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

Related Material

Other Related Documents

[Federal Register: December 14, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 241)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64751-64759]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14de01-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[CO-001-0045; CO-001-0046; CO-001-0047; CO-001-0052; CO-001-0053; CO49-
1-7187; CO-001-0061; CO-001-0062; CO-001-0064 FRL-7117-4]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 22, 2001, EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) to propose approval of the State of Colorado's request
to redesignate the Denver-Boulder metropolitan (hereafter, Denver)
``serious'' carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area to attainment for
the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In that NPR, EPA
proposed to approve the CO maintenance plan for the Denver area and the
additional State Implementation

[[Page 64752]]

Plan elements involving revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11
``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program'', Colorado's Regulation
No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'', and the Governor's May 7, 2001,
submittal of a SIP revision (``United States Postal Service (USPS)
revision'') that is intended to be a substitute for a Clean Fuel Fleet
Program.
In this action, EPA is approving the Denver CO redesignation
request, the maintenance plan, the revisions to Regulation No. 11 and
Regulation No. 13, the USPS revision and the CO transportation
conformity budgets.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: 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: For questions concerning the Denver CO
redesignation, 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.
For questions regarding the Regulation No. 11, Regulation No. 13,
and the U.S. Postal Service revisions, contact Kerri Fiedler, 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) 312-6493.

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?

On August 22, 2001, we published a NPR that proposed approval of
the Denver CO redesignation request, maintenance plan, and associated
SIP elements. See 66 FR 44097. The NPR also opened a 30-day public
comment period on this proposed Agency action. We did not receive any
comments.
In this final action, we are approving the change in the legal
designation of the Denver area from nonattainment to attainment for the
CO NAAQS (hereafter referred to as ``CO NAAQS'' or ``CO standard''),
we're approving the maintenance plan that is designed to keep the area
in attainment for CO for the next 12 years, we're approving the changes
to the State's Regulation No. 11 for the implementation of motor
vehicle emissions inspections, we're approving the changes to the
State's Regulation No. 13 for the implementation of the wintertime
oxygenated fuels program, and we've approving of the USPS revision that
requires the destruction, relocation, and replacement with cleaner
vehicles of certain USPS vehicles, as a substitute for a Clean Fuel
Fleet Program for the Denver metropolitan area. We are also approving
the CO transportation conformity budgets.
We originally designated Denver as nonattainment for CO under the
provisions of the 1977 CAA Amendments (see 43 FR 8962, March 3, 1978).
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted
(Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q).
Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), we designated
the Denver area as nonattainment for CO because the area had been
designated as nonattainment before November 15, 1990. Under section 186
of the CAA, Denver was originally classified as a ``moderate'' CO
nonattainment area with a design value greater than 12.7 parts per
million (ppm), and was required to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31,
1995. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. The Denver area, however,
violated the CO NAAQS in 1995. With our final rule of March 10, 1997
(62 FR 10690), we approved the State's 1994 State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal and bumped-up the Denver area to a ``serious'' CO
nonattainment classification. Further information regarding these
classifications and the accompanying requirements are described in the
``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.`` See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.
Under the CAA, we can change designations if acceptable data are
available and if certain other requirements are met. See CAA section
107(d)(3)(D). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides that the
Administrator may not promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment unless:
(i) the Administrator determines that the area has attained the
national ambient air quality standard;
(ii) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k);
(iii) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A; and,
(v) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
Before we can approve the redesignation request, we must decide
that all applicable SIP elements have been fully approved. Approval of
the applicable SIP elements may occur simultaneously with final
approval of the redesignation request. That's why we are also approving
the revisions to Regulation No. 11, Regulation No. 13, and the USPS
revision.

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 Denver CO redesignation request, the maintenance plan,
the revisions to Regulation No. 11, and the revisions to Regulation No.
13 on January 10, 2000. The AQCC adopted the redesignation request,
maintenance plan, and revisions to Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No.
13 directly after the hearing. These SIP revisions became State
effective March 1, 2000, and were

[[Page 64753]]

submitted by the Governor to us on May 10, 2000.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have determined that
the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by section 110(k)(1)(B)
of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for conformance with the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and determined that
the Governor's submittal was administratively and technically complete.
Our completeness determination was sent on August 7, 2000, through a
letter from Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting Regional Administrator, to
Governor Bill Owens.
For the USPS revision, the Colorado AQCC held a public hearing on
March 16, 2000. The AQCC adopted the USPS revisions directly after the
hearing. The USPS revision became State effective May 30, 2000, and was
submitted by the Governor to us on May 7, 2001. On May 30, 2001, the
Colorado Attorney General's Office submitted administrative corrections
to the USPS revision to us.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal of the USPS revision and
have determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable
notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As
required by section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP
materials for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V and determined that the Governor's submittal, with the
subsequent administrative corrections provided by the State's Attorney
General's office, was administratively and technically complete. Our
completeness determination was sent on June 15, 2001, through a letter
from Jack W. McGraw, Acting Regional Administrator, to Governor Bill
Owens.

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

We have reviewed the Denver CO redesignation request and
maintenance plan and believe that approval of the request is warranted.
With our August 22, 2001, NPR (see 66 FR 44097), we solicited public
comments on these materials and the additional SIP elements. We did not
receive any public comments. We have determined that all required SIP
elements, including the maintenance plan, have either been approved or
will be fully approved with this final rule, that the area has attained
the NAAQS for the CO standard, and that the improvement in air quality
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from the implementation of the applicable implementation plan,
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions. Thus, with the Governor's
submittals of May 10, 2000, and May 7, 2001, the five criteria in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) have been met and
approval of the redesignation request is warranted.
Detailed descriptions of how the section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements
have been met area provided in our August 22, 2001, NPR for this action
(see 66 FR 44097) and, for the most part, will not be repeated here.
Our discussion below takes into account our prior evaluation presented
in our August 22, 2001, NPR and provides further emphasis regarding the
maintenance plan and the additional SIP elements.
As stated above, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA provides that
for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the Administrator must
have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the
subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for
adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation.
In this Federal Register action, we are approving the State of
Colorado's maintenance plan for the Denver CO nonattainment area
because we have determined, as detailed below, that the State's
maintenance plan submittal of May 10, 2000, meets the requirements of
section 175A and is consistent with EPA interpretations of the CAA
section 175A of the CAA and our September 4, 1992, policy
memorandum.\1\ Our analysis of the pertinent maintenance plan
requirements, was fully described in our August 22, 2001, proposed rule
(see 66 FR 44097) and is restated, in part, with particular reference
to the Governor's May 10, 2000, submittal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ EPA issued maintenance plan interpretations in the ``General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), ``General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; Supplemental'' (57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992),
and the EPA guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality and
Planning Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, dated
September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Emissions Inventories--Attainment Year and Projections

Under our interpretations, areas seeking to redesignate to
attainment for CO may demonstrate future maintenance of the CO NAAQS
either by showing that future CO emissions will be equal to or less
than the attainment year emissions or by providing a modeling
demonstration. However, under the CAA, many areas (such as Denver) were
required to submit a modeled attainment demonstration to show that
reductions in emissions would be sufficient to attain the applicable
NAAQS. For these areas, the maintenance demonstration is to be based on
the same level of modeling (see the September 4, 1992, Calcagni
Memorandum). For the Denver area, this involved the use of EPA's Urban
Airshed Model (UAM) in conjunction with intersection Hotspot modeling
using the CAL3QHC model (see 62 FR 10690, March 10, 1997).
The maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on May 10, 2000,
included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the Denver area.
These inventories include emissions from stationary point sources, area
sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources. The State
used the 2001 attainment year inventory, from the March 10, 1997, EPA-
approved attainment SIP (see 62 FR 10690) and included an interim-year
projection for 2006 along with the final maintenance year of 2013.
Additional mobile source emission inventories were provided for the
years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. These particular mobile source
inventories present CO emissions during the phase-in period of the
revisions to Regulation No. 11 for the Remote Sensing Device (RSD)
program, the phase-in of more stringent cutpoints for the motor vehicle
enhanced Inspection and Maintenance, or I/M240, program, and the phase-
down of the oxygenated gasoline program under the revisions to
Regulation No. 13. More detailed descriptions of the 2001 attainment
year inventory from the approved nonattainment SIP for Denver, the 2006
projected inventory, the 2013 projected inventory, and the 2002, 2003,

[[Page 64754]]

2004, and 2005 mobile source projected inventories are documented in
the maintenance plan in Part II, Chapter 4, section B, and in the
State's TSD. The State's submittal contains detailed emission inventory
information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary
emission figures from the 2001 attainment year and the interim
projected years are provided in Table III.-1 below.

Table III-1.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day for Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources............... 70.2 .......... .......... .......... .......... 46.7 46.7
Area Sources................ 198.2 .......... .......... .......... .......... 172.8 172.6
Non-Road Mobile Sources..... 59.9 .......... .......... .......... .......... 61.2 64.9
On-Road Mobile Sources...... * 875.2 * 851 * 850 * 827 * 850 * 844.7 * 867.2
Total................... * 1203.3 .......... .......... .......... .......... * 1125.4 * 1151.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These figures represent CO emissions for the Denver CO modeling domain which is slightly larger than the
Denver CO nonattainment area.

We note in Table III-1 there are significant reductions projected
in years 2006 and 2013 for point sources and area sources. The majority
of the area source projected reductions are from the State's estimates
for less woodburning in future years. We believe this projection of
less woodburning is reasonable. For point sources, the original Denver
CO nonattainment plan modeled all point sources at their potential-to-
emit (PTE) for 2001, and Table III-1 retains these values for 2001. For
years 2006 and 2013, the State projected emissions for elevated point
sources at PTE, but projected emissions from surface point sources
based on actual emissions. This accounts for the reduction in emissions
from point sources in 2006 and 2013. The State's approach follows EPA
guidance on projected emissions and we believe it is acceptable.\2\
Further information on these projected emissions may also be found in
Section 2 ``Emission Inventories'' of the State's TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas'', signed by D.
Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division,
November 30, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Demonstration of Maintenance

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni Memorandum states that where
modeling was relied on to demonstrate maintenance, the plan is to
contain a summary of the air quality concentrations expected to result
from the application of the control strategies. Also, the plan is to
identify and describe the dispersion model or other air quality model
used to project ambient concentrations.
For the Denver CO redesignation maintenance demonstration, the
State used the Urban Airshed dispersion Model (UAM) in conjunction with
concentrations derived from the CAL3QHC intersection (or ``hotspot'')
model. This was the same level of modeling as was used for the 1994
Denver CO SIP attainment demonstration, which was approved by EPA on
March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10690), and addressed the requirements of section
187(a)(7) of the CAA. The UAM and CAL3QHC models were applied to the
2006 and 2013 inventories using meteorological data from December 5,
1988. This was the episode day used in the modeling in the EPA-approved
1994 Denver CO nonattainment SIP revision and was thought to represent
the worst-case meteorological conditions. For the CAL3QHC intersection
component, six intersections were selected for modeling based on the
latest information from Denver Regional Council Of Governments (DRCOG)
regarding the highest volume and most congested intersections in the
Denver CO nonattainment area. This was done consistent with our
modeling guidance.
After an analysis, the State concluded that the Continuous Air
Monitoring Project (CAMP) ambient air quality monitor, located at the
intersection of Broadway and Champa Street, was still the maximum
concentration monitor for the Denver CO nonattainment area. This
analysis is further detailed in Part II, Chapter 4, section C of the
maintenance plan and in the State's TSD. We agree with the State's
conclusion regarding the maximum concentration monitor. The results of
the State's modeling for 2006 and 2013 are presented in Part II,
Chapter 4, section C, of the maintenance plan, in the State's TSD, and
are reproduced in Table III-2 below:

Table III-2.--Dispersion Modeling and Intersection Modeling Results (in parts per million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2013
Intersection -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAM \1\ CAL3QHC \2\ Total UAM CAL3QHC Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadway & Champa \1\....... 7.59 1.12 8.71 7.88 1.08 8.96
Foothills & Arapahoe........ 0.9 4.8 5.7 0.9 4.7 5.6
1st & University............ 4.0 4.3 8.3 3.9 4.2 8.0
Hampden & University........ 1.9 3.6 5.5 1.9 4.3 6.2
Parker & Illiff............. 2.7 3.2 5.8 2.6 3.0 5.6
Arapahoe & University....... 1.3 3.6 5.0 1.3 3.9 5.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes for Table III-2:
\1\ UAM (Urban Airshed Model). This column represents the dispersion model's calculated background CO
concentration at each location.
\2\ CAL3QHC (Intersection Model). This column represents the intersection model's calculated CO component
concentration.
\3\ The use of two significant figures by the State for the Broadway and Champa intersection, where the CAMP
monitor is located, reflects the fact that the modeling done for the maximum concentration location was more
detailed.

[[Page 64755]]

The modeling results presented in the Denver CO maintenance plan,
the State's TSD, and as repeated in Table III-2 above show that CO
concentrations are not estimated to exceed the 9.0 ppm 8-hour average
CO NAAQS during the maintenance period's time frame through 2013.
Therefore, we believe the Denver area has satisfactorily demonstrated
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Denver area depends, in
part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the
maintenance period. This requirement is met in two sections of the
Denver CO maintenance plan. In Part II, Chapter 4, sections E and F.2,
the State commits to continue the operation of the CO monitors in the
Denver area and to annually review this monitoring network and make
changes as appropriate. Please see our August 22, 2001, NPR (66 FR
44097) for a more detailed description.
Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements. We note that this final approval
renders the State's commitments federally enforceable.

(d) Contingency Plan

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures. Please see our
August 22, 2001, NPR (66 FR 44097) for a more detailed description.
We find that the contingency measures provided in the State's
Denver CO maintenance plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of
section 175A(d) of the CAA.

(e) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, Colorado has
committed to submit a revised maintenance plan eight years after our
approval of the redesignation.

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
budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions budget
is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the
NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's requirements
and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-96) and
in the sections of the rule referenced above.
The maintenance plan defines the CO motor vehicle emissions budget
in the Denver CO attainment/maintenance area as 800 tons per day for
all years 2002 and beyond. This budget is equal to the maintenance year
(2013) mobile source emissions inventory for CO for the attainment/
maintenance area. We have scaled the modeling domain emissions
projections for 2002 to the attainment/maintenance area values and
believe the 800 tons per day value is essentially equivalent to the
mobile source inventory for the attainment/maintenance area in 2002. In
addition, our analysis indicates that the 800 tons per day budget is
consistent with maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance
period. Therefore, we are approving the 800 tons per day CO emissions
budget for the Denver area.
Pursuant to section 93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity
rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted mobile
source emissions budgets. EPA reviewed the Denver CO budget for
adequacy using the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that
the budget was adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy
determination was made in a letter to the Colorado APCD on July 12,
2000, and was announced in the Federal Register on August 3, 2000 (65
FR 47726). As a result of this adequacy finding, the 800 ton per day
budget took effect for conformity determinations in the Denver metro
area on August 18, 2000. However, we are not bound by that
determination in acting on the maintenance plan.

V. 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). As
described in our August 22, 2001, NPR (see 66 FR 44097), the version of
Regulation No. 11 that was adopted on January 10, 2000, became
effective on March 1, 2000, and was submitted by the Governor in
conjunction with the Denver CO redesignation request and maintenance
plan supersedes and replaces the other revisions of Regulation No. 11.
We concur with the revisions enacted by the State to Regulation No.
11 and are approving them.

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

Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled ``Oxygenated Fuels
Program'' (hereafter referred to as Regulation No. 13). As described in
our August 22, 2001, NPR (see 66 FR 44097), the revisions to Regulation
No. 13 were adopted on January 10, 2000, became effective on March 1,
2000, and were submitted by the Governor in conjunction with the Denver
CO redesignation request and maintenance plan.
We concur with the revisions enacted by the State to Regulation No.
13 and are approving them.

VII. EPA's Evaluation of the USPS Revision

As stated in our NPR of August 22, 2001 (see 66 FR 44097), section
246(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires areas such as Denver to have a clean
fuel vehicle program in the EPA-approved SIP.
We had previously advised the State that we would be unable to
redesignate the Denver area to attainment for CO unless the Governor
submitted a clean fuel vehicle program meeting the requirements of
section 246(a)(2)(B) of the CAA or a substitute program pursuant to CAA
section 182(c)(4).\3\ The State chose to submit a substitute program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA refers to ozone-producing
emissions; however, EPA has interpreted this section to allow for
substitute programs for CO as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 22, 2000, the State, EPA, and USPS entered into an agreement
under EPA's Project eXcellence and Leadership program (Project XL) and
Colorado's Environmental Leadership Program under which the USPS agreed
to destroy or relocate several hundred pre-1984 high-emitting postal
delivery vehicles and replace them with low-emitting vehicles (LEV \4\)
and low-emitting flexible fuel vehicles.\5\ As part of this agreement,
the USPS agreed that the State could incorporate the major components
of the agreement into a SIP revision that the State could use as a

[[Page 64756]]

substitute for a clean fuel vehicle program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ A LEV is any vehicle certified to the low emission vehicle
standards specified in 40 CFR 86, subpart R.
\5\ A flexible fuel vehicle or dual fuel vehicle is a vehicle
which operates on the combination of gasoline and an alternative
fuel (any fuel other than gasoline and diesel fuel, such as
methanol, ethanol, and gaseous fuels (40 CFR 86.000-2)), such as E-
85 (gasoline blended with 85% ethanol).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AQCC adopted the USPS revision on March 16, 2000, and the
revision became State-effective on May 30, 2000. The Governor submitted
the USPS SIP revision to us on May 7, 2001.
On May 30, 2001, the Colorado Attorney General's Office submitted
administrative corrections to the USPS SIP revision\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Following adoption of the USPS revision, the AQCC
inadvertently neglected to put the revision in final form before
sending it to the Governor's office for submittal to EPA. In
correcting the USPS revision, State Staff merely removed headings
that indicated the USPS revision was ``draft'', dated and titled the
revision, and inserted the correct date for the USPS Project XL
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We concur with and are approving the State's USPS SIP revision
because we have determined that the State will achieve greater
reductions in emissions of CO with the USPS revision than would have
been achieved by the clean fuels vehicle program required by CAA
section 246(a)(2)(B).

VIII. Final Rulemaking Action

In this action, we are approving the Governor's May 10, 2000,
request to redesignate the Denver carbon monoxide NAAQS nonattainment
area to attainment, the Denver carbon monoxide NAAQS maintenance plan
submitted May 10, 2000, the revisions to Regulation No. 11 and the
revisions to Regulation No. 13 submitted May 10, 2000, and the
Governor's May 7, 2001, USPS revision including the Attorney General's
office administrative corrections of May 30, 2001. We are also
approving the carbon monoxide transportation conformity budgets
contained in the maintenance plan. This final action will become
effective on January 14, 2002.

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 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 or 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.

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
13084 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. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.

(d) Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will 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, because it
merely approves state rules implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. In addition,
redesignation of an area to attainment under sections 107(d)(3)(D) and
(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements. Thus,
the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to
this rule.

(e) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

(f) Regulatory Flexibility

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 approval will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and

[[Page 64757]]

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 SIP final 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 flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). Redesignation of an area to attainment under
sections 107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any
new requirements. Redesignation to attainment is an action that affects
the legal designation of a geographical area and does not impose any
regulatory requirements. Therefore, because the final approval of the
redesignation does not create any new requirements, I certify that the
final approval of the redesignation request will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(g) 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 this final approval action 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, result from this action.

(h) 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 the 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 publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective January 14, 2002.

(i) National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

(j) 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 12, 2002. 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) of the Clean Air
Act.)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas

Dated: December 3, 2001.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

Title 40, chapter I, parts 52 and 81 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(96 ) to read
as follows:

Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(96) On May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado submitted SIP
revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program'' that supersede and replace all earlier versions of
the Regulation and made several changes to the motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance requirements including the implementation of a remote
sensing device (RSD) program for the Denver metropolitan area. On May
10, 2000, the Governor also submitted SIP revisions to Colorado's
Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'' that supersede and
replace all earlier versions of the Regulation and modified the
oxygenated fuel requirements for the Denver metropolitan area.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program'', 5 CCR 1001-13, as adopted on January 10, 2000, effective
March 1, 2000, as follows: Part A, Part B, Part C, Part D, Part E, and
Part F.
(B) Regulation No. 13 ``Oxygenated Fuels Program'', 5 CCR 1001-16,
as adopted on January 10, 2000, effective March 1, 2000, as follows:
Sections I.A., I.B., I.C., I.D., I..E., II..A, II.B., II.C., II.D.,
II.E., II..F., II.G., and II.H.

3. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
(g) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, carbon
monoxide NAAQS Redesignation Request and

[[Page 64758]]

Maintenance Plan for Denver entitled ``Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Maintenance Plan for the Denver Metropolitan Area,
``excluding Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Appendix C, as adopted by the
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on January 10, 2000, State
effective March 1, 2000, and submitted by the Governor on May 10, 2000.
4. New Sec. 52.351 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 52.351 United States Postal Service substitute Clean Fuel Fleet
Program.

Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, carbon
monoxide NAAQS, United States Postal Service substitute clean-fuel
vehicle program, as allowed under section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air
Act, to address the requirements of section 246 of the Clean Air Act
for the Denver Metropolitan carbon monoxide nonattainment area. The
revisions were adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
on March 16, 2000, State effective May 30, 2000, and submitted by the
Governor on May 7, 2001. Administrative corrections to the Governor's
May 7, 2001, submittal were submitted by the Colorado Attorney
General's office on May 30, 2001.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

Sec. 81.306 Colorado.

* * * * *
Colorado--Carbon Monoxide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Denver-Boulder Area:
The boundaries for the Denver January 14, 2002............ Attainment
nonattainment area for
carbon monixide (CO) are
described as follows: Start
at Colorado Highway 52 where
it intersects the eastern
boundary of Boulder County;
Follow Highway 52 west until
it intersects Colorado
Highway 119; Follow northern
boundary of Boulder city
limits west to the 6,000-ft.
elevation line; Follow the
6000-ft. elevation line
south through Boulder and
Jefferson Counties to US 6
in Jefferson County; Follow
US 6 west to the Jefferson
County-Clear Creek County
line; Follow the Jefferson
County western boundary
south for approximately
16.25 miles; Follow a line
east for approximately 3.75
mile to South Turkey Creek;
Follow South Turkey Creek
northeast for approximately
3.5 miles; Follow a line
southeast for approximately
2.0 miles to the junction of
South Deer Creek Road and
South Deer Creek Canyon
Road; Follow South Deer
Creek Canyon Road northeast
for approximately 3.75
miles; Follow a line
southeast for approximately
five miles to the northern-
most boundary of Pike
National Forest where it
intersects the Jefferson
County-Douglas County line;
follow the Pike National
forest boundary southeast
through Douglas County to
the Douglas County-El Paso
County line; Follow the
southern boundary on Douglas
County east to the Elbert
County line; Follow the
eastern boundary of Douglas
County north to the Arapahoe
County line; Follow the
southern boundary of Araphoe
County east to Kiowa Creek;
Follow Kiowa Creek northeast
through Arapahoe and Adams
Counties to the Adams-Weld
County line; Follow the
northern boundary of Adams
County west to the Boulder
County line; Follow the
eastern boundary of Boulder
County north to Highway 52.
Adams County (part)
Arapahoe County (part)
Boulder County (part)
Denver County
Douglas County (part)
Jefferson County (part)

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[[Page 64759]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-30816 Filed 12-13-01; 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; Denver Carbon Monoxide Redesignation to Attainment, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, and Approval of Related Revisions

Related Material

Local Navigation