
January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy to update the Longmont CO MVEB. 
However, the Governor's April 12, 2004 SIP submittal instead contained 
a completely revised maintenance plan and maintenance demonstration for 
the Longmont area. That is, all emission source categories (point, 
area, non-road, and mobile) were updated using the latest versions of 
applicable models (including MOBILE6.2), transportation data sets, 
emissions data, emission factors, population figures, and other 
demographic information. We have determined that this fully revised 
maintenance plan SIP submittal exceeds the requirements of our January 
18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy and, therefore, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 
policy is not relevant to our approval of the revised maintenance plan 
and its MVEB.
    As discussed above, the State prepared revised emission inventories 
for the years 1993, 2005, 2006, and 2010, and 2015. The results of 
these calculations are presented in Table 1 ``Longmont Carbon Monoxide 
Maintenance Plan Emission Inventories'' on page 4 of the revised 
Longmont maintenance plan and are also summarized in our Table IV.-1 
above. The State has demonstrated that with the use of MOBILE6.2, 
mobile source emissions show a continuous decline from 1993 to 2015 and 
that the total CO emissions, from all source categories, projected for 
each future year (2005, 2006, 2010, and 2015) are all below the 1993 
attainment year level of

[[Page 58267]]

CO emissions. Therefore, we have determined that the revised 
maintenance plan continues to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS 
from 1993 to 2015 and is approvable.
    (d) Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment: 
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Longmont area depends, in 
part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the 
maintenance period. This requirement is met in section 5. ``Monitoring 
Network/Verification of Continued Attainment'' of the revised Longmont 
CO maintenance plan. In section 5., the State commits to continue the 
operation of the CO monitor in the Longmont area and to annually review 
this monitoring network and make changes as appropriate to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
    Also, in section 6.A, the State commits to track mobile sources' CO 
emissions (which are the largest component of the inventories) through 
the ongoing regional transportation planning process that is done by 
DRCOG. Since regular revisions to Longmont's transportation improvement 
programs must go through a transportation conformity finding, the State 
will use this process to periodically review the Vehicle Miles Traveled 
(VMT) and mobile source emissions projections used in the revised 
maintenance plan. This regional transportation process is conducted by 
DRCOG in coordination with the State's Air Pollution Control Division 
(APCD), the AQCC, and EPA.
    Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as 
satisfying the relevant requirements. We note that our final rulemaking 
approval renders the State's commitments federally enforceable. These 
commitments are also the same as we approved in the original 
maintenance plan.
    (e) Contingency Plan: Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a 
maintenance plan include contingency provisions. To meet this 
requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures 
along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such 
measures.
    As stated in section 6 of the revised maintenance plan, the 
contingency measures for the Longmont area will be triggered by a 
violation of the CO NAAQS. (However, the maintenance plan does note 
that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary, local 
process by the City of Longmont, DRCOG, and APCD to identify and 
evaluate potential contingency measures.)
    The City of Longmont and DRCOG, in conjunction with the APCD and 
AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating 
potential contingency measures no more than 60 days after being 
notified by the APCD that a violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred. The 
subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of 
notification and the recommended contingency measures will be presented 
to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC will then hold a 
public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along 
with any other contingency measures that the AQCC believes may be 
appropriate to effectively address the violation of the CO NAAQS. The 
necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within 
one year after the violation occurs.
    The potential contingency measures that are identified in section 
6.C of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan include: (1) An 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program as described in 
AQCC Regulation No. 11 as it existed prior to the modifications adopted 
by the AQCC on January 10, 2000; (2) a 3.1% oxygenated gasoline program 
from November 8 through February 7, with a 2.0% oxygen content required 
from November 1 through November 7; and (3) nonattainment New Source 
Review (NSR) permitting requirements.
    Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided 
in the State's revised Longmont CO maintenance plan are sufficient and 
continue to meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    (f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions: In accordance with 
section 175A(b) of the CAA, Colorado committed to submit a revised 
maintenance plan eight years after our approval of the original 
redesignation. This provision for revising the maintenance plan is 
contained in section 7 of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan. In 
section 7, the State commits to submit a revised maintenance plan in 
2007 to correspond with our initial approval of the original 
maintenance plan on September 24, 1999 (64 FR 51694).
    Based on our review of the components of the revised Longmont CO 
maintenance plan, as discussed in our items IV.(a) through IV.(f) 
above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary 
requirements in order for us to fully approve the revised Longmont CO 
maintenance plan.

V. 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 Program are consistent with the emissions 
budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 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 62193-62196) 
and in the sections of the rule referenced above.
    With respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation 
requires that MVEB(s) must be established for the last year of the 
maintenance plan and may be established for any other years deemed 
appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). For transportation plan analysis years 
after the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case 2015), a 
conformity determination must show that emissions are less than or 
equal to the maintenance plan's motor vehicle emissions budget(s) for 
the last year of the implementation plan. EPA's conformity regulation 
(40 CFR 93.124) also allows the implementation plan to quantify 
explicitly the amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher 
while still demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement. 
The implementation plan can then allocate some or all of this 
additional ``safety margin'' to the emissions budget(s) for 
transportation conformity purposes.
    Section 4 ``Transportation Conformity and Mobile Source Carbon 
Monoxide Emission Budgets'' of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan 
briefly describes the applicable transportation conformity 
requirements, provides MVEB calculations, identifies ``safety margin,'' 
and indicates that the City of Longmont and DRCOG elected to apply the 
identified ``safety margin'' to the MVEB for 2010 through 2014 and 2015 
and beyond.
    In section 4 of the revised maintenance plan, the State evaluated 
two MVEBs; a budget for 2015 (the last year of the maintenance plan) 
and beyond and a budget applicable to the years 2010 through 2014. For 
the 2015 MVEB, the State subtracted the total estimated 2015 emissions 
(from all sources) of 36.36 Tons Per Day (TPD) from the 1993 attainment 
year total

[[Page 58268]]

emissions of 52.71 TPD. This produced a ``safety margin'' of 16.35 TPD. 
The State then reduced this ``safety margin'' by one TPD. The 
identified ``safety margin'' of 15.35 TPD for 2015 was then added to 
the estimated 2015 mobile sources emissions, 25.99 TPD, to produce a 
2015 MVEB of 41 TPD. For the 2010 through 2014 MVEB, the State 
subtracted the total estimated 2010 emissions (from all sources) of 
38.17 TPD from the 1993 attainment year total emissions of 52.71 TPD. 
This produced a ``safety margin'' of 14.54 TPD. The State then reduced 
this ``safety margin'' by one TPD. The identified ``safety margin'' of 
13.54 TPD for 2010 was then added to the estimated 2010 mobile sources 
emissions, 28.01 TPD, to produce a 2010 through 2014 MVEB of 41 TPD. 
These MVEBs were identified in the first sentence of paragraph two of 
section 4 of the revised maintenance plan which states, ``The Longmont 
attainment/maintenance area mobile source emission budgets are 41 tons/
day for 2010 through 2014 and 41 tons/day for 2015 and beyond.'' Based 
on this choice, and in order for a positive conformity determination to 
be made, transportation plan analyses for years 2010 through 2014 must 
show that motor vehicle emissions will be less than or equal to the 
2010 through 2014 MVEB of 41 TPD of CO and transportation plan analyses 
for years 2015 and beyond must show that motor vehicle emissions will 
be less than or equal to the 2015 MVEB of 41 TPD of CO. The revised 
maintenance plan also states that the previously approved CO MVEB of 
16.76 TPD for 2015 and beyond (see 64 FR 51694, September 24, 1999) is 
removed from the SIP and is replaced by the new MVEBs of 41 TPD for the 
years 2010 through 2014 and 41 TPD for 2015 and beyond. Therefore, we 
are approving the transportation conformity MVEBs of 41 TPD of CO for 
2010 through 2014 and 41 TPD of CO for 2015 and beyond for the Longmont 
attainment/maintenance area.

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be 
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of 
the CAA. The revised Longmont CO maintenance plan will not interfere 
with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 
requirement of the CAA.

VII. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is approving the revised Longmont CO 
maintenance plan, that was submitted by the Governor on April 12, 2004, 
and the revised transportation conformity motor vehicle CO emission 
budgets for the years 2010 through 2014 and 2015 and beyond.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 29, 2004 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
November 1, 2004. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the 
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if 
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of 
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of 
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are 
not the subject of an adverse comment.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

[[Page 58269]]

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2004. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 22, 2004.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.349  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (k) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, carbon 
monoxide NAAQS, revised maintenance plan for Longmont entitled 
``Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Longmont Attainment/
Maintenance Area'', as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control 
Commission on December 18, 2003, State effective March 1, 2004, and 
submitted by the Governor on April 12, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04-21926 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P