[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28233-28239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9721]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2004-CO-0004; FRL-7912-7]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Colorado. On June 20, 2003, the 
Governor of Colorado submitted a revised maintenance plan for the 
Greeley carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area for the CO National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised maintenance plan 
contains transportation conformity budgets for 2005 through 2009, 2010 
through 2014, and 2015 and beyond. In addition, the Governor submitted 
revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Inspection Program'' and revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 13 
``Oxygenated Fuels Program.'' In this action, EPA is proposing approval 
of the Greeley CO revised maintenance plan, the transportation 
conformity budgets, and the revisions to Regulation No. 11 and 
Regulation No. 13. This action is being taken under section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-
OAR-2004-CO-0004, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Website: 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-0004. 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

[[Page 28234]]

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 
publically 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:

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 Greeley Revised Maintenance Plan
V. EPA's evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
VI. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions
VII. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 13 Revisions
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
IX. Proposed Action
X. 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:
    (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    (b) 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.
    (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    (d) Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    (e) If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    (f) Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    (g) Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    (h) 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 proposing approval of a revised maintenance 
plan for the Greeley attainment/maintenance area (hereafter, Greeley 
area) that is designed to keep the area in attainment for CO through 
2015, we're proposing approval of transportation conformity motor 
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for the area, we're proposing approval 
of changes to the State's Regulation No. 11 that will eliminate the 
requirement to implement motor vehicle emissions inspections in the 
Greeley area, and we're proposing approval of changes to the State's 
Regulation No. 13 that will eliminate the requirement to implement a 
wintertime oxygenated fuels program in the Greeley area. We approved 
the original CO redesignation to attainment and maintenance plan for 
the Greeley area on March 10, 1999 (see 64 FR 11775).
    The original Greeley CO maintenance plan that we approved on March 
10, 1999 (hereafter March 10, 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 original March 10, 1999 maintenance plan, the State 
followed our October 6, 1995 policy entitled, ``Limited Maintenance 
Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' (hereafter 
October 6, 1995 policy). Our October 6, 1995 policy indicated that 
nonclassifiable CO nonattainment areas, such as the Greeley area, that 
were seeking redesignation to attainment, need only prepare an 
attainment year emissions inventory and continue to implement the prior 
nonattainment control measures. However, based on the State's decision 
to pursue the elimination of the motor vehicle basic Inspection and 
Maintenance (I/M) program and the oxygenated fuels program control 
measures from the March 10, 1999, maintenance plan, our October 6, 1995 
policy no longer applies. Instead, the relevant EPA policy we use in 
considering the Governor's June 20, 2003 revised maintenance plan is 
our September 4, 1992 policy memorandum entitled ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (hereafter, 
September 4, 1992 policy).

[[Page 28235]]

    The attainment year emission inventory provided in the March 10, 
1999 maintenance plan was for 1995. For the revised maintenance plan, 
the State prepared a new attainment year inventory for 1992, projected 
emission inventories for 1998, 2005, 2010, and 2015 (eliminating any 
emission reductions benefits from the prior basic I/M and oxygenated 
fuels programs beginning in 2004), and calculated all the mobile 
sources CO emissions using MOBILE6.2. In addition, the State prepared 
an emissions analysis for 2004 that evaluated the elimination of the 
basic I/M and oxygenated fuels programs in that year. The State 
calculated a CO MVEB for 2005 through 2009 and applied a selected 
amount of the available safety margin to the 2005 through 2009 
transportation conformity MVEB. The State calculated a 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 calculated a 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 Greeley revised CO maintenance plan, and the revisions 
to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 on December 19, 2002. The 
AQCC adopted the revised maintenance plan, and revisions to Regulation 
No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 directly after the hearing. These SIP 
revisions became State effective March 2, 2003, and were submitted by 
the Governor to us on June 20, 2003.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have concluded that 
the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing 
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by section 110(k)(1)(B) 
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 Governor's submittal was administratively and technically complete. 
Our completeness determination was sent on September 19, 2003, through 
a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, to Governor 
Bill Owens.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Greeley Revised Maintenance Plan

    EPA has reviewed the State's revised maintenance plan for the 
Greeley 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 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 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 March 10, 1999 maintenance plan 
relied on ambient air quality data from 1988 through 1997. In our 
consideration of the revised Greeley CO maintenance plan, submitted by 
the Governor on June 20, 2003, we reviewed ambient air quality data 
from 1988 through 2004. The Greeley area shows continuous attainment of 
the CO NAAQS from 1988 to present. All of the above-referenced air 
quality data are archived in our Air Quality System (AQS).
    (b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State provided a 
revised attainment year inventory (1992), new projected years (1998, 
2005, 2010, and 2015) inventories and an analysis for 2004.
    The revised maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on June 
20, 2003, includes comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the 
Greeley 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 new 1992 attainment year 
inventory, and the new 1998, 2005, 2010, and 2015 projected 
inventories, 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 1992 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 the Greeley Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Source Category                   1992          1998          2005          2010          2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point*....................................         1.850         1.838         2.101         2.287         2.474
Area*.....................................         9.159         9.779         3.181         3.244         3.306
Non-Road*.................................         5.437         6.127         6.900         7.696         8.501
                                           ---------------
    Subtotal..............................        16.4          17.7          12.2          13.2          14.3
                                           ===============
On-Road...................................        59.3          47.7          56.5          47.3          46.1
                                           ---------------
    Total.................................        75.7          65.4          68.7          60.5          60.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The State reported these categories with three decimal places to provide a better representation of the smaller
  source categories.

    In addition to the above data, we note that Table 1 of the 
maintenance plan, entitled ``1992-2015 Greeley Attainment/Maintenance 
Area Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventories,'' includes inventory 
analysis data for 2004. With the elimination of the basic I/M program 
and oxygenated fuels program in 2004, mobile source emissions are 59.0 
tons per day and total CO emissions are 71.0 tons per

[[Page 28236]]

day, which is below the attainment year level of emissions of 75.7 tons 
per day.
    The revised mobile source emissions show the largest change from 
the March 10, 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 North Front Range Transportation and Air 
Quality Planning Council (NFRTAQPC), which is the metropolitan planning 
organization (MPO) for the Greeley 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 March 10, 1999 Greeley maintenance plan. 
As described above, the State prepared, and we approved, the March 10, 
1999 Greeley maintenance plan based on our October 6, 1995 policy. 
Because the State is seeking removal of control measures (the basic I/M 
program and the oxygenated fuels program) from the maintenance plan, 
the October 6, 1995 policy no longer applies, and the State is required 
to submit a full maintenance plan, including motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for transportation conformity.
    The State has prepared a full maintenance demonstration, that 
includes a new attainment year inventory, for 1992, interim projected 
emission inventories for 1998, 2005, 2010, and a final maintenance year 
emission inventory for 2015. \1\ As described below, the revised 
Greeley maintenance plan successfully demonstrates maintenance of the 
CO NAAQS from 1992 to 2015, despite the elimination of both the basic 
I/M program and the oxygenated gasoline program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, the State used the MOBILE6.2 model to revise 
the Greeley CO maintenance plan. While under certain circumstances, 
our January 18, 2002, MOBILE6 policy allows areas to revise their 
motor vehicle emission inventories and transportation conformity 
MVEBs using the MOBILE6 model without revising the entire SIP or 
completing additional modeling, those circumstances are not present 
in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the revised maintenance plan, the State updated all emission 
source categories (point, area, non-road, and mobile) using the latest 
versions of applicable models (including MOBILE6.2). Other revisions 
involved transportation data sets, emissions data, emission factors, 
population figures and other demographic information. In addition, the 
revised maintenance plan addresses the requirements for transportation 
conformity, which are described further below.
    As discussed above, the State prepared a new attainment year 
inventory, for 1992, and new emission inventories for the years 1998, 
2005, 2010, and 2015. The results of these calculations are presented 
in Table 1 and Table 2, both entitled ``1992-2015 Greeley Attainment/
Maintenance Area Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventories (tons/day),'' of 
the revised Greeley maintenance plan and are also summarized in our 
Table IV-1 above. The State has demonstrated using MOBILE6.2, that 
mobile source emissions continuously decline from 1992 to 2015 and that 
the total CO emissions from all source categories, projected for years 
1998, 2005, 2010, and 2015, as well as for 2004, are all below the 1992 
attainment year level of CO emissions. Therefore, we are proposing 
approval of the revised maintenance plan as it continues to demonstrate 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS from 1992 to 2015, while removing from the 
Federally-enforceable SIP both the basic I/M program (of Regulation No. 
11) and the oxygenated fuels program (Regulation No. 13) for Weld 
County and the Greeley CO maintenance area.
    (d) Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment. 
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Greeley area depends, in 
part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the 
maintenance period. This requirement is met in section 6. ``Monitoring 
Network/Verification of Continued Attainment'' of the revised Greeley 
CO maintenance plan. In section 6., the State commits to continue the 
operation of the CO monitor in the Greeley 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 7.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 
NFRTAQPC. Since regular revisions to Greeley'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 NFRTAQPC in coordination with the State's Air 
Pollution Control Division (APCD), the AQCC, and EPA.
    Based on the above, we are proposing approval of these commitments 
as satisfying the relevant requirements. We note that a final 
rulemaking action would render 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 7 of the revised maintenance plan, the 
contingency measures for the Greeley 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 Greeley, NFRTAQPC and APCD to identify and 
evaluate potential contingency measures.)
    The City of Greeley and NFRTAQPC, 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 
7.C of the revised Greeley CO maintenance plan include; (1) a basic 
vehicle inspection

[[Page 28237]]

and maintenance program as described in AQCC Regulation No. 11 as it 
existed prior to the modifications adopted by the AQCC on December 19, 
2002, with the addition of any on-board diagnostics components as 
required by Federal law and, (2) a 2.7% oxygenated fuels program as set 
forth in AQCC Regulation No. 13 prior to the modifications made on 
December 19, 2002.
    Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided 
in the State's revised Greeley CO maintenance plan are sufficient to 
meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA and we are 
proposing approval of them.
    (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 8 of the revised Greeley CO maintenance plan. In 
section 8, the State commits to submit a revised maintenance plan eight 
years after the approval of the May 10, 1999, maintenance plan.
    Based on our review of the components of the revised Greeley 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 propose approval of the revised Greeley 
CO maintenance plan.

V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements

    As we noted above, in order for the State to remove the basic I/M 
program and oxygenated gasoline programs from the Federal SIP for the 
Greeley area, a full maintenance demonstration was required. With the 
development of the full maintenance demonstration, which included the 
necessary projected emission inventories for future years, the Greeley 
area then had to address the transportation conformity requirements of 
section 176 of the CAA and the relevant sections of our conformity 
regulation (see 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124).
    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.
    Section 5 of the maintenance plan defines the CO motor vehicle 
emissions budgets in the Greeley CO attainment/maintenance area as 63 
tons per day (tpd) for 2005 through 2009, 62 tpd for 2010 through 2014, 
and 60 tpd for 2015 and beyond.
    The transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets were 
derived by taking the difference between the attainment year (1992) 
total emissions and the projected future years' total emissions. This 
difference is the ``safety margin,'' part or all of which may be added 
to projected mobile sources CO emissions to arrive at a motor vehicle 
emissions budget to be used for transportation conformity purposes. The 
State added the safety margins, less one ton per day, to projected 
mobile sources CO emissions for 2005, 2010, and 2015. However, the 
State then rounded 62.5 tpd up to 63 tpd for the 2005 through 2009 
budget and rounded 61.5 tpd up to 62 tpd for the 2010 through 2014 
budget. Generally, rounding up budget values is not appropriate because 
the higher values may not be consistent with the maintenance 
demonstration, but in this case, the State's 0.5 tpd higher budgets can 
be accommodated within the one tpd of safety margin that the State did 
not initially allocate to the budgets. Therefore, we are ignoring the 
State's rounding errors and accepting 63 tpd as the budget for 2005 
through 2009 and 62 tpd as the budget for 2010 through 2014.
    The State's determination of safety margins and motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for the Greeley CO maintenance plan is further 
illustrated in Table V-1 below and in section 5 of the maintenance 
plan:

 Table V-1.--Mobile Sources Emissions, Safety Margins, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons of CO Per Day
                                                      (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Mobile sources       Total                                         Motor vehicle
             Year                  emissions       emissions          Math           Margin of       emissions
                                     (tpd)           (tpd)                         safety  (tpd)   budget  (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992..........................            59.3            75.7  ................             N/A             N/A
2005..........................            56.5            68.7  75.7 - 68.7 = 7.               6              63
                                                                7 - 1 = 6.......
                                                                56.5 + 6 = 62.5
                                                                 (plus 0.5) is
                                                                 63.
2010..........................            47.3            60.5  75.7 - 60.5 =               14.2              62
                                                                 15.2.
                                                                15.2 - 1 = 14.2.
                                                                47.3 + 14.2 =
                                                                 61.5 (plus 0.5)
                                                                 is 62.
2015..........................            46.1            60.4  75.7 - 60.4 =               14.3             60
                                                                 15.3.
                                                                15.3 - 1 = 14.3.
                                                                46.1 + 14.3 =
                                                                 60.4 or 60.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: N/A = Not Applicable.

    Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. 
Therefore, we are proposing approval of the following motor vehicle 
emissions budgets for the Greeley area: 63 tons per day for 2005 
through 2009, 62 tons per day for 2010 through 2014, and 60 tons per 
day for 2015 and beyond.
    Pursuant to Sec.  93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity 
rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted mobile 
source emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the Greeley CO budgets for 
adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that 
the budgets were adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy 
determination was made in a letter to the Colorado APCD

[[Page 28238]]

on October 29, 2003, and was announced in the Federal Register on 
January 5, 2004 (69 FR 339). As a result of this adequacy finding, the 
budgets took effect for conformity determinations in the Greeley area 
on January 20, 2004. However, we note that we are not bound by that 
determination in acting on the maintenance plan.
    In addition to the above, the State has made a commitment regarding 
transportation conformity in section 5 of the maintenance plan. Because 
informal roll-forward analyses, prepared by the State, indicate that 
the 2015 CO emissions budget may be exceeded by 2030, the State has 
committed to the re-implementation of the basic I/M program (with any 
Federally required on-board diagnostic tests) for the Greeley area in 
2026. This commitment by the State is included in the maintenance plan 
for purposes of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3)(iii), which provides that emissions 
reduction credit from such programs may be included in the 
transportation conformity emissions analysis if the maintenance plan 
contains such a written commitment. We agree with this interpretation 
of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3)(iii) and will make this State commitment 
Federally enforceable if we approve the revised Greeley CO maintenance 
plan.

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions

    Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Inspection Program.'' In developing the Greeley CO maintenance plan, 
the State evaluated a number of options for revising the current motor 
vehicle emissions inspection program. The final decision, based on the 
use of our Mobile6.2 emission factor model, was to eliminate the basic 
I/M program from the Federally-approved SIP beginning on January 1, 
2004. A description of the State's process and emissions evaluation of 
the Regulation No. 11 revisions is found in sections 2 and 3 of the 
maintenance plan. These revisions to Regulation No. 11 were submitted, 
as a separate revision to the SIP, for our approval in conjunction with 
the revised maintenance plan.
    The revisions adopted by the AQCC on December 19, 2002, and 
submitted by the Governor on June 20, 2003, remove the Greeley area 
component of the Colorado automobile inspection and maintenance program 
(``AIR Program'') from the Federally-approved SIP. Section 2 of the 
maintenance plan reflects this change in Regulation No. 11 in that the 
mobile source CO emissions were calculated without the CO emissions 
reduction benefit of a basic I/M program starting in 2004 and 
continuing through 2015. We note that even with the elimination of the 
basic I/M program and the elimination of the oxygenated fuels program, 
discussed below, for the Greeley area beginning on January 1, 2004, the 
area is still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance 
of the CO standard through 2015.
    We have reviewed and are proposing approval of these State-adopted 
changes to Regulation No. 11.

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

    Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled ``Oxygenated Fuels 
Program'' (hereafter referred to as Regulation No. 13). The purpose of 
this regulation is to reduce CO emissions from gasoline powered motor 
vehicles in the Greeley area through the wintertime use of oxygenated 
fuels. Section 211(m) of the CAA originally required the State to 
implement an oxygenated fuels program in the Greeley area. Section 
211(m) 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 a reduced implementation period will still assure 
that there will be no exceedances of the CO NAAQS outside of this 
reduced period. This was done previously when we approved revisions to 
Regulation No. 13 for the Denver area, that also affected the Greeley 
area, that shortened the oxygenated fuels season and reduced the 
oxygenate content (see 62 FR 10690, March 10, 1997 and 64 FR 46279, 
August 25, 1999). When an area is redesignated to attainment, the 
oxygenated fuels program may be further shortened or eliminated 
entirely as long as the State is able to show the program is not needed 
to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS (see 65 FR 80779, December 
22, 2000).
    In developing the Greeley CO revised maintenance plan, the State 
evaluated options for revising the current oxygenated fuels program. 
The final decision, based on the use of our Mobile6.2 emission factor 
model, was to eliminate the oxygenated fuels program from the 
Federally-approved SIP beginning on January 1, 2004. A description of 
the State's process and emissions evaluation of the Regulation No. 13 
revisions is found in sections 2 and 3 of the maintenance plan. These 
revisions to Regulation No. 13 were submitted, as a separate revision 
to the SIP, for our approval in conjunction with the revised 
maintenance plan.
    The current EPA-approved oxygenated fuels program for the Greeley 
area has the following three requirements: (1) The control period is 
from November 1 through February 7 of each winter season, (2) an oxygen 
content of at least 2.0% by weight is required from November 1 through 
November 7, and (3) an oxygen content of at least 2.7% by weight is 
required from November 8 through February 7.
    In conjunction with the submittal of the Greeley CO revised 
maintenance plan, the State of Colorado is seeking EPA's approval of 
revisions to Regulation No. 13 that would eliminate the oxygenated 
fuels program for the Greeley area beginning on January 1, 2004.
    As we discussed above, and as presented in section 2 of the revised 
maintenance plan, the removal of the CO emission reductions associated 
with the implementation of Regulation No. 13 were incorporated by the 
State into the emission projections, using our Mobile6.2 emissions 
model, beginning in 2004 and were projected through the final 
maintenance year of 2015. Even with the elimination of both Regulation 
No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 for the Greeley area starting in 2004, 
maintenance of the CO NAAQS is successfully demonstrated.
    We have reviewed these changes to Regulation No. 13, that the State 
adopted on December 19, 2002, and the Governor submitted on June 20, 
2003. We are proposing approval of these revisions as they are 
consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS for the Greeley area and 
meet the requirements of section 211(m) of the CAA.

VIII. 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.
    EPA originally anticipated final action on the revised Greeley CO 
maintenance plan by the end of 2004. However, for the reasons discussed 
below, we determined that we needed to postpone action on the plan 
until we acted on the Denver 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC) 
plan. This is because the revised CO maintenance plan eliminates the 
basic I/M program in the Greeley area.
    The Greeley area is included in the Denver 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment boundary and is also included in the attainment 
demonstration modeling for

[[Page 28239]]

the Denver 8-hour ozone EAC plan. While the basic I/M program was 
originally adopted for Greeley to control CO emissions, it also 
produces some reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, a 
precursor to ground level ozone formation. For example, vehicles in the 
Greeley area are failed for excessive hydrocarbon emissions, which 
contain VOCs. In other words, removal of the basic I/M program from the 
Greeley area could lead to an increase in ozone.
    Under EPA's interpretation of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, 
we cannot approve the removal of the basic I/M program from the Greeley 
area absent a substitute revision providing equivalent or greater VOC 
reductions or a demonstration that elimination of the program will not 
interfere with relevant requirements of the Clean Air Act (in this 
case, attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.)
    The State is not providing a substitute SIP revision. Instead, 
Colorado intends to demonstrate non-interference through its 8-hour 
ozone attainment demonstration, which is part of the Denver 8-hour 
ozone EAC plan that the Governor submitted on July 21, 2004. The 8-hour 
ozone attainment demonstration takes no emissions reduction credit for 
the Greeley basic I/M program. We have not acted on the Denver 8-hour 
ozone EAC plan, but intend to do so in the near future.
    Assuming we approve the Denver EAC ozone attainment demonstration, 
we will then have the technical and legal basis to approve the removal 
of the Greeley area basic I/M program from the SIP. Thus, we must 
approve the Denver 8-hour ozone EAC plan before, or at the same time, 
we approve the removal of the Greeley area basic I/M program from the 
SIP. Accordingly, we will not finalize approval of the revised Greeley 
CO maintenance plan and revised Regulation No. 11 unless and until we 
approve the Denver 8-hour ozone EAC plan.

IX. Proposed Action

    In this action, EPA is proposing approval of the Greeley revised 
carbon monoxide maintenance plan, the transportation conformity budgets 
for 2005 through 2009, 2010 through 2014, and 2015 and beyond, and the 
revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13.
    Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2004-
CO-0004, by one of the methods identified above at the front of this 
proposed rule. We will consider your comments in deciding our final 
action if they are received before June 16, 2005. EPA will address all 
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. 
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 the 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.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 
proposed 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 proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 6, 2005.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 05-9721 Filed 5-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P