[Federal Register: September 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58264-58269]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30se04-9]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[RME Docket Number R08-OAR-2004-CO-0003; FRL-7822-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Longmont Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado.
On April 12, 2004, the Governor of Colorado submitted a revised
maintenance plan for the Longmont carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance area
for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised
maintenance plan contains revised transportation conformity motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2010 through 2014 and for 2015
and beyond. In this action, EPA is approving the Longmont CO revised
maintenance plan and the revised transportation conformity motor
vehicle emissions budgets. This action is being taken under section 110
of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2004 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 1, 2004. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by RME Docket Number R08-
OAR-2004-CO-0003, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and russ.tim@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME Docket Number R08-OAR-
2004-CO-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. EPA's Regional Materials in EDOCKET and
federal regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous access'' systems,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA, without going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET online
or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). For
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Regional
Materials in EDOCKET index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone (303) 312-
6479, and e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 58265]]
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
III. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
VII. Final Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to
certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
(v) The word State means the State of Colorado, unless the
context indicates otherwise.
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through Regional Materials in
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
In this action, we are approving a revised maintenance plan for the
Longmont CO attainment/maintenance area that is designed to keep the
area in attainment for CO through 2015, and we're approving revised
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB). We
approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and maintenance
plan for the Longmont area on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR 51694).
The original Longmont CO maintenance plan that we approved on
September 24, 1999 (hereafter September 24, 1999 maintenance plan)
utilized the then applicable EPA mobile sources emission factor model,
MOBILE5a. On January 18, 2002, we issued policy guidance for States and
local areas to use to develop SIP revisions using the new, updated
version of the model, MOBILE6. The policy guidance was entitled
``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and
Transportation Conformity'' (hereafter, January 18, 2002 MOBILE6
policy). On November 12, 2002, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (OTAQ) issued an updated version of the MOBILE6 model,
MOBILE6.2, and notified Federal, State, and local agency users of the
model's availability. MOBILE6.2 contained additional updates for air
toxics and particulate matter. However, the CO emission factors were
essentially the same as in the MOBILE6 version of the model.
For the years analyzed in the September 24, 1999 maintenance plan
(1993, 2005, 2010, and 2015), the State revised and updated the mobile
sources CO emissions using MOBILE6.2. With the revised maintenance
plan, the State also provided emissions data for 2006. The State
recalculated the CO MVEB for 2010 through 2014 and applied a selected
amount of the available safety margin to the 2010 through 2014
transportation conformity MVEB. The State recalculated the CO MVEB for
2015 and beyond and also applied a selected amount of the available
safety margin to the 2015 and beyond transportation conformity MVEB. We
have determined that all the revisions noted above are Federally-
approvable, as described further below.
III. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a SIP. The CAA requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Longmont Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan
December 18, 2003. The AQCC adopted the revised maintenance plan
directly after the hearing. This SIP revision became State effective on
March 1, 2004, and was submitted by the Governor to us on April 12,
2004.
We have evaluated the Governor's submittal for the revised
maintenance plan and have determined that the State met the
requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. We reviewed these SIP materials for conformance
with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and
determined that the submittal was administratively and technically
complete. The Governor was advised of our completeness determination
through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, dated
June 17, 2004.
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Maintenance Plan
EPA has reviewed the State's revised maintenance plan for the
Longmont attainment/maintenance area and believes that approval is
warranted. The following are the key aspects of this revision along
with our evaluation of each:
(a) The State has revised the Longmont maintenance plan and has air
quality data that show continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS.
As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average
[[Page 58266]]
concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8
continues by stating that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be
measured by a reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and
designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method
designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The September 24, 1999
maintenance plan relied on ambient air quality data from 1989 through
1996. In our consideration of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan,
submitted by the Governor on April 12, 2004, we reviewed ambient air
quality data from 1993 through 2003 and the first calendar quarter of
2004. The Longmont area shows continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS
from 1993 to present. All of the above-referenced air quality data are
archived in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System (AIRS).
(b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State revised
the attainment year inventory (1993), prior projected years (2005,
2010, and 2015) inventories and a new projected year (2006) emission
inventory.
The revised maintenance plan that the Governor submitted on April
12, 2004 includes comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the
Longmont area. These inventories include emissions from stationary
point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the revised 1993
attainment year inventory, the revised 2005, 2010, and 2015 projected
inventories, and the new projected 2006 inventory, are documented in
the maintenance plan in section 2 entitled ``Emission Inventories and
Maintenance Demonstration'' and in the State's Technical Support
Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains emission inventory
information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary
emission figures from the 1993 attainment year and the projected years
are provided in Table IV.-1 below.
Table IV.-1.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons Per Day for Longmont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category 1993 2005 2006 2010 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................... 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.07
Area........................................... 2.69 1.92 1.86 1.60 1.28
Non-Road....................................... 6.58 7.91 8.03 8.47 9.02
On-Road........................................ 43.26 33.97 35.32 28.01 25.99
--------------
Total...................................... 52.71 43.92 45.33 38.17 36.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised mobile source emissions show the largest change from
the September 24, 1999 maintenance plan and this is primarily due to
the use of MOBILE6.2 instead of MOBILE5a. The MOBILE6.2 modeling
information is contained in the State's TSD (see ``Mobile Source
Emission Inventories,'' page 6) and on a compact disk we prepared (a
copy is available upon request). The State's TSD information is also
available on a compact disk that may be requested from the State or it
can be downloaded directly from the State's Web site at http://apcd.state.co.us/documents/techdocs.html.
The TSD compact disk contains
much of the modeling data, input-output files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2
input parameters, and other information and is included with the docket
for this action. Other revisions to the mobile sources category
resulted from revised vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates that were
provided to the State from the Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG), which is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the
Longmont area. In summary, the revised maintenance plan and State TSD
contain detailed emission inventory information that was prepared in
accordance with EPA guidance and is acceptable to EPA.
(c) The State revised the maintenance demonstration used in the
September 24, 1999 Longmont maintenance plan.
As noted above, the State used the MOBILE6.2 model to revise the
Longmont CO maintenance plan. Our January 18, 2002, MOBILE6 policy
allows areas to revise their motor vehicle emission inventories and
transportation conformity MVEBs using the MOBILE6 model without needing
to revise the entire SIP or completing additional modeling if: (1) The
SIP continues to demonstrate attainment or maintenance when the
MOBILE5-based motor vehicle emission inventories are replaced with
MOBILE6 base year and attainment/maintenance year inventories; and (2)
the State can document that the growth and control strategy assumptions
for non-motor vehicle emission sources continue to be valid and minor
updates do not change the overall conclusion of the SIP. Our January
18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy also speaks specifically to CO maintenance
plans on page 10 of the policy. The first paragraph on page 10 of the
policy states ``* * * if a carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan relied
on either a relative or absolute demonstration, the first criterion
could be satisfied by documenting that the relative emission reductions
between the base year and the maintenance year are the same or greater
using MOBILE6 as compared to MOBILE5.''
The State could have used the streamlined approach described in our
January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy to update the Longmont CO MVEB.
However, the Governor's April 12, 2004 SIP submittal instead contained
a completely revised maintenance plan and maintenance demonstration for
the Longmont area. That is, all emission source categories (point,
area, non-road, and mobile) were updated using the latest versions of
applicable models (including MOBILE6.2), transportation data sets,
emissions data, emission factors, population figures, and other
demographic information. We have determined that this fully revised
maintenance plan SIP submittal exceeds the requirements of our January
18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy and, therefore, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6
policy is not relevant to our approval of the revised maintenance plan
and its MVEB.
As discussed above, the State prepared revised emission inventories
for the years 1993, 2005, 2006, and 2010, and 2015. The results of
these calculations are presented in Table 1 ``Longmont Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan Emission Inventories'' on page 4 of the revised
Longmont maintenance plan and are also summarized in our Table IV.-1
above. The State has demonstrated that with the use of MOBILE6.2,
mobile source emissions show a continuous decline from 1993 to 2015 and
that the total CO emissions, from all source categories, projected for
each future year (2005, 2006, 2010, and 2015) are all below the 1993
attainment year level of
[[Page 58267]]
CO emissions. Therefore, we have determined that the revised
maintenance plan continues to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS
from 1993 to 2015 and is approvable.
(d) Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment:
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Longmont area depends, in
part, on the State's efforts to track indicators throughout the
maintenance period. This requirement is met in section 5. ``Monitoring
Network/Verification of Continued Attainment'' of the revised Longmont
CO maintenance plan. In section 5., the State commits to continue the
operation of the CO monitor in the Longmont area and to annually review
this monitoring network and make changes as appropriate to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
Also, in section 6.A, the State commits to track mobile sources' CO
emissions (which are the largest component of the inventories) through
the ongoing regional transportation planning process that is done by
DRCOG. Since regular revisions to Longmont's transportation improvement
programs must go through a transportation conformity finding, the State
will use this process to periodically review the Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) and mobile source emissions projections used in the revised
maintenance plan. This regional transportation process is conducted by
DRCOG in coordination with the State's Air Pollution Control Division
(APCD), the AQCC, and EPA.
Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements. We note that our final rulemaking
approval renders the State's commitments federally enforceable. These
commitments are also the same as we approved in the original
maintenance plan.
(e) Contingency Plan: Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include contingency provisions. To meet this
requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures
along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such
measures.
As stated in section 6 of the revised maintenance plan, the
contingency measures for the Longmont area will be triggered by a
violation of the CO NAAQS. (However, the maintenance plan does note
that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary, local
process by the City of Longmont, DRCOG, and APCD to identify and
evaluate potential contingency measures.)
The City of Longmont and DRCOG, in conjunction with the APCD and
AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating
potential contingency measures no more than 60 days after being
notified by the APCD that a violation of the CO NAAQS has occurred. The
subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of
notification and the recommended contingency measures will be presented
to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC will then hold a
public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along
with any other contingency measures that the AQCC believes may be
appropriate to effectively address the violation of the CO NAAQS. The
necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within
one year after the violation occurs.
The potential contingency measures that are identified in section
6.C of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan include: (1) An
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program as described in
AQCC Regulation No. 11 as it existed prior to the modifications adopted
by the AQCC on January 10, 2000; (2) a 3.1% oxygenated gasoline program
from November 8 through February 7, with a 2.0% oxygen content required
from November 1 through November 7; and (3) nonattainment New Source
Review (NSR) permitting requirements.
Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided
in the State's revised Longmont CO maintenance plan are sufficient and
continue to meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions: In accordance with
section 175A(b) of the CAA, Colorado committed to submit a revised
maintenance plan eight years after our approval of the original
redesignation. This provision for revising the maintenance plan is
contained in section 7 of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan. In
section 7, the State commits to submit a revised maintenance plan in
2007 to correspond with our initial approval of the original
maintenance plan on September 24, 1999 (64 FR 51694).
Based on our review of the components of the revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan, as discussed in our items IV.(a) through IV.(f)
above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary
requirements in order for us to fully approve the revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan.
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a
demonstration that emissions from the transportation plan and
Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the emissions
budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions budget
is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with the
NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's requirements
and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993 transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62193-62196)
and in the sections of the rule referenced above.
With respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation
requires that MVEB(s) must be established for the last year of the
maintenance plan and may be established for any other years deemed
appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). For transportation plan analysis years
after the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case 2015), a
conformity determination must show that emissions are less than or
equal to the maintenance plan's motor vehicle emissions budget(s) for
the last year of the implementation plan. EPA's conformity regulation
(40 CFR 93.124) also allows the implementation plan to quantify
explicitly the amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher
while still demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement.
The implementation plan can then allocate some or all of this
additional ``safety margin'' to the emissions budget(s) for
transportation conformity purposes.
Section 4 ``Transportation Conformity and Mobile Source Carbon
Monoxide Emission Budgets'' of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan
briefly describes the applicable transportation conformity
requirements, provides MVEB calculations, identifies ``safety margin,''
and indicates that the City of Longmont and DRCOG elected to apply the
identified ``safety margin'' to the MVEB for 2010 through 2014 and 2015
and beyond.
In section 4 of the revised maintenance plan, the State evaluated
two MVEBs; a budget for 2015 (the last year of the maintenance plan)
and beyond and a budget applicable to the years 2010 through 2014. For
the 2015 MVEB, the State subtracted the total estimated 2015 emissions
(from all sources) of 36.36 Tons Per Day (TPD) from the 1993 attainment
year total
[[Page 58268]]
emissions of 52.71 TPD. This produced a ``safety margin'' of 16.35 TPD.
The State then reduced this ``safety margin'' by one TPD. The
identified ``safety margin'' of 15.35 TPD for 2015 was then added to
the estimated 2015 mobile sources emissions, 25.99 TPD, to produce a
2015 MVEB of 41 TPD. For the 2010 through 2014 MVEB, the State
subtracted the total estimated 2010 emissions (from all sources) of
38.17 TPD from the 1993 attainment year total emissions of 52.71 TPD.
This produced a ``safety margin'' of 14.54 TPD. The State then reduced
this ``safety margin'' by one TPD. The identified ``safety margin'' of
13.54 TPD for 2010 was then added to the estimated 2010 mobile sources
emissions, 28.01 TPD, to produce a 2010 through 2014 MVEB of 41 TPD.
These MVEBs were identified in the first sentence of paragraph two of
section 4 of the revised maintenance plan which states, ``The Longmont
attainment/maintenance area mobile source emission budgets are 41 tons/
day for 2010 through 2014 and 41 tons/day for 2015 and beyond.'' Based
on this choice, and in order for a positive conformity determination to
be made, transportation plan analyses for years 2010 through 2014 must
show that motor vehicle emissions will be less than or equal to the
2010 through 2014 MVEB of 41 TPD of CO and transportation plan analyses
for years 2015 and beyond must show that motor vehicle emissions will
be less than or equal to the 2015 MVEB of 41 TPD of CO. The revised
maintenance plan also states that the previously approved CO MVEB of
16.76 TPD for 2015 and beyond (see 64 FR 51694, September 24, 1999) is
removed from the SIP and is replaced by the new MVEBs of 41 TPD for the
years 2010 through 2014 and 41 TPD for 2015 and beyond. Therefore, we
are approving the transportation conformity MVEBs of 41 TPD of CO for
2010 through 2014 and 41 TPD of CO for 2015 and beyond for the Longmont
attainment/maintenance area.
VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. The revised Longmont CO maintenance plan will not interfere
with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
VII. Final Action
In this action, EPA is approving the revised Longmont CO
maintenance plan, that was submitted by the Governor on April 12, 2004,
and the revised transportation conformity motor vehicle CO emission
budgets for the years 2010 through 2014 and 2015 and beyond.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 29, 2004
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
November 1, 2004. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
[[Page 58269]]
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2004. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 22, 2004.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.
* * * * *
(k) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, carbon
monoxide NAAQS, revised maintenance plan for Longmont entitled
``Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the Longmont Attainment/
Maintenance Area'', as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission on December 18, 2003, State effective March 1, 2004, and
submitted by the Governor on April 12, 2004.
[FR Doc. 04-21926 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P