Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Colorado Springs Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, and Approval of a Related Revision

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 80779-80783]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22de00-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO-001-0044a; FRL-6875-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Colorado Springs Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance
Plan, and Approval of a Related Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revised
maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs carbon monoxide (CO)
maintenance area for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). In addition, the Governor also submitted revisions to
Colorado's Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program''. In this
action, EPA is approving the Colorado Springs CO revised maintenance
plan and the revisions to Regulation No. 13.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 20, 2001 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 22,
2001. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
offices:

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Air and
Radiation Program, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466; and
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection at:

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver,
Colorado, 880246-1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Mailcode 8P-AR, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466;
Telephone number: (303) 312-6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean the Environmental Protection
Agency.

I. What is the Purpose of This Action?

In this action, we are approving a revised maintenance plan for the
Colorado Springs CO attainment/maintenance area, that is designed to
keep the area in attainment for CO through 2010, and we're also
approving changes to the State's Regulation No. 13 for the removal of
the requirement for the implementation of the wintertime oxygenated
fuels program in the Colorado Springs area.
We approved the original CO redesignation request to attainment, a
maintenance plan, and revisions to Regulation No. 13 (hereafter, Reg.
13) for the Colorado Springs area on August 25, 1999 (see 64 FR 46279)
which became effective on October 25, 1999.
The Governor's May 10, 2000, submittal includes changes to the
original maintenance plan that: revises the attainment year from 1993
to 1990 and provides a new 1990 attainment year inventory; revises the
maintenance demonstration with a revised 2010 projected emission
inventory; revises Reg. 13 to eliminate the oxygenated gasoline program
in El Paso County starting with the winter season of 2000-2001; revises
the transportation CO emission budgets; and revises a portion of the
contingency measures plan. We have determined that these changes are
approvable as further described below.

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

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maintenance Plan on February 17, 2000. The AQCC adopted the revised
maintenance plan directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became
State effective on April 30, 2000, and was submitted by the Governor to
us on May 10, 2000.
For the Regulation No. 13 revision, the AQCC held a public hearing
to consider the changes to Regulation No. 13, that involved the
elimination of the oxygenated gasoline program for El Paso County, on
February 17, 2000. The AQCC adopted these changes directly after the
February 17, 2000, public hearing. They became State effective on April
30, 2000, and were also submitted to us on May 10, 2000.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the revised
maintenance plan and changes to Regulation No. 13 and have determined
that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public
hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. We reviewed these SIP
materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V and determined that the submittals were administratively
and technically complete. The Governor was advised of our completeness
determination through a letter from Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting Regional
Administrator, dated August 7, 2000.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan

EPA has reviewed the State's revised maintenance plan for the
Colorado Springs maintenance/attainment 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 changed the attainment year from 1993 to 1990 and
provided a new 1990 emissions inventory.
This is acceptable as the Colorado Springs area was attaining the
CO NAAQS in 1990 (based on data from 1990 and 1991 which are archived
in our Aerometric Information and

[[Page 80780]]

Retrieval System--AIRS) and this conforms to our September 4, 1992,
redesignation guidance memorandum, signed by John Calcagni, Director of
the Air Quality Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (hereafter the
``Calcagni memorandum''). Further, the area must show continuous
attainment of the CO NAAQS from 1990 to present. We have reviewed the
air quality data in AIRS from 1990 to present and have determined that
the Colorado Springs area has not violated the CO standard and
continues to demonstrate attainment.
(b) The State revised the projected emission inventories, out to
2010, and continues to demonstrate maintenance for the Colorado Springs
area.
Revised emission projections for the years 2001, 2002, 2005, and
2010 (we note that 2015 and 2020 are also included for conformity
purposes) that include all source categories (point, area, non-road,
and on-road) and reflect the elimination of the oxygenated fuels
program are presented in ``Table 3. Carbon Monoxide Emissions for
Future Years in Colorado Springs without the Oxygenated Fuels Program''
of the revised maintenance plan and are archived below. All emission
calculations and assumptions are provided in the State's Technical
Support Document (TSD). As shown in the maintenance plan's Table 3. and
in our Table III-1 below, emissions for all future projected year
inventories are less than the 1990 levels. Therefore, the area
continues to demonstrate maintenance for the CO standard.

Table III-1.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day for Colorado Springs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2001 2002 2005 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions from Point, Area, & Non-road Sources..................... 85 98 99 100 100
On-Road Mobile Sources (without Oxyfuels in 2001 and beyond)....... 295 209 203 194 193
----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) The State has modified Regulation No. 13 to eliminate the
Oxygenated Fuels Program for El Paso County and the Colorado Springs
area.
The State performed an analysis and determined that the oxygenated
fuels program could be eliminated for the Colorado Springs area without
jeopardizing maintenance of the CO NAAQS. This analysis was performed
using EPA's MOBILE5b emission factor model and the latest
transportation and planning data from the Pike's Peak Area Council of
Governments (PPACG) 2020 transportation plan. The methodology and
analysis were reviewed by us and we have determined they are
acceptable. The results of the modeling were presented in the revised
maintenance plan's ``Table 1.,'' ``Table 2.,'' and ``Table 3'' and are
also included in our Table III-1 above. Based on our review of the
State's analysis, we agree that the Colorado Springs area continues to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS and approve the elimination of
the oxygenated fuels program for El Paso County and the Colorado
Springs area.
(d) The State modified the Contingency Provisions section of the
maintenance plan.
With the elimination of the oxygenated fuels program for the
Colorado Springs area, the State revised the contingency measures list
in section ``E. Contingency Provisions'' to now contain the
reinstatement of the 2.7% oxygenated fuels program as a contingency
measure that could be implemented should the Colorado Springs area
violate the CO NAAQS. Also, the State removed the prior nonattainment
area regulatory requirement that an enhanced inspection and maintenance
program be a pre-approved contingency measure. An enhanced inspection
and maintenance program now appears on the same list as the 2.7%
oxygenated fuels program as possible contingency measures for
consideration, adoption, and implementation should a violation of the
CO NAAQS occur. We agree with the above revisions to the ``Contingency
Provisions'' section of the maintenance plan.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements

One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a
demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and
Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions
budgets 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 C. of the
revised Colorado Springs maintenance plan describes an emissions budget
for on-road mobile sources. The revised section C. now states:

For the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area, the
emissions budget is for the period 2001 and beyond and this budget
utilizes the ``margin of safety'' provisions of EPA's transportation
conformity rule. The rule indicates that where projected emissions
from all sources are less than the amount demonstrating attainment,
which is the case for the Colorado Springs area, the SIP may
explicitly quantify the safety margin and include some of all of it
in the motor vehicle emissions budget for purposes of conformity.
When the calculations are made, there are different margins of
safety for each interim year between 2001 and 2010, which could
result in the establishment of different emissions budgets for each
year. Because this is not practical, an emissions budget slightly
less than the lowest potential emissions budget is adopted for all
future years.''

The State then performed calculations (in tons per day, abbreviated
as ``tpd'') for each of the interim years such as in the example below
for 2001:

380 tpd (1990 total emissions)--307 tpd (2001 total emissions) =
73 tpd (2001 margin of safety); 73 tpd + 209 tpd (2001 mobile
emissions) = 282 tpd (potential emission budget for 2001)

The State then did the same calculations for the other interim
years and came up with potential emission budgets of; 281 tpd for 2002,
280 tpd for 2005, and 280 tpd for 2010. In order to allow for
uncertainties in non-mobile source emissions, and because all interim
years' emissions between 2001 and 2010 were not determined, the State
took the lowest potential emissions budget of 280 tpd and further
reduced this to 270 tpd to allow for potential variations in emissions
and to stay below the 1990 total attainment emission level of 380 tpd.
The State then set this 270 tpd on-road mobile emissions budget for
2001 and beyond.

[[Page 80781]]

We agree with the State's calculations and allocation of the margin of
safety, and therefore, we are approving this 270 tpd mobile sources
emission budget for 2001 and beyond.
This 270 tpd budget was then adopted into section V.A.4.b. of the
Colorado AQCC's Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation (5 CCR 1001-
14); however, the emissions budget definition in the table on page
18.01 of the Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation (5 CCR
1001-14) conflicts with the language in section C. of the maintenance
plan and is internally inconsistent. Section C. of the maintenance plan
states that the 270 tpd emission budget applies to 2001 and beyond; the
table on page 18.01 of 5 CCR 1001-14 indicates that the emissions
budget is 280 tpd in 2010 and beyond. Our interpretation, based on the
language of the maintenance plan and our conformity rule, is that the
maintenance plan's 270 tpd emission budget applies starting in 2001 and
for all following years, superseding the incorrect language in 5 CCR
1001-14.

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

Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled ``Oxygenated Fuels
Program.'' The purpose of revisions that were adopted by the AQCC on
February 17, 2000, and submitted to us by the Governor on May 10, 2000,
was to eliminate the oxygenated fuels program for El Paso County and
the Colorado Springs area. EPA is allowed to approve this elimination
of the oxygenated fuels program for El Paso County and the Colorado
Springs area based on section 211(m)(6) of the CAA which states:

ATTAINMENT AREAS--Nothing in this subsection shall be
interpreted as requiring an oxygenated gasoline program in an area
which is in attainment for carbon monoxide, except that in a carbon
monoxide nonattainment area which is redesignated as attainment for
carbon monoxide, the requirements of this subsection shall remain in
effect to the extent such program is necessary to maintain such
standard thereafter in the area. The State has satisfied the above
requirements of section 211(m)(6) as follows:

(a) The Colorado Springs area is in attainment for the CO NAAQS.
EPA approved the Colorado Springs CO redesignation to attainment on
August 25, 1999 (see 64 FR 46279, effective October 25, 1999). In
addition, ambient air quality that have been archived in AIRS show that
the Colorado Springs area has been in attainment for the CO NAAQS
beginning with the period of 1990-1991 and the area has been in
attainment for the CO NAAQS from that time to the present.
(b) The State has provided an adequate demonstration showing that
the oxygenated fuels program is not needed to maintain the CO NAAQS for
the Colorado Springs attainment area. This requirement was addressed
with the State's revised maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs
area. As presented in section ``B. Emission Inventories and Maintenance
Demonstration'' of the revised maintenance plan, the State used EPA's
MOBILE5b emission factor model to calculate mobile source emissions,
without an oxygenated fuels program, for 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2010.
For each projected year, mobile source emissions were less than the
1990 attainment year levels. When mobile source emissions were added to
the other source categories for 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2010, total
emissions for each year were still well below the 1990 attainment year
levels. Therefore, elimination of the oxygenated fuels program will not
interfere with continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS. In addition to
the 1990 and 2010 region-wide inventories, the State prepared a 1990
and 2010 gridded emission inventory and evaluated projected growth in
CO emissions in each grid cell. This assessment also indicated that the
CO NAAQS would be maintained without an oxygenated fuels program.
Based on the above, the State concluded that the revisions to
Regulation No. 13, to eliminate the oxygenated fuels program, would not
jeopardize the revised maintenance plan's demonstration of maintenance
for the CO NAAQS. We agree with the State's analysis provided in
section ``B.'' of the revised maintenance plan and as further supported
in the State's TSD. Therefore, we do not believe that the elimination
of the oxygenated fuels program in El Paso County and the Colorado
Springs area will impact the CO maintenance demonstration for the area.
In consideration of above, we have determined that we can approve
the February 17, 2000, revisions to Regulation No. 13 as meeting the
requirements of section 211(m)(6) of the CAA.
As noted previously, the revisions to Regulation No. 13 were
adopted by the AQCC directly after a public hearing on February 17,
2000, became State effective on April 30, 2000, and were submitted to
us by the Governor on May 10, 2000.

VI. Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving the revised Colorado Springs
carbon monoxide maintenance plan and the revisions to Regulation No.
13.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective February 20,
2001 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments
by January 22, 2001.
If EPA receives such comments, then we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on February 20, 2001 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

(a) Executive Order 12866

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

(b) Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting

[[Page 80782]]

elected officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on state,
local, or tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section
1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

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

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

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

(e) Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

(f) Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this
action.

(g) Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

(h) Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 20, 2001. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: September 14, 2000.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
Chapter I, title 40, part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:

[[Page 80783]]

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart G--COLORADO

2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(89) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(89 ) On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado submitted revisions
to Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'' that eliminated the
Oxygenated Fuels Program for El Paso County and the Colorado Springs CO
attainment/maintenance area.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'', 5 CCR 1001-16,
as adopted on February 17, 2000, effective April 30, 2000, as follows:
Sections I.D.19, II.A, II.A.1, II.A.2, II.C.1.a, II.C.1.b., and
II.C.1.c.
3. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
(e) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, Carbon
Monoxide Revised Maintenance Plan for Colorado Springs, as adopted by
the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on February 17, 2000, State
effective April 30, 2000, and submitted by the Governor on May 10,
2000.

[FR Doc. 00-32300 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Colorado Springs Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, and Approval of a Related Revision

Related Material

Local Navigation