[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15294-15303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CO-001-0022 and CO-001-0023; FRL-5981-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Colorado; PM10 and NOX Mobile Source Emission Budget Plans
for Denver, CO
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Governor of Colorado on July 18, 1995 and April 22,
1996. The PM10 and NOX emissions budgets contained in these
SIP revisions are used to assess the conformity of transportation
plans, transportation improvement programs and, where appropriate,
federally funded projects for the applicable periods required by EPA's
conformity rules. EPA originally proposed approval of the two emissions
[[Page 15295]]
budget SIPs on October 3, 1996. Based upon comments received on that
proposal, EPA published a second proposal on August 5, 1997, seeking
additional input on certain issues. In reaching its final decision to
approve the July 18, 1995 and April 22, 1996 PM10 and NOX
SIP submittals, EPA has considered the comments it received on both its
October 3, 1996 and August 5, 1997 Federal Register documents.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on April 30, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's original submittals, copies of
comments received on both the October 3, 1996 and August 5, 1997
proposals and other information are available for inspection during
normal business hours at the Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado
80202-2466. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection at the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry
Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80222.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Videtich, EPA Region
VIII,(303)312-6434.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 30, 1995, the Governor of Colorado submitted a SIP
revision for Denver for PM10 that included attainment and maintenance
demonstrations. In making that submittal, the Governor requested that
EPA not act on the motor vehicle emissions budgets (also referred to as
mobile source emissions budgets) for PM10 and NOX contained
in Chapter XI of the PM10 SIP element. Motor vehicle emissions budgets
are used under EPA regulations for making transportation related
conformity determinations as required by section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA's transportation conformity rule provides
that these budgets establish a cap on motor vehicle-related emissions
which cannot be exceeded by the predicted transportation system
emissions in the future unless the cap is amended by the State and
approved by EPA as a SIP revision and attainment and maintenance of the
standard can be demonstrated.
On July 18, 1995 and April 22, 1996, the Governor submitted SIP
revisions for Denver that included additional motor vehicle emissions
budgets for PM10 and NOX. EPA proposed approval of both of
these emissions budgets on October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51631) along with the
Denver PM10 SIP. Following a 60-day public comment period, EPA
finalized approval of the Denver PM10 SIP on April 17, 1997 (62 FR
18716). At that time, EPA did not take final action on the emissions
budget submittals in order to more thoroughly consider comments
received on the proposals during the public comment period. EPA
subsequently decided to seek additional public comment regarding the
budget submittals and, on August 5, 1997, published a second notice of
proposed rulemaking to take comment on certain issues raised by
commentors on the October 3, 1996 notice of proposed rulemaking.
Specifically, EPA sought additional comment on the following issues:
Whether Colorado met the notice and public hearing requirements of the
Clean Air Act in adopting the PM10 emissions budget; whether Colorado
adequately considered growth in non-mobile sources in setting the
emissions budgets; and whether Colorado should have identified a
separate NOX budget in 1998 (the maintenance year) of 102.7
tons per day, to maintain consistency with the maintenance
demonstration. For a more complete description of EPA's request for
additional comments, please see EPA's August 5, 1997 notice of proposed
rulemaking at 62 FR 42088.
II. Response to Public Comments
In this notice, EPA is taking final action and addressing comments
relating to its October 3, 1996 and August 5, 1997 notices of proposed
rulemaking. Generally, EPA has addressed comments on each notice
separately. Where this is not the case, EPA has so indicated.
A. October 3, 1996 Proposal: The following numbered paragraphs
contain summaries of the comments received on the October 3, 1996
notice of proposed rulemaking. Each comment summary is followed by
EPA's response.
1. The PM10 budget that the Governor submitted on July 18, 1995
includes permanent budgets of 54 and 60 tons. However, the Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission's (AQCC) rule provided that these budgets
would expire in 1998. Since the legislature did not eliminate the 1998
expiration of these budgets, rulemaking by the AQCC would have been
required to eliminate the 1998 expiration. The AQCC did not conduct
such rulemaking, and therefore, the permanent 54 and 60 ton budgets
that the Governor submitted are without authority and the notice and
hearing requirements of the CAA were not met.
This commentor augmented his comments on this point in response to
EPA's August 5, 1997 notice, as follows: The legislature did not even
mention, and therefore did not change or delete, the sunset language
contained in section C.4. of the AQCC's budget rule. Nor does S.B. 95-
110 specify what the text of the rule shall be or repeal or limit the
Commission's authority to revise the emission budgets. Because neither
the legislature nor the AQCC legally amended section C.4. of the rule
submitted to EPA, section C.4. remains a part of the rule, and EPA must
approve all or none of the rule. Also, other entities at the State
level lack authority to submit part of the AQCC's rule and omit other
parts. Only the AQCC or the legislature, following proper notice and
hearing procedures, had this authority.
EPA Response: Contrary to the commentor's assertion, EPA believes
the Colorado legislature, through its passage of Colorado S.B. 95-110,
did eliminate the 1998 expiration (or sunset) of the 54 and 60 ton
budgets. In EPA's view, the legislature specifically eliminated the
reversion to a 44 ton budget from the SIP revision and designated the
60 ton budget as the budget that would apply in the future for purposes
of federal transportation conformity. For example, the language of S.B.
95-110 reads as follows:
``The revisions to the Denver element of the PM10 State
Implementation Plan adopted by the Commission on February 16, 1995,
which contain a sixty tons-per-day PM10 mobile source emissions
budget which expires January 1, 1998, and reverts to a forty-four
tons-per-day budget, are amended to provide that such forty-four
tons-per-day reversion shall not be a part of the state
implementation plan * * * The sixty tons-per-day emissions budget
shall, unless modified by the Commission through rule-making, apply
for federal transportation conformity and is included in the State
Implementation Plan only as required by the federal Act.''
This language makes clear that the legislature intended that there
would be no reversion to a budget of 44 tons per day. Given this, the
commentor's reading appears to be inconsistent with the legislative
intent because such reading would result in the expiration of the 54
and 60 ton budgets on January 1, 1998 and their replacement with the 44
ton budget.
In addition, the legislature was explicit that the 60 ton budget
should apply for the purposes of federal transportation conformity. The
commentor reads this directive out of the legislation by focusing (in
his comments on both of EPA's notices) on the second clause of the
statute, which states ``and is included in the State Implementation
Plan only as required by the federal Act.'' The commentor
[[Page 15296]]
interprets this to mean that the legislature left it to the AQCC to
determine whether a budget was necessary to meet Clean Air Act
requirements.
Concluding that no budget is required to meet nonattainment area
SIP requirements, the commentor concludes that the legislature would
not have wanted the budget in the SIP. However, EPA believes the better
reading is that the legislature was indicating that the budget would be
part of the SIP as necessary for it to be used for federal
transportation conformity purposes, and that the legislature was not
leaving it to the AQCC to decide whether the budget was required by the
CAA. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the legislature used the
present tense--the 60 ton budget ``is included in the State
Implementation Plan * * * '' (emphasis added.) Under EPA's conformity
rule, the budget may not be used unless it is part of a submitted SIP.
In this sense, there is a mandate in EPA's rule that the budget be part
of the SIP prior to use for conformity purposes, and it is reasonable
to read Colorado S.B. 95-110 as mandating the use of the 60 ton budget.
EPA does not believe the legislature had to specify new rule
language in order to amend the SIP. The State legislature does not
adopt rules, and thus, there was no need for the legislature to specify
replacement rule language. It is also irrelevant that the legislature
did not repeal or limit the AQCC's authority to revise the emission
budgets. The legislature was indicating that the 60 ton budget would
apply unless modified by the AQCC through rulemaking at some future
date. The legislature was not providing that the 60 ton budget would
only apply if endorsed by the AQCC through rulemaking.
Comments submitted by the Colorado Attorney General's Office
support EPA's reading of the legislation. See February 13, 1997 letter
signed by Frank Johnson. EPA believes it is reasonable to accord the
interpretation of the Attorney General's Office some deference given
that it is State legislation and not federal law that is at issue.
Although section 25-7-124(1) provides that the AQCC is the
regulatory entity under Colorado law with authority to adopt SIP
revisions, EPA believes the legislature retains the authority to adopt
SIP revisions in a given instance. That is what the legislature did
through the passage of S.B. 95-110.
2. Submission of the 54 and 60 ton budgets violates State law
because State law prohibits submission to EPA of measures not required
by the CAA. Specifically, C.R.S. sections 25-7-105(1)(a)(III) and 25-7-
105.1(1) prohibit the submission of rules or requirements not required
by the federal act. Motor vehicle emission budgets are not required by
the CAA and therefore, the 54 and 60 ton budgets were not lawfully
submitted to EPA.
EPA Response: As a preliminary matter, EPA is not convinced that it
should or can take cognizance of the State's compliance or lack thereof
with C.R.S. section 25-7-105.1(1). It is well-established in case law
under the CAA that EPA must approve a SIP submission if it meets the
minimum requirements of section 110 and other relevant sections of the
CAA and does not otherwise conflict with the CAA. See, e.g., Union
Elec. Co. v. E.P.A., 96 S.Ct. 2518 (1976). Even if the State should not
have submitted the 54 and 60 ton budgets to EPA under State law,
nothing in C.R.S. section 25-7-105.1(1) suggests that the State will be
unable to implement or enforce the budgets. Thus, there is no apparent
conflict with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E) of the
CAA. To the extent C.R.S. section 25-7-105.1(1) purports to restrict
what constitutes part of the federally enforceable approved SIP, EPA
believes the State legislature lacks the authority to amend the
relevant sections of the CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act with
respect to SIP approval. The burden is on the State to comply with
C.R.S. section 25-7-105.1(1), and EPA should not be forced to assume
that burden. See Union Elec. Co. v. E.P.A., 96 S.Ct. 2518, 2528-2529
(1976). If the commentor believed the State violated C.R.S. section 25-
7-105.1(1), EPA believes the commentor's recourse would have been to
challenge the State's submission of the budgets in State court. It is
not EPA's role to assure compliance with this State law.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, EPA believes the State legislature
issued a specific directive in this case that the 60 ton budget would
apply for purposes of conformity determinations. See EPA's response to
comment II.A.1., above. Thus, even if the commentor is correct that
these budgets were not otherwise required by the CAA and thus, normally
could not have been properly submitted by the State pursuant to C.R.S.
section 25-7-105.1(1), the legislature had the authority to disregard
its general restriction on submitting SIPs not required by the CAA (as
set forth in C.R.S. section 25-7-105.1(1)) and to adopt and require the
use of the 60 ton budget. In EPA's view, the legislature's specific
directive regarding the 60 ton budget overrides the more general
proscription contained in C.R.S. section 25-7-105.1(1).
3. The motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) does not provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. Specifically, the 60 ton budget will result in
NAAQS violations at numerous receptor areas unless emissions are
reduced in those receptor areas below the levels allowed by the 60 ton
regional budget. The regional budget should reflect the values
necessary to show attainment in areas where the 60 ton budget would
result in NAAQS violations. Also, values necessary to show attainment
for areas that would otherwise violate should be used to establish
subregional budgets for those areas. The CAA does not allow the
substitution of future dispersion modeling for the setting of
appropriate emissions budgets.
EPA Response: Contrary to the commentor's assertion, the 60 ton
budget already reflects the necessary emissions reductions to show
attainment in all of the receptor grids. This is described in the SIP
itself and the October 19, 1995 Kevin Briggs 1 memo that the
commentor provided with his comments. According to the Kevin Briggs
memo, the uncontrolled 2015 scenario would result in mobile source
emissions of 68 tons per day with NAAQS violations in a number of
grids. The State reduced emissions sufficiently in the violating grids
to model attainment in those grids. After making these reductions, the
State summed the emissions from all grids and arrived at a budget of 60
tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Briggs is a modeler in the Technical Services Program,
Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of responding to the comment, EPA will assume that the
commentor meant that the State had not adopted control measures in the
SIP that would achieve the 8-ton reduction (from 68 to 60 tons per day)
in the violating grids in 2015. The Act clearly requires adopted,
enforceable control measures as needed to support attainment and
maintenance demonstrations required by Part D of the Act. However, as
discussed in the preamble to the recently-adopted revisions to the
conformity rule (62 FR 43787, August 15, 1997), EPA believes that it
has the flexibility to approve budgets for years beyond the required
attainment or maintenance SIP for transportation conformity purposes
based on less rigorous demonstrations than are required for these SIPs.
In particular, EPA believes it has the authority to approve budgets for
years beyond the attainment or maintenance SIP based in
[[Page 15297]]
part on enforceable commitments in the SIP to adopt specific controls
in the future, or on commitments in the SIP to adopt offsetting
emission reductions in the future, as necessary to produce the required
emissions reductions.
In this case, the MVEB SIP goes beyond a simple commitment to adopt
any needed controls or reductions in the future, because the
requirement for dispersion modeling carries with it a mandate for
adoption of any future controls necessary to provide for attainment of
the NAAQS. DRCOG must achieve the adoption of or obtain enforceable
commitments for any control measures necessary to ensure that
dispersion modeling for each conformity determination shows no
violations of the NAAQS prior to making a conformity determination.
This approach to the adoption of controls has two advantages: First, it
is self-enforcing (if the dispersion modeling shows violations, DRCOG
cannot adopt transportation plans and TIPs); second, it requires a
reassessment of control strategies each time a conformity determination
is carried out, rather than a one-time effort to adopt controls in
advance which may later become obsolete due to changes in the location
or magnitude of emissions (and thus, modeled violations). EPA believes
that the SIP's requirement for dispersion modeling and future adoption
of necessary controls satisfactorily complies with the policy options
expressed at 62 FR 43787 for budgets for years beyond the attainment or
maintenance demonstration, and is approving this requirement and the 60
ton budget for Denver. EPA would not approve the 60 ton budget for
Denver without its companion modeling requirement and the associated
requirement for adoption of controls prior to each conformity
determination. It should also be noted that the State commits in the
SIP to adopt any control measures relied on for future conformity
determinations into the SIP if necessary to demonstrate continued
maintenance of the standard. See EPA's response at II.A.4., below.
The commentor is correct that the State did not establish
subregional budgets. However, EPA's regulations do not require that an
area establish subregional budgets. The preamble to EPA's November 24,
1993 conformity rule states, ``The SIP may specify emissions budgets
for subareas of the region, provided that the SIP includes a
demonstration that the subregional emissions budget, when combined with
all other portions of the emissions inventory, will result in
attainment and/or maintenance of the standard.'' 58 FR 62196 (emphasis
added.) This language makes clear that the establishment of subregional
budgets is optional.
Regarding the use of dispersion modeling, EPA agrees that the Act
precludes the use of dispersion modeling as a substitute for an
emissions budget test. However, EPA's conformity rule did not
anticipate situations where a regional dispersion modeling analysis
would be used in addition to an emissions budget test. EPA does not
believe that such an application of dispersion modeling is precluded by
either the Act or the conformity rule. As a practical matter,
dispersion modeling in conjunction with an emissions test is at least
as protective as establishing and using subregional budgets, because in
dispersion modeling a certain target level of emissions has to be met
in each grid in order for each grid to show attainment.2
Even if subregional budgets were adopted, it is quite likely that they
would not be developed for each grid. In such a case, it might be
possible to show conformity using subregional budgets in cases when it
would not be possible using dispersion modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In this case, the SIP requires that the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG) support each conformity determination
with a dispersion modeling analysis that shows that each grid in the
modeling domain will be in attainment, considering the emissions
expected from implementation of the transportation plan or
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). If the modeling analysis
shows that emissions reductions are needed in any locations in order
to provide for future maintenance of the NAAQS, it is incumbent upon
DRCOG to identify and ensure implementation of any measures needed
to provide those reductions. Thus, DRCOG must satisfy two tests to
demonstrate conformity: Compliance with the 60 ton budget, and a
dispersion modeling analysis showing no violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement for dispersion modeling in addition to a budget
test is certainly more protective of the NAAQS than the budget-only
process envisioned by the conformity rule. The conformity rule only
requires the identification of and compliance with a region-wide
budget. It is conceivable that an area could show conformity to a
region-wide budget and still have localized violations of the NAAQS
because growth in emissions occurs in different areas than anticipated.
In a dispersion modeling approach, these same localized violations of
the NAAQS would preclude a conformity finding.
In summary, the SIP's requirement for a region wide budget in
combination with dispersion modeling clearly meets the minimum
requirements of the conformity rule, and is at least as protective of
the NAAQS as subregional budgets would be.
This commentor also included comments indicating that the PM10 SIP
does not include necessary and/or enforceable control measures that
will lead to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. In particular,
the commentor indicated that VMT growth was higher than the SIP
anticipated and that the SIP contained no measures to ensure VMT would
remain at the SIP-anticipated levels. EPA responded to these comments
when it approved the PM10 SIP and will not repeat the comments or
responses here. See 62 FR 18716 (April 17, 1997). For purposes of this
notice, EPA would add that it does not believe Congress intended,
through section 176 of the CAA, to change the way in which States must
conduct attainment or maintenance demonstrations. As noted in the April
1997 notice, EPA believes that it may allow a reasonable margin of
error for VMT estimates in attainment and maintenance demonstrations,
and EPA concludes that no different result should be required for
purposes of establishing conformity-related motor vehicle emissions
budgets. It should also be noted that any increased VMT will have to be
taken into account in any future conformity determinations, and will
ultimately make it harder to demonstrate conformity.
4. The submitted MVEB unlawfully attempts to transfer authority to
adopt and implement control measures. The commentor objects to the 60
ton budget because the SIP gives DRCOG the responsibility for
identifying any necessary controls to achieve emission reductions
needed to demonstrate conformity. The commentor believes that this is a
delegation of responsibility from the AQCC to DRCOG, in violation of
the Act and State law. The commentor further states that any such
controls are without legal authority and may not be treated as part of
the SIP or be given emissions reduction credit for purposes of
conformity.
EPA Response: EPA's conformity rule envisions situations where
regulatory and non-regulatory control measures may be needed to provide
emissions reductions for a conformity determination. Here, the AQCC is
not delegating its authority to adopt control measures, only to
identify them. If any measures identified as necessary by DRCOG require
a State regulation in order to be implemented (for example, a revision
to the I/M or oxygenated fuels program regulations), the AQCC would
still need to adopt such regulation or regulation revision pursuant to
applicable State law, or meet one of the other requirements in 40 CFR
93.122(a)(3), before DRCOG could take
[[Page 15298]]
credit for these emissions reductions in its conformity determination.
However, the conformity rule does not require all regulatory
control measures needed for a conformity determination to be
incorporated into the SIP, as the commentor asserts. Also, not all
control measures for conformity purposes require a regulation in order
to be implemented, such as changes in localized street sanding and
sweeping practices. EPA is satisfied with DRCOG's current practice of
obtaining commitments from local entities to implement non-regulatory
control measures and incorporating these commitments into its
conformity determinations, just as it obtains commitments from local
entities to implement transportation improvement projects during the
time frame of the plan and TIP.
It is also worth noting that the SIP, at page XI-9, states, ``Any
control measure relied on for a conformity determination shall be
included in a revised attainment or maintenance SIP unless it is not
necessary to demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the standard.''
EPA views this as a commitment on the part of the State to adopt any
measures which are necessary to show continued attainment and
maintenance of the standard.
5. The mobile source emissions budgets will ensure that future
regional transportation plans and programs will continue to help the
region attain and maintain the PM10 standard. Additionally, the budgets
are entirely consistent with the conformity provisions of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 and EPA guidance.
EPA Response: EPA agrees that the budgets are consistent with the
CAA's conformity requirements.
6. Enforceable budgets that would have reduced emissions volumes in
the region were agreed to in February 1995, but the intercession by the
legislature reduced these to little more than a suggestion.
EPA Response: EPA agrees that the legislature changed the PM10
budgets. However, EPA believes the budgets are consistent with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's conformity rule, as described in more
detail above.
B. The Colorado Attorney General's Office submitted comments in a
letter dated February 13, 1997, signed by Frank Johnson, Assistant
Attorney General, that respond to several of the comments described in
Section II.A., above. The following numbered paragraphs contain
summaries of the relevant comments from Mr. Johnson's February 13, 1997
letter. Each comment summary is followed by EPA's response.
1. The Colorado legislature amended the SIP to eliminate the
reversion to a 44 ton PM10 budget and to specify a 60 ton PM10 budget.
The language of C.R.S. section 25-7-105(1)(a)(III) itself and the
legislative history of the statute indicate that the legislature
intended a 60 ton PM10 budget to apply for purposes of federal
conformity. Thus, no further rulemaking action by the AQCC was
necessary.
EPA Response: EPA agrees with this interpretation of C.R.S. section
25-7-105(1)(a)(III) and believes the interpretation is entitled to
deference.
2. The references to the 60 ton budget in C.R.S. section 25-7-
105(1)(a)(III) include the smaller emissions budgets for the years
before the 60 ton budget applies. The Colorado legislature used ``sixty
tons-per-day emissions budget'' as a shorthand to describe the interim
budgets that apply before 2006 and the 60 ton budget that applies in
2006 and after. The legislature eliminated the provision of the budgets
that contained the expiration of the higher budgets and reversion to 44
tons; the legislature did not intend to change the structure of interim
budgets leading to a 60 ton budget in 2006.
EPA Response: Although the statute could have been drafted more
clearly, EPA believes the interpretation of the Attorney General's
Office is reasonable and is entitled to deference. Therefore, EPA
concludes that the statute should be interpreted consistent with the
letter submitted by the Attorney General's Office.
3. No further rulemaking by the AQCC was necessary to eliminate the
expiration of the 60 ton budget. A contrary reading would lead to the
result that the 44 ton budget would apply starting in 1998 when the
legislature clearly did not want this to happen. The legislature made
clear that the 44 ton reversion would only apply for purposes of state
law.
EPA Response: EPA agrees with this interpretation and believes it
is entitled to deference.
4. No further public hearings by the AQCC were necessary following
the Colorado legislature's amendment of the budgets. In addition, no
notice and hearing were required before the legislature itself. The
adoption of the SIP by the AQCC in February 1995 and the amendment of
the SIP by the legislature in May 1995 were steps in the process of
developing a single SIP revision. Nothing in EPA's rules requires
additional hearings at subsequent steps in the state review process. In
addition, the legislative process is open and public and the
legislators are accountable to the electorate.
EPA Response: EPA responds to these comments in Section II.C.,
below.
5. State statutes do not prohibit the submission of the 60 ton
budget for inclusion in the SIP. Other commentors' reading of C.R.S.
section 25-7-105(1)(a)(III) is not consistent with legislative intent.
When the Colorado legislature said the 60 ton budget ``is included in
the SIP only as required by the federal act'', the legislature meant
that the budget is included in the SIP only as required in order for
such emissions budget to apply for the purposes of transportation
conformity. Commentors' reading would negate the 60 ton budget and
result in the application of the 44 ton budget, something the
legislature clearly did not intend. The argument that C.R.S. section
25-7-105.1 prohibits the inclusion of the 60 ton budget in the SIP
because it is not required by the CAA or EPA regulations also fails.
The specific provisions of 25-7-105(1)(a)(III), that indicate the 60
ton budget will apply for federal transportation conformity, control
over the more general provisions of 25-7-105.1.
EPA Response: See EPA's response to comment II.A.2 above. In
addition, EPA believes the interpretation of the Attorney General's
Office is entitled to deference on this question of State law.
C. August 5, 1997 Notice: Procedural Issues. Comments on the
October 3, 1996 notice of proposed rulemaking raised concerns about the
process the State followed in adopting the PM10 budget. EPA sought
additional comment on the question whether the State met the CAA's
notice and public hearing requirements in adopting the PM10 budget. The
following numbered paragraphs contain summaries of the comments
received on the August 5, 1997 notice of proposed rulemaking that are
related to the notice and public hearing issue. EPA's response follows
the last comment summary related to this issue.
1. Hearings held by the AQCC were adequate to satisfy the CAA's
notice and hearing requirements. The hearings before the AQCC and the
subsequent action by the General Assembly should be viewed as a single
process that led to the adoption of the PM10 budgets SIP. There was no
requirement to hold additional hearings before the General Assembly.
The General Assembly was well aware there were parties opposed to the
adoption of the 60 tons-per-day emission budget.
2. The legislative process is open and public and the legislators
are
[[Page 15299]]
accountable to the electorate. The General Assembly provided an
opportunity for public input through a public hearing before a
committee of reference and public debate on the floor of each house.
Environmental groups were actively involved in the debate. In addition,
the public was on notice that the PM10 budgets SIP would be subject to
review by the legislature as provided by section 25-7-133(1), C.R.S.
Therefore, the legislative session itself complied with the notice and
hearing requirements for adoption of the SIP.
3. There was no need for the AQCC to hold a public hearing to
confirm actions taken by the General Assembly.
4. The adequacy of the legislative process with regard to
satisfying the public hearing requirement of section 110 of the CAA and
40 CFR 51.102 is irrelevant. The legislature, when it passed S.B. 95-
110, left discretion with the AQCC to determine the appropriate budget
to submit to EPA. (EPA describes and responds to this comment on this
issue in Sections II. A. and B., above, and will not respond further in
this section.)
5. If EPA decides that the legislature mandated the PM10 budget as
submitted, the legislature did not satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.102 for notice and hearing. In addition, notice and hearing granted
by the AQCC did not satisfy the requirement for notice and hearing
before the legislature.
EPA Response: It has been particularly difficult for EPA to reach a
decision on this issue. EPA takes very seriously the CAA's notice and
public hearing requirements and believes that legitimate questions have
been raised regarding the process the State followed in adopting the
PM10 budget SIP. On balance, however, EPA agrees with the commentors
who asserted that notice and public hearing before the AQCC in February
1995 satisfied the notice and hearing requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations. 3 Although the General Assembly reached a
different result than the AQCC, relevant issues regarding the
appropriate size and applicability of the PM10 budgets were aired in
the hearing before the AQCC, and the budgets the General Assembly
ultimately adopted appear to be a logical outgrowth of the hearing
before the AQCC. As noted by one of the commentors, following the
AQCC's February 1995 hearing, the AQCC could have adopted the same
budgets the General Assembly ultimately adopted. Therefore, EPA
concludes that the budget established in the SIP was the result of
adequate notice and hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These notice and public hearing requirements can be found in
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2), and 40
CFR 51.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In finding that notice and public hearing were adequate in this
case, EPA wants to make two points. First, EPA is finding that the
process the State followed satisfied the minimum requirements for
notice and public hearing for purposes of Clean Air Act requirements
and EPA regulations; EPA is not making a finding that the State process
was ideal or should necessarily serve as a model for future actions.
Second, EPA wants to make it clear that legislative amendment of AQCC
rulemaking may not always satisfy the CAA's notice and hearing
requirements. EPA believes the legislative action must bear some
logical relationship to the notice and public hearing previously
concluded before the rulemaking agency, or the notice and public
hearing requirement must be satisfied by the legislature itself or by
subsequent administrative action.
As a prudential matter, EPA would recommend that the State take
steps to optimize public participation so that this type of issue does
not arise in the future. For example, although more than one commentor
suggested the General Assembly was aware of opposition to the 60 ton
budget, none of the commentors indicated whether the General Assembly
or relevant committees thereof actually considered the testimony and
evidence presented to the AQCC; EPA believes it would be prudent to
insure that they do so in the future.
EPA does not agree with those commentors who assert that the
legislative action standing alone met EPA's notice and public hearing
requirements. EPA's regulations are quite specific in their
requirements. Among other things, 30 days prior notice is required. See
40 CFR 51.102. No commentor has suggested that the legislature or one
of its committees complied with this requirement. Also, EPA does not
agree with the commentor who asserts that C.R.S. section 25-7-133(1)
satisfied the CAA's notice requirements, in particular since prior to
the General Assembly's adoption of the PM10 budget SIP, this statute
only provided for the General Assembly to accept or reject a SIP
revision adopted by the AQCC, rather than alter the budget SIP as was
done in this case.
Because EPA concludes that the CAA's notice and hearing
requirements were met in this case, EPA agrees with the commentors who
asserted there was no need for the AQCC to hold an additional hearing
after the General Assembly had acted. However, it is conceivable that
further notice and hearing before the AQCC would have been one way for
the State to satisfy EPA's notice and public hearing requirements if
the February 1995 AQCC hearing had not been sufficient for this
purpose. Another way would have been for the General Assembly itself to
comply with EPA's notice and hearing requirements.
Regarding one commentor's assertion that notice and hearing
requirements were met because environmental groups were actively
involved in the debate regarding the PM10 budgets SIP within the
General Assembly, EPA was unable to substantiate this claim through any
materials submitted by commentors or through independent research.
However, EPA's research revealed that several other parties, including
the AQCC's hearing officer for this SIP, did provide testimony before
the Legislative Council and/or a committee of reference.
D. August 5, 1997 Notice: Substantive Issues. EPA received comments
on its October 3, 1996 notice of proposed rulemaking that raised
concerns regarding the adequacy of the emissions budgets. Based on
these comments, EPA concluded that it needed additional input from
commentors in order to make an informed decision. Thus, in its August
5, 1997 notice, EPA sought additional comment regarding the following
two issues: (1) Whether it was appropriate for the budget SIP to
include a single NOX budget from the 1995 attainment
demonstration of 119.4 tons per day when the maintenance demonstration
NOX emissions inventory was 102.7 tons per day, and (2)
whether potential growth in non-mobile sources was adequately
considered in setting the emissions budgets for years beyond the PM10
SIP attainment and maintenance years. The numbered paragraphs below
contain summaries of the comments received on these issues. For each
issue, EPA's response follows the last comment summary for the
particular issue. EPA has noted where the comment summary includes
comments on the October 3, 1996 notice.
Issue 1: Whether it was appropriate for the budget SIP to include a
single NOX budget of 119.4 tons per day when the maintenance
demonstration NOX emissions inventory was 102.7 tons per
day.
Comment Summaries
1. EPA's analysis of this issue in its August 5, 1997 notice was
correct. The NOX emissions budget of 119.4 tons per day is
consistent with the available safety margin, and therefore need not
conform to the inventory in the maintenance demonstration.
[[Page 15300]]
2. The analysis of the 60 ton PM10 budget assumed NOX
emissions of 119.4 tons per day. This analysis showed that the area
would continue to attain the standard with these emissions values.
Thus, the maintenance year emissions of NOX are irrelevant.
3. Under EPA's conformity rule, projections of emissions in an
attainment SIP beyond the attainment year are not considered emissions
budgets unless the SIP explicitly states such an intent. The SIP states
no such intent.
4. EPA should consider the fact that the Denver area has not
violated the PM10 standard in nearly five years and the highest
recorded value in 1996 was well below the standard. Also, EPA's
promulgation of a new standard for PM10 may soon render these budget
and conformity issues moot.
5. Contrary to EPA's analysis in its August 5, 1997 notice, the
NOX mobile source emissions budget is based on motor vehicle
emission estimates in the Denver PM10 SIP, and not a margin of safety.
The AQCC did not adopt a margin of safety analysis in the SIP which is
why the analysis was not submitted by the State as part of the SIP
submission. The NOX budget submitted by the State offers no
basis for the rationale offered by EPA in its August 5, 1997 notice.
The conformity rule provides that transportation agencies may not infer
additions to budgets not explicitly intended by the SIP; the same rule
must apply to EPA. The SIP must quantify the amount by which motor
vehicle emissions could be higher while still allowing a demonstration
of maintenance and must specifically indicate that the excess emissions
are to be allocated to the MPO for transportation conformity purposes.
The SIP did not meet either of these requirements. In fact, in the
maintenance year there are no excess emissions to allocate. The RAQC
staff's analysis, which EPA cites in its August 5, 1997 notice, does
not consider emissions from all sources and does not require that
emissions be distributed to all grid receptors. The maintenance
demonstration approved by the AQCC and submitted as part of the PM10
SIP that EPA has approved shows that motor vehicle NOX
emissions must be no higher than 102.7 tons in order to demonstrate
maintenance. The RAQC staff's analysis shows that more emissions could
be added in portions of the Metro area not yet developed, but it
provides no basis for concluding that more emissions can safely be
added where vehicle travel is currently occurring. Since the SIP does
not restrict emissions to the undeveloped portions of the Metro area,
there is no basis to conclude there are excess emissions to be
allocated and there is no basis to rely on the RAQC staff's analysis.
Adding 17 additional tons of NOX in the developed portions
of the Metro area in the maintenance year would cause estimated
concentrations to exceed the NAAQS. In addition, the RAQC staff's
analysis was never officially adopted by anyone. We reiterate comments
made on the October 3, 1996 proposal that EPA approve the 119.4 ton per
day budget as the applicable budget only for analyses performed up to
the attainment year, and that EPA clarify that the applicable budget
after the attainment year is the NOX estimate contained in
the maintenance demonstration portion of the approved SIP.
This same commentor also indicated in comments on EPA's October 3,
1996 notice of proposed rulemaking that the use of a 119.4 tons per day
NOX emission budget for years after the attainment year
would not be consistent with the obligation to set an emission budget
consistent with the demonstration of maintenance. In those comments,
the commentor cited to the preamble statement in EPA's November 24,
1993 conformity rule that, ``[i]n all situations, the emissions budget
in the SIP must be consistent with the attainment or maintenance
demonstration * * *'' Because the 119.4 ton budget is not consistent
with the 102.7 ton inventory in the maintenance year, the commentor
argued that the appropriate NOX budget would be 119.4 tons
per day NOX up to the attainment year, but would be 102.7
tons per day NOX beyond the attainment year. EPA Response:
In its August 5, 1997 supplemental notice, EPA proposed approval of the
PM10 and NOX budgets for Denver based in part on the safety
margin analysis conducted by the RAQC. This analysis sought to
demonstrate that mobile source emissions in the Denver modeling region
could be as high as 221 tons per day of PM10 before violations of the
NAAQS would occur. After reviewing all of the comments and carefully
considering the requirements of the conformity rule and the Act, EPA
has determined that it can no longer endorse the RAQC's suggested
approach for defining a safety margin.
The conformity rule, as amended on August 15, 1997, defines safety
margin as the amount by which the total projected emissions from all
sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that
would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable further
progress, attainment or maintenance of the relevant air quality
standard. For example, many maintenance plans include maintenance year
emission inventories which are lower than the attainment year
inventory. The difference between these two levels of emissions could
be considered a margin of safety. Some attainment SIPs are submitted
with modeled attainment values which are somewhat below the standard;
the difference in emissions between the SIP level and the level that
would just provide for attainment of the standard could be considered a
safety margin.
However, the RAQC's analysis is based on maximizing emissions in
all grids in the modeling domain, and as such is more of a ``carrying
capacity'' analysis. It bears no relation to the attainment or
maintenance year emission inventory; emissions in all portions of the
modeling domain were increased to levels equivalent to downtown Denver,
including remote rural regions, even though activity levels in the
remote grids in the attainment or maintenance year were not high enough
to create such emissions levels. The RAQC's approach to establishing a
safety margin would appear to conflict with the requirements of section
176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA.
It would have been more appropriate to calculate a safety margin
for Denver by determining the difference in emissions between the
modeled 1995 attainment value (147.7 ug/m3) and the standard of 150 ug/
m3, by proportionally increasing the 1995 inventory used in the
modeling until the standard had been reached. A safety margin
calculated in this way would likely only amount to a few tons per day.
However, the RAQC did not calculate its safety margin this way, and EPA
has decided it cannot rely on the RAQC's analysis for purposes of this
action, nor is EPA generally endorsing this approach for the
establishment of safety margins in other nonattainment or maintenance
areas. Thus, EPA is not relying on the RAQC's safety margin analysis to
justify approval of the 119.4 tons per day NOX budget.
In addition, EPA finds unconvincing the argument that 1998
projections of NOX emissions would not be a budget for
conformity purposes unless the SIP states explicitly states such an
intent. The conformity rule is clear that approved attainment and
maintenance demonstrations and any required milestone demonstrations
establish budgets which must be used for conformity until superseded by
subsequent approved SIPs for those same years. In this case, the PM10
SIP's 1998 maintenance demonstration was
[[Page 15301]]
required by section 189(c) of the CAA; i.e., it was a required
milestone. EPA notes that the State did establish a 1998 PM10 budget,
and that 1998 PM10 budgets have been established for other PM10
nonattainment areas within the State of Colorado. Also, EPA does not
agree with the approach of establishing a budget for one precursor of
PM10 for any given year, but not all of them. Since the PM10 and
NOX inventories work in tandem as part of the attainment and
maintenance demonstrations in Denver, it does not make technical sense
to regulate one pollutant through conformity but not the other. The
conformity rule is clear that these inventories are to be treated as
budgets for purposes of conformity; a state may not evade this
requirement by merely declaring an intent that a required attainment,
maintenance or milestone inventory for a pollutant or pollutant
precursor is not to be considered a budget. The conformity rule
language cited by the commentors in asserting that the 1998
NOX budget is not to serve as a budget refers to optional
projections of emissions in SIPs that are not otherwise required by the
Act or EPA SIP policy. In this case, both PM10 and NOX motor
vehicle emissions inventories were required as part of the maintenance/
milestone demonstration in the PM10 SIP.
However, EPA notes that the NOX budget of 119.4 tons per
day from the 1995 attainment demonstration was used in the modeling
analysis which the APCD used in adopting the 60 ton PM10 budget. EPA
also notes that projected NOX emissions from the
transportation plan and TIP (not to exceed the adopted budget of 119.4
tons per day) are required to be used in the dispersion modeling
conducted for each conformity determination. Therefore, since the
budgets and their associated dispersion modeling requirement will
provide for maintenance of the NAAQS, as discussed in section II. A.
3., above, EPA is also approving the 119.4 tons per day NOX
budget for all future years. EPA views the latest submission which
relied on this analysis as setting the valid budget for this period for
transportation conformity purposes, which is today approved into the
SIP.
Finally, as noted by one commentor, EPA promulgated a revised PM10
NAAQS on July 18, 1997. (See 62 FR 38652.) Specifically, the form of
the NAAQS was revised in a way that makes the standard less stringent
overall. As a result of the promulgation of the new PM10 NAAQS, EPA may
in the near future revoke the old PM10 NAAQS for Denver. However, EPA
has not yet decided whether conformity requirements will continue to
apply to areas for which the old PM10 NAAQS has been revoked and for
which no new nonattainment designation has been made. Furthermore, the
old PM10 NAAQS has not yet been revoked for Denver. Therefore, the
budgets are not moot, and the mere possibility that the new NAAQS may
render the budgets moot is not relevant to EPA's decision to approve
the budgets. Also, the fact that the area has been attaining the PM10
NAAQS, while providing an extra measure of comfort regarding the
attainment and maintenance/milestone demonstrations in the PM10 SIP,
does not by itself provide an adequate technical basis for EPA to
approve the budgets.
Issue 2: Whether potential growth in non-mobile sources was
adequately considered in setting the emissions budgets for years beyond
the PM10 SIP attainment and maintenance years.
Comment Summaries
1. As EPA noted in its August 5, 1997 notice, the conformity rule
does not require consideration of growth in non-mobile sources each
time a conformity determination is made. EPA's analysis in its August
5, 1997 notice is consistent with the application of conformity
requirements in nonattainment areas throughout the country. Further,
the conformity rule does not require the mobile source sector to offset
projected growth in emissions from non-mobile sources.
2. No growth in non-mobile sources is expected over the next 20
years. Thus, growth in non-mobile sources is a non-issue. This
commentor submitted data to support this assertion.
EPA Response: In addition to the comments received above, the
preamble to EPA's August 15, 1997 amended conformity rule is relevant
to this question and EPA has considered the preamble language in
addressing this issue.
In conducting the modeling that led to the establishment of the 60
ton budget, APCD held all non-mobile sources (and mobile source
NOX) constant at 1995 levels. There was concern that the 60
ton budget would not provide for attainment if non-mobile source
emissions were to increase in future years.
Normally, EPA would not approve a budget that had been established
without considering growth in all source categories. The Act and EPA
policy are clear that attainment and maintenance SIPs must consider
growth in all sources in demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, and the conformity rule's budget test relies on the fact that
SIP budgets do consider growth in all sources to ensure that
transportation plans, programs and projects will not cause or
contribute to violations of the NAAQS. The preamble to EPA's August 15,
1997 conformity rule establishes that growth in non-mobile sources must
be considered in setting motor vehicle emission budgets for years
beyond the attainment or maintenance demonstration (62 FR 43787-
43788).4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A number of commentors indicated that the conformity rule
does not require consideration of growth in non-mobile sources for
conformity determinations. This is accurate but should be
distinguished from the initial setting of motor vehicle emission
budgets in SIPs. The preamble to EPA's August 15, 1997 conformity
rule is clear that growth in non-mobile sources must be considered
in setting ``out-year'' budgets. 62 FR 43787-43788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in response to EPA's request for public comment, the RAQC
submitted documentation indicating there will be no growth in non-
mobile sources at any time in the near future. The RAQC has been
working since 1995 on development of a long-range air quality plan
known as the Blueprint for Clean Air for PM10 and two other pollutants.
As part of this plan, long-term projections of emissions from all
source categories have been developed by the RAQC and the State Air
Pollution Control Division. The information submitted to the docket for
this rulemaking by the RAQC demonstrates that non-mobile sources will
remain below 1995 levels through at least the year 2020, and will be
approximately 5 percent below 1995 levels in 2020.
Since it does not appear that there will be any growth in non-
mobile sources in the Denver area over the time period for which the
budgets were analyzed, EPA is approving the MVEB even though growth in
these sources was not assessed for purposes of developing and adopting
the MVEB.
In its August 5, 1997 supplemental notice, EPA proposed to approve
the budgets in part based on a safety margin analysis prepared by the
RAQC. In its analysis, EPA noted that the calculated safety margin of
221 tons per day of PM10 in 2015 was developed assuming 2015 levels of
non-mobile source emissions; i.e., growth, or lack thereof, in non-
mobile source emissions had been factored into the calculation of the
so-called safety margin. As described above, EPA no longer believes the
RAQC characterization of safety margin is consistent with the CAA or
the conformity rules. Therefore, EPA is not relying on the RAQC safety
margin analysis in approving the budgets.
[[Page 15302]]
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the Denver PM10 and NOX mobile source
emissions budget SIP revisions submitted by the Governor of Colorado on
July 18, 1995 and April 22, 1996 respectively as revisions to the
Colorado SIP. The revisions were submitted in order that they could be
used to assess the conformity of transportation plans, transportation
improvement programs and, where appropriate, federally funded projects
for applicable periods prescribed under conformity requirements within
the Denver PM10 nonattainment area.
The current and future year mobile source emissions budgets that
comprise part of these SIP revisions are as follows:
PM10: 54 tons per day, for analysis years 1998-2005
60 tons per day, for analysis years 2006 and beyond
NOX: 119.4 tons per day, for analysis years 1998 and
beyond
These budgets are applicable to the PM10 SIP modeling domain.
For these pollutants, these budgets supersede any prior budgets for
the Denver PM10 nonattainment area for the same time frames. The
metropolitan planning organization for the Denver PM10 nonattainment
area will have to demonstrate conformity to these budgets within 18
months of EPA's approval of these budget SIPs, in accordance with 40
CFR 93.104(e)(3).
It should be noted that, in addition to the budgets themselves, the
SIP revisions that EPA is approving today contain other provisions that
must be followed in making transportation conformity determinations
within the Denver PM10 nonattainment area. These provisions include,
but are not necessarily limited to, descriptions of relevant inventory
categories, definitions of applicability, and requirements related to
dispersion modeling.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
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 impose any new requirements, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, 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).
C. 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
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, result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 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 publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E. 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 June 1, 1998. 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 26, 1998.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
40 CFR part 52 is 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 paragraphs (c)(84) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(84) The Governor of Colorado submitted the Denver PM10 mobile
source emissions budget State Implementation Plan (SIP) with a letter
dated July 18, 1995. The Governor submitted the Denver NOX
mobile source emissions budget State Implementation Plan (SIP) with a
letter dated April 22, 1996. The PM10 and NOX mobile source
emissions budgets and other provisions in these SIP
[[Page 15303]]
submittals are used to assess conformity of transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and transportation projects.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' regulation 5CCR 1001-14, Section A.1. Budgets for the
Denver Nonattainment Area (Modeling Domain) PM10, Sections A.2. and
A.3., and Sections B and C, adopted on February 16, 1995, effective
April 30, 1995, as amended by the Colorado General Assembly through
enactment of Colorado Senate Bill 95-110, which Bill was enacted on May
5, 1995 and signed by the Governor of Colorado on May 31, 1995. (See
paragraph (c)(84)(i)(B) of this section).
(B) Colo. Rev. Stat. section 25-7-105(1)(a)(III), enacted by the
Colorado General Assembly on May 5, 1995 as part of Colorado Senate
Bill 95-110 and signed by the Governor of Colorado on May 31, 1995.
(C) Colorado Air Quality Control Commission ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' regulation 5CCR 1001-14, Section A.1. Budgets for the
Denver Nonattainment Area (Modeling Domain) Nitrogen Oxides, as adopted
June 15, 1995, effective August 30, 1995.
[FR Doc. 98-8214 Filed 3-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
