[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28239-28252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9724]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2005-CO-0001; FRL-7912-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Colorado; Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan, Attainment 
Demonstration of the 8-hour Ozone Standard, 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 July 21, 2004, the 
Governor of Colorado submitted an Early Action Compact (EAC) ozone plan

[[Page 28240]]

for the Denver metropolitan area (hereafter, Denver area) for the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 
Governor's submittal also contained an attainment demonstration for the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS. In conjunction with the EAC ozone plan, the 
Governor submitted revisions to Colorado's Common Provisions 
Regulation, Colorado's Regulation No. 7 ``Emissions of Volatile Organic 
Compounds'' (hereafter, Regulation No. 7), and revisions to Colorado's 
Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program'' 
(hereafter Regulation No. 11). In this action, EPA is proposing 
approval of the Denver EAC ozone plan, the associated attainment 
demonstration, and the revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation, 
Regulation No. 7, and Regulation No. 11. 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-2005-CO-0001, 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, 8:00 
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-
2005-CO-0001. 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 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. Background for Early Action Compacts for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
V. EPA's evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Milestone 
Submittals
VI. EPA's evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan
VII. EPA's evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone 
Plan's Attainment Demonstration
VIII. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 7 Revisions
IX. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions
X. EPA's evaluation of the Common Provisions Regulation Revision
XI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
XII. Proposed Action
XIII. 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 
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

[[Page 28241]]

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:
    I. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    II. 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.
    III. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    IV. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    V. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    VI. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    VII. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    VIII. 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 the Early Action 
Compact ozone plan for the Denver area that is designed to demonstrate 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007 with 
additional provisions for continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS 
through 2012, we're proposing approval of the photochemical modeled 
attainment demonstration, we're proposing approval of certain revisions 
to the State's Common Provisions Regulation, we're proposing approval 
of revisions to Regulation No. 7 for the control of VOC and 
NOX emissions from certain oil and gas exploration and 
production operations, we're proposing approval of revisions to the 
motor vehicle inspections and maintenance (I/M) requirements in 
Regulation No. 11 the Governor submitted on July 21, 2004, and we're 
proposing approval of several prior I/M revisions to Regulation No. 11.

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.
    A. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public 
hearing for the Denver EAC ozone plan on March 11 and 12, 2004. The 
AQCC adopted the EAC ozone plan, and its associated attainment 
demonstration, directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became 
State effective on May 30, 2004, and was submitted by the Governor to 
us on July 21, 2004.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the Denver EAC ozone 
plan 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 July 21, 2004, submittal became complete on January 21, 
2005.
    B. The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing for the revisions to the 
Common Provisions Regulation, Regulation No. 7 and Regulation No. 11 on 
March 11 and 12, 2004. The AQCC adopted these revisions directly after 
the hearing. These SIP revisions became State effective on May 30, 
2004, and were submitted by the Governor to us on July 21, 2004.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the Common 
Provisions Regulation, Regulation No. 7 and Regulation No. 11 revisions 
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 
July 21, 2004, submittal became complete on January 21, 2005.
    C. For the 2000, 2001, and 2002 Regulation No. 11 revisions, the 
Colorado AQCC held a public hearing on November 16, 2000, December 20, 
2001, August 15, 2002, and October 17, 2002. The AQCC adopted the 
revisions to Regulation No. 11 directly after these hearings. These SIP 
revisions became State effective on December 30, 2000, January 30, 
2002, September 30, 2002, and December 30, 2002, respectively, and were 
all submitted by the Governor to us on June 20, 2003.
    We evaluated the Governor's submittal and concluded that the State 
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to 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 June 30, 2003, submittal was administratively and 
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on 
November 28, 2003, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional 
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.
    D. For the 2003 Regulation No. 11 revisions, the Colorado AQCC held 
a public hearing on September 18, 2003, and December 18, 2003. The AQCC 
adopted the revisions to Regulation No. 11 directly after these 
hearings. These SIP revisions became State effective on November 30, 
2003, and March 1, 2004, respectively, and were all submitted by the 
Governor to us on April 12, 2004.
    We evaluated the Governor's submittal and concluded that the State 
met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to 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 April 12, 2004, submittal was administratively and 
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on June 
17, 2004, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional 
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.
    E. The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing for additional revisions 
to Regulation No. 7 on December 16, 2004. The AQCC adopted these 
revisions directly after the hearing. These SIP revisions became State 
effective on March 2, 2005, and were submitted by the Governor to us on 
March 24, 2005.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal of the additional 
revisions to Regulation No. 7 and have determined that the State met 
the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Pursuant to 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 March 24, 2005, submittal was administratively and 
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on April 
6, 2005, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional 
Administrator, to Governor Bill Owens.

[[Page 28242]]

IV. Background for Early Action Compacts for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

A. Why Was the Compact Program Developed?

    As discussed in our proposed rule for the implementation of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (see 68 FR 32805, June 2, 2003), State, local and 
Tribal air pollution control agencies continued to express a need for 
added flexibility in implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including 
incentives for taking action sooner than the CAA requires for reducing 
ground-level ozone. The compact program permits local areas to make 
decisions that will achieve reductions in VOC and NOX 
emissions sooner than otherwise is mandated by the CAA. Early planning 
and early implementation of control measures that improves air quality 
will likely accelerate protection of public health. We issued our 
initial policy on early planning on November 14, 2002 \1\ (hereafter, 
November 14, 2002 policy), with a further description in our June 2, 
2003 proposed rule (68 FR 32805), and as provided in our April 30, 2004 
final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 1.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant 
Administrator, to Regional Administrators, entitled ``Schedule for 
8-Hour Ozone Designations and its Effect on Early Action Compacts'' 
dated November 14, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Was the ``Early Action'' Protocol That Texas Submitted to EPA?

    In March of 2002, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ) encouraged EPA to consider incentives for early planning towards 
achieving the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The TCEQ submitted to EPA the 
Protocol for Early Action Compacts Designed to Achieve and Maintain the 
8-hour Ozone Standard (Protocol). The Protocol was designed to achieve 
NOX and VOC emissions reductions for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
sooner than would otherwise be required under the CAA. The TCEQ 
recommended that the Protocol be formalized by ``Early Action Compact'' 
agreements primarily developed by local, State and Federal (EPA) 
officials. In a letter dated June 19, 2002, from Gregg Cooke, 
Administrator, Region 6, to Robert Huston, Chairman, TCEQ, EPA endorsed 
the principles outlined in the Protocol. The Protocol was subsequently 
revised on December 11, 2002, \2\ based on comments from EPA. Areas 
meeting the necessary prerequisites prepared an Early Action Compact 
(EAC) document that was based on the provisions of the Protocol. These 
EACs were then executed by the necessary State and local entities, 
along with the respective EPA Regional Office, by December 31, 2002. 
The EACs were required to contain the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Texas Protocol was submitted to EPA in March 2002 for 
review and was revised in December 2002 based on the Agency's 
comments concerning the need for additional milestones and other 
clarifications. Docket No. OAR-2003-0090-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Early planning, implementation, and emissions reductions leading 
to expeditious attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard.
    2. Local control of the measures employed with broad-based public 
input.
    3. State support to ensure technical integrity of the early action 
plan including completion of emissions inventories and dispersion 
modeling (based on most recent Agency guidance) to support the 
attainment demonstration and selected local control measures.
    4. Formal incorporation of the early action plan itself into the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Also, adoption and submittal as 
revisions to the SIP of control strategies that demonstrate attainment.
    5. Completion of a component to address emissions growth at least 5 
years beyond December 31, 2007, ensuring that the area will remain in 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard during that period.
    6. Semiannual reports detailing progress toward completion of 
compact milestones.
    7. Designation of all areas as attainment or nonattainment in April 
2004, but for compact areas, deferral of the effective date of the 
nonattainment designation and/or designation requirements so long as 
all compact terms and milestones continue to be met.
    8. Safeguards to return areas to traditional SIP attainment 
requirements should compact terms be unfulfilled (e.g., if the area 
fails to attain in 2007), with appropriate credit given for reduction 
measures already implemented.

C. What are the milestone and submittal requirements for Early Action 
Compact areas?

    The November 14, 2002, policy memorandum, an additional EPA 
memorandum dated April 4, 2003, \3\ our June 2, 2003 proposed rule (68 
FR 32805), and our April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23951) establish 
the activities EAC areas are required to perform and the necessary 
submittals that must be made to EPA. EAC areas are required to select 
control strategies based on SIP-quality dispersion modeling that shows 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than December 31, 2007 
through implementation of the control strategies. We specified that all 
EAC areas must submit a local plan by March 31, 2004 that includes 
measures that are specific, quantified, and permanent and that, once 
approved into the SIP by EPA, will be federally enforceable. The March 
31, 2004 submission also had to include specific implementation dates 
for the local controls, as well as detailed documentation supporting 
the selection of measures. Control measures must be implemented no 
later than December 31, 2005, which is at least 16\1/2\ months earlier 
than required by the CAA. Reports are required every 6 months to 
describe progress toward completion of milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Air Quality 
Strategies and Standards Division, ``Early Action Compacts (EACs): 
The June 16, 2003 Submission and Other Clarifications,'' April 4, 
2003. Docket No. OAR-2003-0090-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-1 below presents the milestones and submissions that EAC 
areas are required to complete in order to continue eligibility for a 
deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment designation for the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

              Table IV-1.--Early Action Compact Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Submittal Date                     Compact Milestone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 2002......................  State/Locals submit EAC for EPA
                                          signature.
June 16, 2003..........................  State/Locals submit preliminary
                                          list and description of
                                          potential local control
                                          measures under consideration.
March 31, 2004.........................  Plan submitted to State for
                                          necessary action (includes
                                          specific, quantified and
                                          permanent control measures to
                                          be adopted).
December 31, 2004......................  State submits EAC plan and
                                          adopted local measures to EPA
                                          as a SIP revision that, when
                                          approved, will be federally
                                          enforceable.
No later than December 31, 2005........  State/Locals to implement
                                          adopted SIP control measures.
June 30, 2006..........................  State reports on implementation
                                          of control measures,
                                          assessment of air quality
                                          improvement, and reductions in
                                          NOX and VOC emissions to date.
December 31, 2007......................  EAC area attains 8-hour ozone
                                          NAAQS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the Protocol and the executed EAC documents, EPA

[[Page 28243]]

recognized the EAC areas' commitments to early, voluntary action by 
designating the EAC areas that were violating the 8-hour NAAQS (based 
on air quality data from 2001, 2002, and 2003) as nonattainment on 
April 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 23858), but deferred the effective date of 
the nonattainment designation so long as all terms and milestones of 
the EAC continue to be met.

V. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Milestone 
Submittals

    We have reviewed the Denver EAC milestone submittals with respect 
to the requirements in the Protocol and the executed December 31, 2002 
Denver EAC. We consider these milestone submittals as necessary 
prerequisites in order for us to propose approval of the Denver EAC 
ozone plan SIP revision. The following are our analyses of how the EAC 
milestone submittal requirements, discussed above, have been met for 
the Denver EAC.

A. State/Locals Submit EAC for EPA Signature by December 31, 2002

    The State of Colorado delivered the Denver EAC to EPA, Region 8 on 
December 30, 2002. The EAC had been signed by Jim Scherer, Chairman of 
the Denver Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC), Robert E. Brady Jr., 
Chairman of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), Douglas 
H. Benevento, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Public Health 
and Environment (CDPHE), Thomas Norton, Executive Director, Colorado 
Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Sharon L. Richardson, 
Chairman, Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). The Denver 
EAC was executed by Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, EPA 
Region 8, on December 31, 2002.
    The Denver EAC was amended on March 18, 2004 with the additional 
signatures of Stephen F. Stutz, Chair, Elbert County Board of County 
Commissioners, Kathay Rennels, Chair, Larimer County Board of County 
Commissioners, Michael Harms, Chair, Morgan County Board of County 
Commissioners, and Rob Masden, Chair, Weld County Board of County 
Commissioners.
    Based on the above actions, EPA has determined that this EAC 
milestone requirement has been addressed.

B. State/Locals Submit Preliminary List and Description of Potential 
Local Control Measures Under Consideration by June 16, 2003

    On June 16, 2003, Ken Lloyd, Executive Director, RAQC and Margie 
Perkins, Director, Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the CDPHE 
jointly submitted the Denver EAC area's ``June 16, 2003 Milestone--
Identification and Description of Potential Control Strategies for 
Further Consideration.'' This submittal contained a further description 
of the stakeholder process, strategy evaluation considerations, and a 
list of ten potential emission reduction strategies. Provided for each 
of the potential strategies were, a brief description, estimate of 
potential emission reductions (where available), an implementation 
approach and schedule, and a description of the geographic area of 
application of the strategy.
    Based on the content of this document, EPA has determined that this 
EAC milestone requirement has been addressed.

C. Plan Submitted to State for necessary Action (Includes Specific, 
Quantified and Permanent Control Measures To Be Adopted) by March 31, 
2004

    The Denver RAQC held a public meeting on December 11, 2003, at the 
end of which, the RAQC gave their approval to the Denver EAC ozone 
plan. In conjunction with the RAQC's planning processes, the Colorado 
AQCC entertained public comment during noticed public meetings in July, 
August, September, November, and December, 2003. With the RAQC's 
approval, the Denver EAC plan, and associated materials, were then 
transmitted to the Colorado AQCC. At their December 18, 2003, public 
meeting the AQCC gave notice to open a three-month public comment 
period and scheduled a public hearing for March 11, 2004 (which was 
subsequently extended to March 11 and March 12, 2004.) At the December 
18, 2003 AQCC meeting, the AQCC also noticed for public comment 
revisions to the appropriate Colorado Regulations that would achieve 
the necessary emission reductions that were modeled in the attainment 
demonstration which supported the EAC plan. Once approved, these 
Regulation revisions would generate permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions. We note that the Denver EAC plan does not take any credit 
for voluntary measures.
    Based on the above actions, EPA has determined that this EAC 
milestone requirement has been addressed.

D. State Submits EAC Plan and Adopted Local Measures to EPA as a SIP 
Revision (That, When Approved, Will Be Federally Enforceable) by 
December 31, 2004

    On March 11 and March 12, 2004, the AQCC conducted a public hearing 
to consider the Denver EAC plan, the attainment demonstration, and the 
necessary revisions to Colorado's Common Provisions Regulation, 
Regulation No. 7, and Regulation No. 11. At the end of the public 
hearing on March 12, 2004, the AQCC adopted all the above SIP 
materials. The entire Denver EAC SIP package was forwarded to Governor 
Owens who then transmitted the SIP package to EPA, Region 8, with a 
letter dated July 21, 2004.
    We note that on March 10, 2004, and just prior to the AQCC public 
hearing of March 11 and March 12, 2004, we sent a letter to the State 
and AQCC expressing concerns with the adequacy of the revisions to 
Colorado's Regulation No. 7. In that March 10, 2004 letter, we stated 
that we would continue to work with the State to resolve our concerns.
    CDPHE and EPA staff met several times starting in August, 2004 up 
through December, 2004 to address the Regulation No. 7 deficiencies. At 
the September, 2004 AQCC meeting, the AQCC established a public comment 
period and noticed for public hearing revisions to Regulation No. 7. 
The AQCC held a public hearing on December 16, 2004 to consider the 
revisions to Regulation No. 7. The AQCC adopted the revisions directly 
after the public hearing and Governor Owens submitted these 
supplemental Regulation No. 7 revisions to us on March 24, 2005.
    Based on the above actions, EPA has determined that this EAC 
milestone requirement has been addressed.
    We also note that in addition to meeting all the required EAC 
milestones, the State and RAQC jointly submitted ``Progress Reports'' 
on June 30, 2003, December 31, 2003, March 31, 2004, and December 31, 
2004.

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan

    We have reviewed the Denver EAC ozone plan (hereafter, Denver EAC 
plan) with respect to the requirements in the Protocol, the December 
31, 2002 Denver EAC document, and our general requirements for a 
nonattainment area plan and believe that approval of the Denver EAC 
plan is warranted. The following are our descriptions and analysis of 
how the Denver EAC plan meets the necessary provisions referenced 
above.
    We note that the Denver EAC plan is divided into two sections; a 
non-SIP introduction and monitoring background section and the SIP 
section entitled ``8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan'' that 
contains emission inventories, control measures,

[[Page 28244]]

photochemical dispersion modeling, and a weight of evidence analysis.

A. Introduction and Monitoring Background Section (non-SIP Materials)

    The introduction section discusses the EAC protocol, the aspects of 
the Denver EAC, the Protocol milestones and how these were met, 
information that went into the development of the SIP emission 
inventories and dispersion modeling, emission reduction strategies, 
aspects of maintenance for growth, a brief description of the 
stakeholder/public process, and a description of the area encompassed 
by the Denver EAC plan. The ozone monitoring section provides 
information with respect to the location of Front Range ozone monitors 
(from southern metropolitan Denver north to Fort Collins including 
Rocky Mountain National Park), the State's ambient air quality data 
assurance program, a description and commitment for continued operation 
of the ozone monitoring network, and relevant 8-hour ozone monitoring 
data from 1996 through 2003 with design values presented for data from 
2001, 2002, and 2003.

B. Denver EAC Plan--``8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan'

1. Base Case Emissions Inventories
    (a) As described in Chapter I of the Denver EAC plan, the State and 
RAQC used demographic data that was provided by the metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPO), DRCOG and North Front Range 
Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (NFRTAQPC). Demographic 
data were prepared for 2002, 2007, and 2012 and are presented in Table 
4 of the Denver EAC plan.
    (b) At the time that the emission inventories were being prepared 
for the Denver EAC plan, EPA had not yet finalized the 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment boundary for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley area \4\. The 
State and RAQC prepared the EAC emission inventories for two situations 
depending on EPA's final decision on the boundary: (1) inventories 
based on Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, 
Jefferson, and Weld Counties, and (2) inventories based on Adams, 
Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, 
Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties. These inventories address ozone 
precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 
oxides (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA promulgated the final 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
boundary for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley area on April 30, 2004 (see 
69 FR 23858.) The boundary includes all of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, 
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson Counties and the southern 
halves of Larimer and Weld Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The 2002 and 2007 base case inventories incorporate control 
measures that were in place in 2002 and were predicted to be in place 
in 2007. The essential control measures are described in Chapter I of 
the Denver EAC plan and are: (1) Federally-mandated regulations for 
motor vehicle exhaust (or tailpipe) emissions and Federally-mandated 
regulations for exhaust emissions from non-road engines, (2) Colorado's 
Regulation No. 7 for the control of VOC emissions, and (3) Colorado's 
Regulation No. 11, the State's Automobile Inspection and Readjustment 
(A.I.R.) Program, which requires the application of the State's Basic 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program for vehicles older than 1982 
and the Enhanced I/M program for vehicles of model year 1982 and newer. 
With respect to the Basic I/M program, Chapter I, 2 of the EAC plan 
states, ``The computer modeling does not include any credit for the 
basic programs in Colorado Springs and Fort Collins/Greeley areas and 
such basic programs are not part of, or being submitted for inclusion 
in, the SIP.'' In addition to the above, Chapter I, 4 indicates that a 
conventional gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 8.2 pounds per 
square inch (psi) was used in the 2002 base case inventory and an RVP 
of 9.0 was assumed for the 2007 base case inventory. Chapter I.,4 also 
states that ``All of the inventories were developed using EPA-approved 
emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and local VMT 
data for on-road mobile source emissions, EPA's non-road model and 
local demographic information for area and off-road sources, and 
reported actual emissions for point sources.'' The 2002 and 2007 base 
case VOC and NOX emission inventories are presented in Table 
5a and Table 5b in Chapter I of the Denver EAC plan and are summarized 
below in Tables VI-1 and VI-2.

Table VI-1.--Summary of Emission Inventories in Tons Per Day (TPD) Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
                                      Douglas, Jefferson, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Source category                         2002 VOCs     2002 NOX    2007 VOCs     2007 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............................................        192.8        105.2        204.1        107.1
Area Sources................................................         96.9         25.6        104.1         27.6
Non-Road Sources............................................         73.1        87.99         53.7         82.5
On-Road Sources.............................................        152.8        157.8        117.5        119.3
Subtotal Anthropogenic......................................        515.6        376.6        479.4        336.5
Biogenics...................................................        468.1         37.1        468.1         37.1
                                                             --------------
    Total...................................................        983.7        413.7        947.5        373.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table VI-2.--Summary of Emission Inventories in Tons Per Day (TPD) Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
                         Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Source category                         2002 VOCs     2002 NOX    2007 VOCs     2007 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............................................        200.0        140.1        209.3        144.9
Area Sources................................................        111.3         30.4        119.6         32.7
Non-Road Sources............................................         84.9        104.6         62.6         92.4
On-Road Sources.............................................        172.6        177.6        135.1        136.6
Subtotal Anthropogenic......................................        568.8        452.7        526.6        406.6
Biogenics...................................................       799.46         52.3        799.5         52.3
                                                             --------------

[[Page 28245]]

 
    Total...................................................       1368.3        505.0       1326.1        458.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Control Measures
    Chapter II of the Denver EAC plan describes the additional control 
measures, above and beyond those assumed in the 2007 base case 
emissions inventory, that will be implemented by December 31, 2005. 
These additional control measures are incorporated into the SIP to 
demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007, maintenance 
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2012, and to meet the requirements of 
the EAC Protocol.
    (a) Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Chapter II A. of the Denver 
EAC plan describes the RVP control measure. Since 1991, gasoline sold 
in the Denver area during the summer ozone season (for gasoline RVP, 
this is defined as June 1 through September 15) has been subject to an 
EPA national rule that requires an RVP of 7.8 psi (see 55 FR 23658, 
June 11, 1990, and 56 FR 64704, December 12, 1991.) This RVP 
requirement of 7.8 psi was applicable to the Denver 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
nonattainment area as defined in the Federal Register (see 56 FR 56694, 
November 6, 1991.) From 1992 through the 2003 summer ozone season, and 
in response to waiver petitions from the Governor of Colorado, we 
either waived or granted enforcement discretion for the 7.8 psi RVP 
requirement for the Denver area and instead allowed the less stringent 
9.0 psi RVP. Our decisions were based on evidence that demonstrated the 
7.8 psi RVP was not necessary given the Denver area's record of 
continued attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS using the 9.0 psi RVP 
requirement and additional evidence presented by the State that showed 
economic hardship to consumers and industry if the 7.8 psi RVP level 
was imposed.
    Since 1999, and in response to a request from the RAQC, refiners 
serving the Denver area voluntarily provided gasoline with an RVP of 
8.5 psi or lower to help reduce evaporative emissions of VOCs from 
refueling and vehicle operations. Through the Denver EAC stakeholder 
meetings, the RAQC, State, and industry elected to commit to a gasoline 
RVP of 8.1 psi to help reduce VOC emissions. Therefore, the Denver EAC 
plan and 2007 dispersion modeled attainment demonstration took credit 
for the more stringent RVP level of 8.1 psi. On January 12, 2004, the 
Colorado Petroleum Association (CPA) submitted a request to EPA for 
enforcement discretion for the 7.8 psi RVP requirement for June 1, 2004 
through September 15, 2004. In their January 12, 2004 letter, CPA 
acknowledged their continuing efforts with CDPHE and the RAQC in 
developing the Denver EAC plan using an RVP of 8.1 psi, but asked that 
EPA grant enforcement discretion for a 9.0 psi RVP with CPA's offer to 
meet the prior voluntary 8.5 psi RVP level. However, quality-assured 
ozone monitoring data for 2001, 2002, and 2003 showed that three of the 
ozone ambient air quality monitors in the Denver area's network 
recorded violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In a letter dated March 
25, 2004, we explained that primarily based on the monitored violations 
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and public health issues, enforcement 
discretion was not warranted and that the Federal requirement for 7.8 
psi RVP gasoline for the Denver area would be effective beginning June 
1, 2004. We note that, although the Denver EAC plan and attainment 
demonstration dispersion modeling take credit for 8.1 psi RVP 
conventional gasoline (9.1 psi RVP for ethanol blends), the Denver area 
will instead be realizing greater evaporative VOC emissions reductions 
due to EPA's requirement for 7.8 psi RVP. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The requirement for conventional gasoline is an RVP of 7.8 
psi. However, the CAA allows an additional 1.0 psi increase for 
gasoline blended with ethanol. In the Denver EAC attainment 
demonstration dispersion modeling, the State assumes a 25 percent 
market penetration for ethanol blended gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An additional RVP issue is found in the third paragraph in Chapter 
II A. of the Denver EAC plan which states:

    Therefore, since this EAC ozone action plan for the 8-hour ozone 
standard relies on an RVP level of 8.1 psi (9.1 psi for ethanol 
blends) in the 2007 control case inventory for the existing Denver 
1-hour ozone attainment/maintenance area, the State of Colorado 
requests a three year waiver establishing an 8.1 psi (9.1 psi for 
ethanol blends) RVP level for the existing Denver 1-hour attainment/
maintenance area through the 2007 summer ozone season.

    We view this and related language in the SIP as a petition to EPA 
to establish an 8.1 psi RVP standard for the Denver area rather than 
the currently applicable 7.8 psi RVP standard. A revision to the 
federal RVP standard can only be done via rulemaking under section 211 
of the CAA, and the authority to conduct such rulemaking cannot be 
delegated from the Administrator of EPA to the Regional Administrator 
of EPA Region VIII. Hence, Colorado's RVP petition cannot be addressed 
in this SIP rulemaking. Our inability to act on Colorado's RVP petition 
does not affect our ability to propose approval of the EAC plan because 
the currently applicable standard--7.8 psi RVP--will reduce VOC 
emissions more than the 8.1 psi RVP standard the State relied on to 
model attainment in 2007.
    (b) Oil and Gas Exploration and Production (E&P) Condensate Tank 
Controls. The Denver EAC plan and attainment demonstration include a 
reduction in flash emissions of VOCs from new control equipment to be 
installed on E&P condensate collection, storage, processing and 
handling operations. Revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7 (also 
being proposed for approval with this action and described in section 
VIII below) require the installation of air pollution control 
technology to achieve at least a 47.5 percent reduction in VOC 
emissions from E&P production operations, natural gas compressor 
stations, and natural gas drip stations located in the Denver EAC plan 
area.
    (c) Controls for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion 
Engines (RICE). The Denver EAC plan and attainment demonstration 
include VOC and NOX emission reductions from new control 
equipment to be installed on new and existing rich burn and lean burn 
natural gas-fired RICE engines larger than 500 horsepower. Chapter II 
C. states that emission control equipment for uncontrolled rich burn 
RICE shall be non-selective catalyst reduction and an air fuel ratio 
controller or other equally effective air pollution control technology. 
Chapter II C. also states that for uncontrolled lean burn RICE, 
emission control equipment shall be oxidation catalyst reduction or 
other equally effective air pollution control technology. These RICE 
controls are contained in revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7.

[[Page 28246]]

    (d) Controls for Dehydration Units. Chapter II D. of the Denver EAC 
plan and the attainment demonstration include VOC emission reductions 
from new control equipment to be installed on new and existing 
dehydration towers, with VOC emissions in excess of 15 tons per year, 
located at oil and gas operations. These new control requirements are 
contained in revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 7.
    (e) Revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11--Automobile 
Inspection and Readjustment Program. Chapter II E. of the Denver EAC 
plan and the attainment demonstration include VOC and NOX 
emission reductions from revisions to Regulation No. 11. These 
revisions reduce the coverage of the remote sensing clean screen area 
in order to reduce the disbenefit of the clean screen program and to 
reflect the practical reality of potential coverage. No more than 50% 
of the fleet of gasoline vehicles in the enhanced I/M program area 
(described in Regulation No. 11) of applicability will be evaluated 
with remote sensing during any twelve-month period after December 31, 
2005. These revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 are also being 
proposed for approval with this action. For further discussion, see 
section IX below.
3. Maintenance for Growth--Continuing Planning Process
    The State's methodology and demonstration of maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS is described in Chapter III H. of the Denver EAC plan 
and our evaluation is described further in section VII C. below. We 
note, however, that an oversight occurred in which the State failed to 
include a discussion in the Denver EAC plan as to how it would address 
the Protocol's continuing planning process provisions. To address this 
issue, the State submitted a commitment letter, dated March 22, 2005, 
that detailed the specific measures it would use to address the 
continuing planning requirements of the Protocol.
    The State will periodically evaluate the data and growth 
assumptions used in the attainment demonstration, review point source 
growth, and review transportation patterns. If these periodic reviews 
demonstrate a need to adopt additional control measures, the State will 
evaluate and adopt the necessary controls for the Denver EAC plan. The 
State also noted that the transportation patterns and emissions in the 
Denver EAC plan's 8-hour ozone control area are already evaluated due 
to the transportation conformity requirements of currently approved 
maintenance plans (i.e., Denver PM10, Denver carbon monoxide, Denver 1-
hour ozone, Fort Collins carbon monoxide, Greeley carbon monoxide, and 
Longmont carbon monoxide). The State's letter also contained a 
commitment to amend the Denver EAC plan, as a SIP revision, to 
incorporate the continuing planning process language from our Protocol. 
This SIP revision will be performed in 2005. However, due to State-
internal SIP processing requirements, it will not be submitted to EPA 
until 2006.
    In addition to the above, we note that once the Denver area 
receives an effective attainment designation in 2008, the area will 
then have to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4) and 40 CFR 
51.905(a)(4)(ii). To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(ii), 
the State will have to submit a CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan 
within three years of the designation of attainment (i.e., 2011). In 
the State's March 22, 2005 letter, it acknowledges this obligation and 
also states its intention to prepare this required maintenance plan in 
an earlier time period.
    Based on the contents of the March 22, 2005 commitment letter, we 
have determined that the State has adequately addressed the continuing 
planning process requirements of the Protocol.

VII. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Early Action Compact Ozone Plan's 
Attainment Demonstration

    Chapter III of the Denver EAC plan contains descriptions and 
results of the attainment demonstration photochemical dispersion 
modeling, including relative reduction factors (RRF), 2007 design 
values, 2007 control case inventories, a 2007 control case 
demonstration, and weight of evidence analyses.

A. Photochemical Dispersion Modeling

    1. Model Approach Selected. The State selected the EPA-approved 
photochemical model ``Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions'' 
(CAMx). The State's contractors, ENVIRON International Corporation and 
Alpine Geophysics Atmospheric Sciences Group performed the modeling 
work. Meteorological fields for input into the CAMx model were produced 
with the Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5). Emissions data, 
previously described above, were processed with the Emissions 
Processing System (EPS2x) for 2002 and 2007. The photochemical 
dispersion modeling was performed in accordance with our then available 
draft May 1999 modeling guidance entitled ``Draft Guidance on the Use 
of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-
hour Ozone NAAQS.'' A more in-depth discussion of the modeling protocol 
is located in appendix A (``Modeling Protocol, Episode Selection, and 
Domain Definition'') of the State's TSD which is included with the 
docket for this action.
    2. Modeling Domain. The Denver EAC plan's air quality modeling 
domains were defined on an MM5 system with 36 kilometer (km), 12 km, 
and a 4 km nested-grid structure. This structure was utilized in 
conjunction with the CAMx and EPS2x air quality and emissions modeling 
during the episode periods that are described below. The larger 36km 
domain was selected to address the impact of boundary condition 
uncertainties for the Front Range area of Colorado, as CDPHE was 
concerned there may be transport from Southern California and Texas. 
The 12 km grid resolution domain essentially covers the central Rocky 
Mountain states or portions thereof (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, New 
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.) The 4 km nested-grid was used for the period 
encompassing the final, selected ozone episode of June 25, 2002 to July 
1, 2002 to provide finer resolution of the emissions, transport, and 
transformation, and to evaluate the selected control strategies for the 
Denver EAC area and nearby Front Range cities. A more in-depth 
discussion of the modeling domain is located in Appendix A (``Modeling 
Protocol, Episode Selection and Domain Definition'') of the State's 
TSD.
    3. Episode Selection. Initially, the State, RAQC, and the modeling 
contractors evaluated three 2002 ozone episodes. These episodes were 
June 8 to June 12, June 25 to July 1, and July 18 to July 21. The June 
8 to June 12 episode was removed from consideration due to the problems 
associated with the Hayman wildfire that started on June 8, 2002. The 
potential influx of emissions along with the effects of the large smoke 
plume made this episode unsuitable for use. Both the June 25 to July 1 
and July 18 to July 21 episodes were modeled. However, the results for 
the July 18 to July 21 episode were unable to conform to the necessary 
model performance standards required by our 8-hour ozone NAAQS modeling 
guidance (``Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in 
Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.'') It appears 
that the poor model performance for this episode was due to convective 
meteorological conditions that could not be resolved by MM5. However, 
the results for the June 25 to July 1 episode were successful in

[[Page 28247]]

meeting our modeling guidance and were used for the Denver EAC ozone 
plan's attainment demonstration. Additional discussion on episode 
selection can be found in section D of our TSD and in Appendix B of the 
State's TSD.
    4. Base Case Relative Reduction Factors (RRF). The dispersion 
modeling for the Denver EAC plan produced base case relative reduction 
factors (RRF) for receptors in the modeling domain where ozone monitors 
are located. In general, the RRF for each monitor is equal to the mean 
2007 base case modeled 8-hour ozone concentration divided by the mean 
2002 base case modeled 8-hour ozone concentration. Once the RRFs are 
developed, the RRF for each monitoring site is multiplied by the 
monitoring site's base case design value to determine a future case 
design value (i.e., 2007) to indicate if attainment is demonstrated at 
each site. This is further discussed in Chapter III B. and C. of the 
Denver EAC plan. Twelve Front Range ozone monitors were considered by 
the State, ranging from Fort Collins to the north of metropolitan 
Denver, in Larimer County, to the Chatfield reservoir in the 
southwestern portion of metropolitan Denver, and also including an 
ozone monitor operated by the National Park Service (NPS) just outside 
the eastern border of Rocky Mountain National Park in Larimer County. 
The current (2001-2003) base case ozone design values used in the 
Denver EAC plan and attainment demonstration are based on monitoring 
data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. In these three years of data, three of 
the twelve monitors were violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. They are: 
(1) The Chatfield (hereafter Chatfield) reservoir monitor, located in 
Douglas County, Air Quality System (AQS) site identification number 
080350002, (2) the National Renewable Energies Laboratory (hereafter 
NREL) monitor, located in Jefferson County, AQS identification number 
080590011, and (3) the Rocky Flats North (hereafter Rocky Flats) 
monitor, located in Jefferson County, AQS identification number 
080590006. For the violating monitors, we have extracted RRF 
information from Table 6 of the Denver EAC plan and present it below in 
our Table VII-1:

                Table VII-1.--RRF for Violating Monitors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      8-hour
                                      ozone                     8-hour
                                     current     Base case      ozone
                                   (2001-2003)    relative      future
       Monitoring site name         base case    reduction   (2007) base
                                      design      factors    case design
                                    values in      (RRF)      values in
                                       ppm                       ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield........................        0.085       0.9807       0.0834
NREL.............................        0.085       0.9946       0.0845
Rocky Flats......................        0.087       0.9942       0.0865
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VII-1 represents the 2007 base case modeling which relied on 
expected emission reductions from existing State controls, existing 
Federal rules, and anticipated reductions from new Federal rules. As is 
clear from Table VII-1 above and the Denver EAC plan, additional 
emission reductions are necessary to bring the Rocky Flats monitor 
towards modeled attainment for 2007. The 2007 ``control case'' emission 
inventories and modeling are described below and in Chapter III. E and 
F of the Denver EAC plan. Further discussions are found in sections C 
and D of our TSD and in Appendices F, J, K, and L of the State's TSD.
    5. 2007 Control Case Emission Inventories. The 2007 control case 
emission inventories reflect estimated VOC and NOX emission 
reductions from the control strategies described in Chapter III. E of 
the Denver EAC plan and in section VI B.2. above. In addition to 
emission reductions from existing State and Federal rules, for 2007 the 
State calculated the following:
    (a) 10 tons per day (tpd) VOC reductions from an 8.1 psi RVP for 
conventional gasoline with 9.1 psi RVP for ethanol blends (9 tpd from 
on-road vehicles, 1 tpd from refueling, and assuming 25% market 
penetration for ethanol blends),
    (b) 55 tpd VOC reductions from control of oilfield flash emissions,
    (c) 5.5 tpd VOC reductions and 19 tpd NOX reductions 
from oilfield RICE controls, and,
    (d) 0.5 tpd VOC reductions from the control of oilfield 
dehydrators.
    The State calculated total emission reductions from existing and 
new State and Federal rules for the 2007 control case of 106 tpd of VOC 
emissions and 58 tpd of NOX emissions for the eight-county 
metropolitan Denver area (counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, 
Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and Weld) and slightly greater 
tons per day for the eleven-county area (adding Elbert, Larimer, and 
Morgan counties to the other eight). These projected emission 
reductions were extracted from Chapter III. E of the Denver EAC plan 
(Tables 7a, 7b, 8a, and 8b) and are presented below in our Tables VII-2 
and VII-3:

  Table VII-2.--Summary of Emissions Tons Per Average Episode Day (TPD)
  Emissions for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas,
                      Jefferson, and Weld Counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2007 VOCs   2007 NOX
       Source category        2007 VOCs   2007 NOX   control    control
                              base case  base case     case       case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............      204.1      107.1      143.3       88.3
Area Sources................      104.1       27.6      104.1       27.6
Non-Road Sources............       53.7       82.5       53.5       82.6
On-Road Sources.............      117.5      119.3      108.4      119.0
Subtotal Anthropogenic......      479.4      336.5      409.3      317.5
Biogenics...................      468.1       37.1      468.1       37.1
                             ------------

[[Page 28248]]

 
    Total...................      947.5      373.6      877.4      354.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table VII-3.--Summary of Emissions Tons Per Average Episode Day (TPD) Emissions for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
               Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         2007 VOCs     2007 NOX
                       Source category                         2007 VOCs     2007 NOX     control      control
                                                               base case    base case       case         case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............................................        209.3        144.9        148.1        126.1
Area Sources................................................        119.6         32.7        119.6         32.7
Non-Road Sources............................................         62.6         92.4         62.6         93.3
On-Road Sources.............................................        135.1        136.6        126.0        136.3
Subtotal Anthropogenic......................................        526.6        406.6        456.4        388.4
Biogenics...................................................        799.5         52.3        799.5         52.3
                                                             --------------
    Total...................................................       1326.1        458.9       1255.8        440.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. 2007 Control Case Modeling Demonstration. The State modeled the 
above base case and control case scenarios with CAMx. As discussed 
above and in Chapter III. F of the Denver EAC plan, the 2007 base case 
and 2007 control case modeling produce relative reduction factors (RRF) 
for receptors in the modeling domain where ozone ambient air quality 
monitors are located. Table VII-4 below presents the 2007 control case 
RRFs, 2007 control case design values for modeled days greater than 
0.070 ppm, and control case design values for modeled days greater than 
0.080 ppm for the Chatfield, NREL, and Rocky Flats monitors. We note 
that the nine other monitors listed in Table 9 of the Denver EAC plan 
all show predicted attainment with values less than 0.081 ppm for both 
evaluation days (i.e., modeled days greater than 0.070 ppm and greater 
than 0.080 ppm.)

                                                   Table VII-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Days >       Days >       Days >       Days >
                                                    8-hour    0.070 (ppm)  0.070 (ppm)  0.080 (ppm)  0.080 (ppm)
                                                  ozone base ---------------------------------------------------
                                                 case design                   2007                      2007
              Monitoring site name               values 2001-     2007       control        2007       control
                                                  2003 (ppm)    control    case design    control    case design
                                                                case RRF      values      case RRF      values
                                                                              (ppm)                     (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield......................................        0.085       0.9761       0.0830       0.9779       0.0831
NREL...........................................        0.085       0.9891       0.0841       0.9748       0.0829
Rocky Flats....................................        0.087       0.9888       0.0860       0.9811       0.0854
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Section D of our TSD and in Appendix I of the State's TSD, 
results are presented for the final modeling runs for the June 25, 2002 
to July 1, 2002 episode. These results reflect incorporation of all the 
control measures for the 2007 attainment year. However, CAMx still 
predicts that the Rocky Flats monitor will marginally exceed the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The information is presented below in Table VII-5.

                               Table VII-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2001-2003 design     2007 predicted
         Monitoring site                  value           design value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatfield........................  85 ppb............  82.9 ppb
NREL.............................  85 ppb............  83.9 ppb
Rocky Flats......................  87 ppb............  85.9 ppb
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen above in Tables VII-4, VII-5, and Table 9 of the 
Denver EAC plan, the Rocky Flats monitor was unable to demonstrate 
attainment with the 2007 control case emission reduction strategies. 
The State and its modeling contractor performed additional sensitivity 
analyses, that are described further in section D of our TSD and 
Appendix K of the State's TSD. They concluded, based on the anomalous 
meteorological conditions in 2003 and the under-prediction tendency of 
the CAMx model, for the Denver EAC plan application, that a weight of 
evidence (WOE) demonstration was warranted. A WOE demonstration 
provides corroborating evidence and technical analysis, beyond the 
dispersion modeling, to support a conclusion that attainment is likely 
to occur. Weight of evidence demonstrations may be accepted by EPA and 
have been approved in prior 1-hour ozone dispersion-modeled 
demonstrations of attainment. We also describe their use in our May, 
1999 draft guidance for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``Draft Guidance on the 
Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 
8-hour Ozone NAAQS.'')

[[Page 28249]]

B. Weight of Evidence Determination

    As described in Chapter III. G of the Denver EAC plan and in our 
May, 1999 draft modeling guidance for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, if 
resultant values of the dispersion modeling for an attainment 
demonstration are between 0.084 ppm and 0.089 ppm at one or more 
monitoring site receptor locations, then a WOE determination should be 
performed. Since the final modeled design value at the Rocky Flats 
monitoring site is predicted to be below 0.089 ppm, our guidance 
indicates that corroborating evidence, based on other analyses, can be 
sufficiently convincing to support a conclusion that attainment is 
likely to occur despite the outcome of the dispersion modeling. To the 
State and its contractors, the modeling results appear to be very 
``stiff ''; that is, the estimated 2007 design values are not very 
sensitive to local emission controls. The State indicated in Chapter 
III. G of the Denver EAC plan that they believe this lack of 
sensitivity is primarily caused by the following: (1) Anomalous 
temperatures and low mixing heights in 2003 were more conducive to 
ozone formation than the meteorological conditions that were used in 
the 2002 modeling episode, (2) the model's tendency, despite achieving 
most of EPA's model performance goals, to under-predict ozone 
concentrations and thus under-predict the beneficial impact of local 
control measures, and (3) potential influence from elevated, upwind 
background concentrations of ozone and ozone precursor emissions that 
were detected by the air quality monitors in 2003, but unaccounted for 
in the photochemical modeling.
    The following describes aspects of the State's WOE analysis:
    1. Anomalous Meteorological Conditions in 2003 and Trends Analysis. 
The Denver EAC plan's photochemical modeling was designed with ozone 
episode days and meteorological data from 2002. However, with the 8-
hour ozone violations detected in 2003, the 2002-based photochemical 
modeling was then applied to address these higher 2003 ozone values. It 
was discovered, though, that meteorological conditions were 
significantly different between 2002 and 2003 and this affected the 
photochemical model's performance. One evaluation method the State 
applied to address this issue was to provide meteorological data that 
indicated that 2003 had record-setting maximum ambient temperatures and 
lower than average mixing heights, both of which contributed to the 
elevated 2003 monitored 8-hour ozone values. If the extreme high 
ambient temperatures and low-level mixing heights of summer 2003 are 
excluded, a 1993 to 2002 trends analysis shows a 1.2% annual reduction 
in ozone concentrations, which would result in predicted attainment of 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. A further discussion is provided in 
section D of our TSD and in Appendix N of the State's TSD.
    2. Under-Prediction Tendency of the Model. An overall under-
prediction tendency of the model was documented by the State in 
Appendixes H and N of their TSD and in section D of our TSD. The model 
tended to under-predict 2003 ozone concentrations by approximately 20%. 
We note that when a photochemical model underestimates the ozone 
concentrations, less ozone is attributed to the local precursor 
emissions in the model than resulted from these emissions in reality. 
To evaluate this issue, the State's contractor prepared an analysis for 
modeled days greater than 70 ppb for the episode days of June 27, 2002 
through June 30, 2002. However, for these episode days, only minimal 
changes in the predicted ozone values were seen (modeled values were 
still low). Only the July 1, 2002 episode day modeling results, with a 
model-predicted value of 85 ppb, approached the design value of 87 ppb 
and the monitor-observed value of 89 ppb. This is further described in 
Chapter III. G, Table 10, of the Denver EAC plan, section D of our TSD, 
and in Appendices B, K, and L of the State's TSD.
    3. Number of Fine Grid Cell Hours Greater than 84 ppb. The State 
evaluated an indicator of the model's performance--the relative change 
from the 2002 base case modeling to the 2007 control case modeling with 
respect to the predicted ozone concentrations in the 4 km grid cells. 
Specifically, the State's contractor found that the number of 8-hour 
periods that the model predicted to be greater than 84 ppb for the 2007 
control case (4) were 88% fewer than the model predicted for the 2002 
base case (33). This 88% figure is greater than the ``large'' reduction 
(80%) that is suggested in our 1999 draft 8-hour ozone modeling 
guidance and supports the conclusion that the proposed control strategy 
package for 2007 is consistent with meeting the 8-hour NAAQS. This 
evaluation is further described in section D of our TSD and in Appendix 
L of the State's TSD.
    4. Relative Difference (RD). Relative Difference (RD) is another 
metric the State's contractor evaluated. RD examines the amount by 
which the 8-hour ozone concentration is above 84 ppb in the 2007 
control case modeling versus the 2002 base case modeling. The State's 
contractor computed the ratio of the average estimated ``excess 8-hour 
ozone'' for the 2007 control case modeling to the average estimated 
``excess 8-hour ozone'' for the 2002 base case modeling. In this case, 
we are using the phrase ``excess 8-hour ozone'' to mean the amount by 
which the average in the particular year exceeds 84 ppb. The State's 
contractor calculated an RD of 93%, which means the 2007 value was 93% 
less than the 2002 value. EPA considers large RDs to be desirable, with 
anything greater than 80% considered large. Thus, this 93% figure 
further supports a conclusion that the control strategy package for 
2007 is consistent with meeting the 8-hour NAAQS. This evaluation is 
further described in section D of our TSD and in Appendix L of the 
State's TSD.
    5. VOC and NOX Sensitivity. The State and its contractor 
performed sensitivity modeling runs looking at reductions in VOCs, VOCs 
and NOX, and just NOX. The sensitivity analyses 
indicated that VOC reductions alone were more important for achieving 
reductions in ozone values in the urbanized area and at the Rocky Flats 
air quality monitoring location. This also helped confirm the validity 
of the 2007 control strategy package which focused on VOC controls. 
This evaluation is further described in section D of our TSD and in 
Appendixes J and K of the State's TSD.
    In summary, the State's WOE analyses provide adequate support for 
the State's attainment demonstration. Our decision on the adequacy of 
the WOE is based on the composite of the analyses, and not on any 
single element. The WOE complements the modeled 2007 control strategies 
and indicates that attainment should be reached by December 31, 2007 as 
is required by the EAC Protocol.

C. Maintenance Through 2012

    The EAC Protocol requires that, in addition to demonstrating 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2007, areas demonstrate 
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2012. For the Denver EAC 
plan, the State performed a comparison of projected emissions, from all 
source categories, for 2012 to those used in the 2007 dispersion 
modeled attainment demonstration (as supported by WOE.) The 2012 
emission inventories assume that the 2007 control strategies remain in 
place through 2012. The 2012 emission inventories also account for 
Federal emission control measures that are scheduled to take effect in 
the 2007 to 2012 time period. As the 2012 projected emissions are less 
than the 2007 dispersion modeled

[[Page 28250]]

emissions in the attainment demonstration, continued maintenance is 
demonstrated. The 2007 control case emission inventories for the 8-
county area and the 11-county area, along with the 2012 maintenance 
emission inventories, are presented in Chapter III E. Tables 7a, 7b, 
8a, and 8b respectively and also in our Tables VII-6 and VII-7 below.

  Table VII-6.--Summary of Emissions Tons Per Average Episode Day (TPD) Emissions for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
                            Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2007 VOCs    2012 VOCs     2007 NOX     2012 NOX
                       Source category                          control      control      control      control
                                                                  case         case         case         case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............................................        143.3        152.9         88.3         96.5
Area Sources................................................        104.1        114.0         27.6         31.1
Non-Road Sources............................................         53.5         47.7         82.6         74.8
On-Road Sources.............................................        108.4         76.0        119.0         77.7
Subtotal Anthropogenic......................................        409.3        390.6        317.5        280.1
Biogenics...................................................        468.1        468.1         37.1         37.1
                                                             --------------
    Total...................................................        877.4        858.7        354.6        317.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table VII-7.--Summary of Emissions Tons Per Average Episode Day (TPD) Emissions for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
               Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2007 VOCs    2012 VOCs     2007 NOX     2012 NOX
                       Source category                          control      control      control      control
                                                                  case         case         case         case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...............................................        148.1        159.2        126.1        138.1
Area Sources................................................        119.6        131.3         32.7         36.7
Non-Road Sources............................................         62.6         56.2         93.3         84.6
On-Road Sources.............................................        126.0         89.0        136.3         90.1
Subtotal Anthropogenic......................................        456.4        435.7        388.4        349.4
Biogenics...................................................        799.5        799.5         52.3         52.3
                                                             --------------
    Total...................................................       1255.8       1235.2        440.7        401.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the attainment demonstration shows that it should be 
approved. The State has adopted acceptable control strategies and has 
performed modeling that meets our modeling guidance requirements for 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the EAC Protocol. Modeling based on newly 
adopted and existing control measures, and supplemented by a weight-of-
evidence analysis, demonstrates attainment by December 31, 2007 and 
maintenance through 2012. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 
attainment demonstration.

VIII. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 7 Revisions

    Colorado's Regulation No. 7 is entitled ``Emissions of Volatile 
Organic Compounds'' (hereafter, Regulation No. 7). In conjunction with 
the development of the Denver EAC plan, the State made several changes 
and/or additions to sections I.A., I.B., XII, and XVI of Regulation No. 
7 which the AQCC adopted after its March 12, 2004, public hearing. 
These Regulation No. 7 revisions were submitted to us by the Governor 
on July 21, 2004. Based on input and discussions with EPA, the AQCC 
further amended Regulation No. 7 on December 16, 2004, following a 
public hearing. The Governor submitted these additional revisions to 
Regulation No. 7 to us on March 24, 2005. These March 24, 2005 
Regulation No. 7 revisions supersede and replace those submitted by the 
Governor on July 21, 2004, and are those we are proposing to approve.
    The purpose of the revisions to Regulation No. 7 was to reduce 
emissions of: (1) VOCs from condensate tanks and operations at oil and 
gas exploration and production (E&P) facilities, (2) VOCs and 
NOX from stationary and portable oilfield reciprocating 
internal combustion engines (RICE), (3) VOCs from gas processing 
plants, and (4) VOCs from dehydrators at oilfield operations. These 
revisions to Regulation No. 7 apply to all affected facilities within 
the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area boundary, with the majority of 
affected facilities being located in southern Weld County.
    The revisions to Regulation No. 7 affect the following sections:
    A. Sections I.A. and I.B. Including definitions of the Denver 1-
hour ozone area and the Denver 8-hour ozone control area. Also 
indicating that new and existing oil and gas operations come under the 
provisions of sections XII and XVI..
    B. Section II.A., additional definitions.
    C. A new Section XII, ``Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From 
Oil And Gas Operations.'' Includes definitions, percentages of emission 
reductions for the high ozone season and rest of the year, numerous 
recordkeeping requirements for a spreadsheet to determine daily 
compliance, emission factors used to demonstrate compliance, reporting 
requirements for certain equipment if a construction or Title V permit 
is issued by the State, methodology for approval of alternative 
emissions control equipment, requirements for gas-processing plants, 
requirements for controlling emissions from dehydration units, and a 
methodology for approval to develop testing methods and revised 
emission factors.
    D. A new Section XVI, ``Control of Emissions From Stationary And 
Portable Engines in the 8-hour Ozone Control Area.'' Includes specific 
requirements for emission control technology for applicable RICE and 
dates for the removal or replacement with electric units for certain 
existing internal combustion engines.
    One of the major requirements of the changes is an overall 
reduction of 47.5% of VOCs from E&P condensate storage tanks during the 
summer ozone season to meet the modeled requirements of the

[[Page 28251]]

attainment demonstration. Due to the unique operating parameters and 
numerous tanks in the field (in excess of 1,000), the AQCC allowed an 
overall averaging approach, rather than a unit-by-unit approach, to 
achieve the necessary emission reductions. The regulation includes 
detailed record keeping requirements to help ensure the 47.5% reduction 
requirement is met.
    We have reviewed, and are proposing approval of, all of the above 
State-adopted revisions to Regulation No. 7.

IX. EPA's evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions

    Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Inspection Program'' (hereafter referred to as Regulation No. 11). This 
program has undergone several revisions since 2000, including revisions 
that were adopted by the AQCC in conjunction with the Denver EAC plan 
after the March 11-12, 2004 public hearing. The prior Regulation No. 11 
revisions that the Governor submitted on June 20, 2003 and April 12, 
2004 are briefly described below. The revisions the Governor submitted 
on July 21, 2004 in support of the Denver EAC plan are also described 
below:
    A. Revisions adopted November 16, 2000, submitted June 20, 2003.
    This submittal amended Regulation No. 11 by (1) extending the time 
for taking valid remote-sensing readings for purposes of the clean 
screen program, and (2) correcting a citation error in a section of the 
rule concerning the licensing of clean screen inspectors.
    B. Revisions adopted December 20, 2001, submitted June 20, 2003.
    This submittal amended Regulation No. 11 by (1) expanding the clean 
screen program, (2) excluding El Paso County from the clean screen 
program, and (3) repealing the ``Verification of Emissions Test'' 
certificate or windshield sticker.
    C. Revisions adopted August 15, 2002, submitted June 20, 2003.
    This submittal amended Regulation No. 11 to switch to a pay-upon-
registration system for the clean screen program. The rule amendments 
also included a change to the timing requirements for remote sensing 
readings to make the clean screen program more flexible. As amended, 
the regulation requires two valid remote sensing readings within a 
twelve-month period in order to clean screen a vehicle. The regulation 
previously required the most recent reading to be within 120 days of 
the registration renewal date. In addition, this submittal included 
several minor, housekeeping changes such as:
    1. The elimination of a requirement for agencies to develop the 
equivalent of a windshield sticker for clean screened vehicles.
    2. The elimination of a provision requiring annual inspections for 
government vehicles.
    3. The repeal of provisions establishing a method to mail payments 
to the contractor.
    D. Revisions adopted October 17, 2002, submitted June 20, 2003.
    This submittal to Regulation No. 11 expanded the pay-upon-
registration for the clean screen program (see the August 15, 2002 
version) to the enhanced I/M program area (see the December 20, 2001 
version). These revisions also contained provisions that the 
malfunction indicator light (MIL) and on-board diagnostic (OBD II) 
fault codes will not be used as the basis for test failures and it 
eliminated a pre-existing state requirement for vehicles to pass MIL 
tests. We note that Federal law does not require MIL or OBD tests for 
pre-1996 vehicles.
    These revisions also eliminated the requirement for 1996 and newer 
vehicles to pass MIL and OBD tests. This particular revision is 
acceptable to EPA in view of our final Motor Vehicle Inspection/
Maintenance requirements (see 66 FR 18155, April 5, 2001) which 
extended the deadline for beginning OBD inspections to January 1, 2002. 
As the Denver metropolitan area was redesignated to attainment for 
carbon monoxide on December 14, 2001 (see 66 FR 64751), this January 1, 
2002 OBD implementation date was not applicable to the Denver 
metropolitan area and the State need not retain the MIL and OBD program 
in the SIP.
    E. Revisions adopted September 18, 2003, submitted April 12, 2004.
    This submittal to Regulation No. 11 allows the sale and 
registration of used motor vehicles without an emissions inspection if 
the motor vehicle is less than 3 years old. In addition, Regulation No. 
11 previously required motor vehicle dealers to have an emissions test 
for used vehicles at the time of sale, regardless of when they may have 
been inspected before. The rule has been revised such that motor 
vehicle dealers need to only have vehicles that are consigned for sale 
inspected annually; further inspection is not required at the time of 
sale.
    F. Revisions adopted December 18, 2003, submitted April 12, 2004.
    This submittal to Regulation No. 11 removed the calendar year 2004 
and 2005 cutpoints, while retaining the 2006 cutpoints, and also 
removed El Paso County (Colorado Springs area) from the Federal 
applicability of a basic I/M program.
    G. Revisions adopted March 12, 2004, submitted July 21, 2004.
    This submittal to Regulation No. 11 supports the Denver EAC plan by 
reducing the percentage of the fleet to be clean-screened from a 
maximum of 80% to a maximum of 50% after December 31, 2005.
    We have reviewed, and are proposing approval of, all of the above 
State-adopted revisions to Regulation No. 11.

X. EPA's evaluation of the Common Provisions Regulation Revision

    The State amended the Common Provisions Regulation to incorporate 
the American Petroleum Institute's (API) definition of ``condensate,'' 
which refers to hydrocarbon liquids that have an API gravity of 40 
degrees or greater.
    We have reviewed, and are proposing approval of, this revision to 
the Common Provisions Regulation.

XI. 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 Denver EAC ozone plan will not interfere with attainment, 
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the 
CAA.

XII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Denver Early Action Compact (EAC) 
ozone plan that the Governor submitted on July 21, 2004, the attainment 
demonstration, the revisions to Regulation No. 7 that the Governor 
submitted on March 24, 2005, all of the revisions to Regulation No. 11, 
and the revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation, all as a 
revision to the SIP.
    Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2004-
CO-0001, 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.

[[Page 28252]]

XIII. 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 (Public Law 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 6, 2005.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 05-9724 Filed 5-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P