[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53370-53378]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18878]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0016; FRL-9950-37-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance, Clean
Screen Program and the Low Emitter Index, On-Board Diagnostics, and
Associated Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of three State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted
by the State of Colorado. The revisions involve amendments to
Colorado's Regulation Number 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program.'' The revisions address the implementation of the Low Emitter
Index component of Regulation No. 11's Clean Screen Program, the
implementation of the On-Board Diagnostics component of Regulation No.
11, and several other associated revisions. The EPA is proposing
approval of these SIP revisions in accordance with the requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 12,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2016-0016 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-
6479<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2007 Revisions to the Low
Emitter Index, Part A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A
V. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2012 Revisions to the On-Board
Diagnostics Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions Test Exemption, the
Gas Cap Retest, Part A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and Part G
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2013 Revisions to Part A, Part
C, Appendix A, and Appendix B
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
IX. Proposed Action
X. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

    What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email.
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 the 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 volume,
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     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; and,
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    In this action, the EPA is proposing approval of SIP revisions to
Regulation No. 11 contained in three submittals from Colorado. The
State's submittals were dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013, and March
3, 2014. Much of the content of the revisions involved minor updates to
several sections of Regulation No. 11 and deletion of obsolete
language. The following background discussion involves those revisions
of greater significance:

a.) Colorado's 2007 Revisions to Regulation No. 11 for the
Implementation of the Low Emitter Index (LEI) Portion of the Clean
Screen Program Contained in Regulation No. 11

    Colorado's Regulation No. 11 (hereafter ``Reg. No. 11'') addresses
the implementation of the State's motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. The I/M program consists of an ``enhanced''
component that utilizes a dynamometer-based EPA IM240 test for 1982 and
newer light-duty gasoline vehicles \1\ and a two-speed idle test (TSI)
\2\ for 1981 and older light-duty gasoline vehicles. To improve
motorist convenience and reduce program implementation costs, the State
also administers a remote sensing-based ``Clean Screen'' program
component of the I/M program. Remote sensing is a method for measuring
vehicle emissions, while simultaneously photographing the license
plate, when a vehicle passes through infrared or ultraviolet beams of
light. Owners of vehicles meeting the Clean Screen criteria are
notified by the County Clerk that their vehicles have passed the motor
vehicle inspection process and are exempt from their next regularly
scheduled IM240 test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete description of
EPA's IM240 test. The IM240 test is essentially an enhanced motor
vehicle emissions test to measure mass tailpipe emissions while the
vehicle follows a computer generated driving cycle trace for 240
seconds and while the vehicle is on a dynamometer.
    \2\ See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete description of
EPA's two-speed idle test. The two-speed idle test essentially
measures the mass tailpipe emissions of a stationary vehicle; one
reading is at a normal idle of approximately 700 to 800 engine
revolutions per minute (RPM) and one reading at 2,500 RPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clean Screen program component of Colorado's Reg. No. 11 was
originally approved, for implementation in the Metro-Denver area, with
the EPA's approval of the original Denver carbon monoxide (CO)
redesignation to attainment and the maintenance plan (see: 66 FR 64751,
December 14, 2001). The Clean Screen criteria that was approved in 2001
by the EPA (see: 66 FR 64751, December 14, 2001) required two valid
passing remote sensing readings on different days or from different
sensors, that met the applicable emissions reading requirements in Part
F of Reg. No. 11, within a twelve-month period in order to clean-screen
a vehicle.
    Colorado revised Reg. No. 11 to expand the definition and
requirements for a ``clean-screened vehicle'' to also include vehicles
identified as low emitting vehicles in the state-determined Low
Emitting Index (LEI) which have one passing remote sensing reading,
prior to the vehicle's registration renewal date. As part of the LEI
process, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division (hereinafter, the ``Division'')
develops an LEI on or before July 1st of each year. The LEI is based on
a tabulation of the previous calendar year's IM240 inspection program
results for specific make, model, and model year vehicles that passed
IM240 vehicle inspections the previous year at a minimum rate of a 98%.
    By a letter dated June 11, 2008, the Governor of Colorado submitted
the above 2007 Reg. No. 11 LEI revisions and other minor revisions
involving changes/additions to the definitions in Reg. No. 11and the
addition of Attachment 1 to the Technical Specifications in Appendix A.
These SIP revisions are discussed in further detail below in section
IV.

b.) Colorado's 2012 Revisions to Regulation No. 11 for the
Implementation of the On-Board Diagnostics Test Requirements Contained
in Regulation No. 11 and the Seven Model Year I/M Test Exemption

    As noted above, Colorado's Reg. No. 11 addresses the implementation
of a motor vehicle I/M program that consists of a an ``enhanced''
component IM240 test for 1982 and newer light-duty vehicles and a TSI
test for 1981 and older light-duty gas vehicles. In addition, and
beginning in January 2015, Colorado also began implementing an On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) test for certain model year vehicles. An OBD I/M test
essentially means the electronic retrieval, by connecting to the
computer port data link connector (DLC) in the vehicle with an OBD test
analyzer, of information from a vehicle's computer system. The
electronic information retrieved addresses items such as stored
readiness status, diagnostic trouble codes (DTC), malfunction indicator
light (MIL) illumination and other data from a vehicle's OBD system.
Electronically interrogating a vehicle's OBD system allows for the
determination of whether any emission related DTCs are present and if
the MIL is commanded on. Should these aspects of an OBD test be
present, that would indicate the existence of an emissions related
malfunction with the vehicle being tested.
    In addition, Colorado also extended the Reg. No. 11 exemption from
I/M testing for new vehicles from four years to seven years. This
revision was based on Colorado's gathering of emissions testing
information over a period of several years which demonstrated that
historically new and newer vehicles typically did not fail the IM240 or
OBD emissions test within the first seven years of the vehicle's life.
    By a letter dated March 15, 2013, the Governor of Colorado
submitted the above 2012 Reg. No. 11 OBD test requirements, the seven
year test exemption, and other minor revisions. These SIP revisions are
discussed in further detail below in section V.

c.) Colorado's 2013 Revisions to Regulation No. 11, Appendix A,
Incorporation by Reference of Technical Materials, the Addition of New
Technical Information/Requirements, and Minor Revisions to Appendix B

    Colorado further revised Reg. No. 11 by updating Appendix A and
Appendix B to remove text and incorporate by reference certain
Attachments to Appendix A, to add new language to Appendix A, and to
add new language and remove obsolete language in Appendix B.
    Appendix A was revised to remove the text of three technical
document attachments and to note that the documents are available at
CDPHE's Emissions Technical Center Procedures Manual. The technical
documents are incorporated by reference into Reg. No. 11. Appendix A.
The technical documents that are incorporated by

reference into Reg. No. 11 are: Attachment I ``PDF 1000 Scanner,''
Attachment II ``Thermal Transfer Printer,'' and Attachment III
``Colorado Automobile Dealers Transient Mode Test Analyzer System.''
Appendix A was also revised by adding Attachment V ``Specifications for
Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Stand-Alone Analyzer.''
    Appendix B, which is entitled ``Standards and Specifications for
Calibration/Span Gas Suppliers,'' was revised with updated language in
Section 1 ``Definitions,'' Section 2 ``Basic & Enhanced Idle Air
Program/Technical Requirements,'' Section 3, ``Calibration/Span Gas
Approval & Labeling,'' Section 4 ``Cylinder Tracking & Recall,''
Section 5 ``Enhanced IM & IG 240 Air Program/Technical Requirements,''
Section 6 ``Colorado Approval Process,'' and Section 7 ``Blender
Facility Requirements & Documentation.'' Obsolete language was also
removed from Appendix B.
    By a letter dated March 3, 2014, the Governor of Colorado submitted
the above 2013 Reg. No. 11 revisions to Appendix A and Appendix B.
These SIP revisions are discussed in further detail below in section
VI.

III. What was the State's process?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that a state provide
reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and
submitting it to us.

a.) The State's June 11, 2008 SIP Submittal

    On June 21, 2007 the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC)
conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of revisions and
additions to the Colorado SIP. The revisions affecting the SIP involved
Reg. No. 11, the Clean Screen sections of Reg. No. 11, the LEI portion
of the Clean Screen program, and associated revisions. After reviewing
written comments, dated April 17, 2007, received from Rocky Mountain
Clean Air Action and after conducting a public hearing, the AQCC
adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on June 21, 2007. The SIP
revisions became State effective on August 30, 2007.
    We evaluated the State's June 11, 2008 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of
the SIP and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By a letter dated October 14, 2008, we advised James B. Martin,
Executive Director of the CDPHE, that the SIP revisions submittal was
deemed to have met the minimum ``completeness'' criteria found in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.

b.) The State's March 15, 2013 SIP Submittal

    On December 20, 2012, the AQCC conducted a public hearing to
consider the adoption of revisions and additions to the Colorado SIP.
The revisions affecting the SIP involved Reg. No. 11, the OBD program,
the seven model year exemption from I/M testing, and associated
revisions. After reviewing one supportive email written comment, dated
December 16, 2012, received from Bob Armott and after conducting a
public hearing, the AQCC adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11
on December 20, 2012. The SIP revisions became State effective on
February 15, 2013.
    We evaluated the State's March 15, 2013 submittal for Reg. No. 11
of the SIP and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
State's March 15, 2013 submittal was deemed complete on September 15,
2013.

c.) The State's March 3, 2014 SIP Submittal

    On November 21, 2013, the AQCC conducted a public hearing to
consider the adoption of revisions and additions to the Colorado SIP.
The revisions affecting the SIP included updating Appendix A and
Appendix B to Reg. No. 11 to remove text, incorporate by reference
certain Attachments to Appendix A, to add new language to Appendix A,
and to add new language and remove obsolete language in Appendix B.
After conducting a public hearing, which did not have any public
comments, the AQCC adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on
November 21, 2013. The SIP revisions became State effective on December
30, 2013.
    We evaluated the State's March 3, 2014 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of
the SIP and determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. By operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the
State's March 3, 2014 submittal was deemed complete on September 3,
2014.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2007 Revisions to the Low Emitter
Index, Part A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A

a.) Evaluation of the Clean Screen Program and LEI Component

    We approved the Clean Screen program component of Colorado's Reg.
No. 11, for implementation in the Metro-Denver area with our approval
of the original Denver carbon monoxide (CO) redesignation to attainment
and the associated maintenance plan (see: 66 FR 64751, December 14,
2001). Additional discussion of the Clean Screen program was provided
in our August 22, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 44097). In evaluating the
Clean Screen program for the maintenance plan, the State used EPA's
MOBILE5b motor vehicle emissions calculation model and the MOBILE
model's remote sensing program credit utility dated 1996 \3\ and
revised in 1998.\4\ Further discussion is also provided in the State's
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2001 CO redesignation to
attainment, which is part of the EPA's final rule hard copy docket, and
is also available from the State on-line at: http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=open&file=codenfnl.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``User Guide and Description For Interim Remote Sensing
Program Utility,'' EPA/AA/AMD/EIG/96-01, dated September, 1996.
    \4\ ``Program User Guide for Interim Vehicle Clean Screening
Credit Utility,'' Draft Report, EPA420-P-98-007, dated May, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we approved on December 14,
2001, the State used the above tools and other data to evaluate the
Clean Screen program for its implementation in the Metro-Denver area.
Based on this evaluation and the review of information for the
additional implementation of a Clean Screen program in Fort Collins
(located in Larimer County, Colorado) and Greeley (located in Weld
County, Colorado), the state concluded there would be an approximate 4%
disbenefit for CO emissions and a 7% disbenefit for hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions if it was assumed that 35% of the eligible vehicles were
clean-screened.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Revised Final Economic Impact Analysis for Inspection and
Maintenance per C.R.S. 25-7-110.5(4)(I), Cost Effectiveness Economic
Impact Analysis, 2/1/99.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the version of Reg. No. 11 that the EPA approved on
December 14, 2001 included the Clean Screen criteria which required an
eligible vehicle for inspection to have at least two consecutive
passing remote sensing emissions readings performed on different days,
or at different approved Clean Screen inspection sites, prior to its
registration renewal date.
    With the 2007 Reg. No. 11 revisions, the AQCC adopted modifications
as proposed by the Division that expanded the Clean Screen criteria to
also include vehicles with one passing remote sensing reading prior to
its registration

date and that the vehicle is identified as a low emitter on the LEI. To
address the LEI criteria of this revised Clean Screen process, the
Division develops a low emitting vehicle index on or before July 1st of
each year based on a tabulation of the previous calendar year's IM240
inspection program results for specified make, model and model year
vehicles. This LEI is comprised of specific make, model and model year
vehicles that passed IM240 vehicle inspections the previous year at a
minimum of a 98% rate. However, in developing the LEI, the Division may
use passing criteria greater than 98% if necessary to ensure that the
use of the LEI is equivalent or better than the use of a second remote
sensing measurement in terms of air quality benefits. This process is
more fully detailed in the CPDHE May, 2007 document entitled
``Development and Evaluation of Colorado's Low Emitter Index.''
    To assess the State's Clean Screen program and its LEI component,
the EPA reviewed the available CDPHE Clean Screen annual reports for
2009,\6\ 2011,\7\ 2012,\8\ and 2013.\9\ The annual reports detailed the
overall effectiveness of the Clean Screen program and also contained
the results of the random 2% sampling for the LEI component. This
sampling procedure involved retaining 2% of the vehicles which had been
shown to pass one measurement with RSD equipment and been on the LEI
index, and then requiring them to take an IM240 test for comparison.
The data, including fleet coverage and emissions reduction retention,
are presented below in Tables 1 and 2:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2009,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, July,
2010.
    \7\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2011,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
November, 2012.
    \8\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2012,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
December, 2013.
    \9\ ``The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January-December,
2013,'' Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
September, 2014.

                          Table 1--Total Vehicles Inspected and Vehicles Clean-Screened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percent of
                                                                                Vehicles that  total vehicles
                   Year of clean screen report                    Total vehicles    were clean-      that were
                                                                     inspected       screened     clean-screened
                                                                                (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................................         899,646         199,344            22.0
2011............................................................       1,156,949         246,768            21.3
2012............................................................       1,150,562         248,224            21.6
2013............................................................       1,184,875         233,760            19.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Table 2--Estimated Clean Screen Disbenefit--Based on Retained Emission Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Retained HC     Retained CO    Retained NOX*
                   Year of clean screen report                       emission        emission        emission
                                                                  reductions (%)  reductions (%)  reductions (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009............................................................            94.6            98.1            92.9
2011............................................................            96.1            98.1            97.3
2012............................................................            94.8            97.1            93.9
2013............................................................            97.3            96.7            97.6
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Average Clean Screen Disbenefit.................................             4.3             2.5             4.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Nitrogen Oxides.

    The data from the State's Clean Screen reports, as excerpted and
presented in the above tables, demonstrate that the disbenefit from the
Clean Screen program and its LEI component continue to be within the
original estimates from the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we approved on
December 14, 2001. Although those original 2001 disbenefit estimates
(4% for CO, 7% for HC, and assuming 35% clean-screened vehicles) were
prepared with then current tools, the Clean Screen program and LEI
component continue to perform within those estimates. Also, from the
above four years of Clean Screen annual reports that we evaluated, the
State's Reg. No. 11 revisions original estimate of 35% of the fleet
being clean-screened has not been achieved. Based on the four
referenced Clean Screen reports, we note that 22% or less of the
eligible vehicles have been clean-screened. Therefore, the actual
emission reduction disbenefit has been less than predicted, as more
vehicles have then been required to go through the IM240 test.

b.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That Were Revised With the State's June
11, 2008 Submittal Were as Follows:

    1.) Part A, section II: Modify definition number 15 ``Clean
Screened Vehicle'' to reflect the addition of the LEI; modify
definition number 17 ``Colorado '4'' to clarify the use of the BAR 90
test analyzer systems for use after 1994; and add a new definition
``Low Emitting Vehicle Index.'' Renumber definitions number 18 and
higher.
    2.) Part C, section XII: Modify section XIIA.3 regarding the
requirements and procedures to clean screen an eligible vehicle and add
section XIIE.4 regarding low emitting vehicles and the LEI.
    3.) Part F, section VI: Renumber section VI.B as VI.C; add new
section VI.B.1 which requires the development of the LEI each year; add
new section VI.B.2 which establishes the 98% minimum passing criteria
for the LEI; and add new section VI.B.3 which allows the Division to
use a greater than 98% passing criteria if needed to equate to a second
RSD reading.
    4.) Appendix A, Technical Specifications, Attachment 1: Sections

of Attachment 1 of the Technical Specifications contain the
specifications for the PDF 1000 Scanner; some sections were unreadable
and a full, retyped PDF 1000 Scanner section was provided.
    5.) Appendix A, Technical Specifications, Attachment 2: Sections of
Attachment 2 of the Technical Specifications contain the specifications
for the Thermal Transfer Printer; some sections were unreadable and a
full, retyped Thermal Transfer Printer section was provided.
    The EPA notes that Part F, section III.A.2 of Reg. No. 11 was also
provided with the State's June 11, 2008 submittal. This section
contains IM240 test light duty vehicle emissions cutpoints for 1996 and
newer vehicles (all in grams per mile). The CO, HC, and NOX
entries for calendar year 2006 are incorrect as the State had
previously provided an August 8, 2006 SIP revision submittal to remove
these 2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 0.6, CO 10.0, and NOX 1.5).
The EPA approved the removal of these 2006 cutpoints on December 20,
2012 (77 FR 75388).

V. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2012 Revisions to the On-Board
Diagnostics Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions Test Exemption, the
Gas Cap Retest, Part A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and Part G

a.) Evaluation of the OBD Test Provisions

    As we noted above, beginning in January 2015, Colorado began
implementing an OBD test for certain model year vehicles. An OBD I/M
test essentially means the electronic retrieval, by connecting to the
computer port DLC in the vehicle with an OBD test analyzer, of
information from a vehicle's computer system addressing items such as
stored readiness status, DTCs, MIL illumination and other information
from a vehicle's OBD system. Electronically interrogating a vehicle's
OBD system allows for the determination if any emission related DTCs
are present and if the MIL is commanded on. Should these aspects of an
OBD test be present, that would indicate the existence of an emissions
related malfunction with the vehicle being tested. More detailed
information on OBD I/M testing is found in 40 CFR 85, Subpart W and at
the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web site at:
http://www3.epa.gov/obd/regtech/inspection.htm. In addition, further
information is provided in the EPA's OBD rulemaking actions of April 5,
2001 (66 FR 18156), December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75403), and the EPA's
document addressing performing OBD system checks as part of an I/M
program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Performing Onboard Diagnostic System Checks as Part of a
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program,'' EPA-420-R-01-015,
dated June, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the OBD information in the State's
Administrative documentation with its March 15, 2013 submittal, the OBD
I/M test procedures contained in the Reg. No. 11 revisions to Part A,
Part B, Part C, and Part F, all as detailed further below, and has
concluded these revisions meet the requirements of 40 CFR 85, Subpart W
for OBD I/M testing and the above cited EPA final rules.
    We note the Colorado OBD test provisions that were adopted in 2012
are applicable to a portion of the vehicles that are subject to an I/M
test. The Reg. No. 11 revisions of 2012 also increased the new vehicle
model year exemption from four to seven years, required OBD testing for
the next four years (two inspection cycles for the 8th through 11th
years), and required I/M 240 testing to commence with the third
inspection cycle. In addition, the Reg. No. 11 revisions of 2012
allowed OBD testing for OBD equipped vehicles that were otherwise hard
to test with the IM240 procedures (for example, too short of a
wheelbase for the dynamometer treadmills, vehicles with very large or
small wheel/tire combinations, and certain all-wheel-drive vehicles
with very sensitive traction control systems), eliminated the visual
inspection for 1996 and newer vehicles (because of OBD testing), and
required a full emissions retest for vehicles initially failing the gas
cap test. The 2012 Reg. No. 11 revisions retained other aspects of the
I/M program including the use of Clean Screen technology to clean
screen vehicles and annual TSI testing for 1981 and older vehicles.
    In consideration of the OBD testing component of the I/M program
and the extension from four years to seven years to exempt new vehicles
from I/M testing (discussed further below), the State prepared an
estimated emissions benefit for the implementation of both the OBD
testing and extended test exemption for seven years. This estimated
emissions benefit information is contained in the Administrative
Documentation, that is part of the State's March 15, 2013 SIP
submittal, and is provided in the section entitled ``SIP Emission
Reduction Equivalency Demonstration.'' The information notes that the
Division conducted modeling of the 2012 revisions using the then
current I/M program, as implemented in the seven Metro-Denver counties
area, and the new program (OBD plus the seven-year testing exemption)
as fully implemented in 2017. The year 2017 was selected as that would
reflect the full completion of a two-year OBD inspection cycle on
applicable vehicles. The Division's results are provided below in Table
3:

                Table 3--Seven County Metro-Denver Area I/M Program Estimated Reductions in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              TGH *                      NOX                       CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current I/M Program...............  6.008 tpd **............  4.849 tpd...............  68.843 tpd.
Revised I/M Program...............  6.052...................  5.004...................  64.916.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons.
**tons per day (tpd).

    As shown in Table 3 above, implementation of the Reg. No. 11
provisions of the OBD component and the seven-year exemption from I/M
testing were estimated to result in a small increase in CO emissions
and a slight reduction in ozone precursor emissions (NOX and
TGH).
    The EPA has evaluated this negligible increase in estimated CO
emissions and has concluded it will not have a detrimental effect on
the most recently-approved revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan (72
FR 46148, August 17, 2007).\11\ Our evaluation considered the
negligible increase in CO emissions of four tpd to the CO mobile
sources emission inventory data in the Metro-

Denver maintenance plan for the projected 2015 mobile source CO
emissions of 1,416 tpd and the maintenance plan's final maintenance
year of 2021 projected mobile source CO emissions of 1,372.10 tpd. The
four tpd emissions would be 0.28% of the 2015 CO mobile source
emissions and 0.29% of the 2021 CO mobile source emissions. In
addition, we also reviewed state-certified and EPA-reviewed ambient CO
air quality monitoring data that are located in the EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS) database. We reviewed data from 2007 through 2015. We did
not find any exceedances or violations of the CO National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the Metro-Denver CO maintenance
area continues to demonstrate maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions,'' 72
FR 46148, dated August 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do note that the slight reduction in ozone precursor emissions
of NOX and TGH will be beneficial as the Metro-Denver/North
Front Range (NFR) 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area continues
to work towards attainment of that NAAQS. Additional information
regarding the Metro Denver/NFR ozone nonattainment area and its status
can be found in the EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS proposed SIP Requirements
rule (80 FR 51992, August 27, 2015) \12\ and final rule (81 FR 26697,
May 4, 2016).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several
Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' 80 FR 51992, dated August 27, 2015.
    \13\ ``Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Several
Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' 81 FR 26697, dated May 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.) Evaluation of the Extension of the I/M Test Exemption From Four to
Seven Years

    Included with the March 15, 2013 Reg. No. 11 SIP revision submittal
were revised provisions to increase the I/M test exemption for newer
vehicles from the EPA-approved four-year exemption to seven years.
Additional information and rationale were provided by the Division in
the ``Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 11 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Detailed Issue Statement'' which was part of the SIP
submittal's Administrative Documentation.
    The Division's AQCC issue statement noted that the revision to Reg.
No. 11, to increase new vehicle model year exemptions from four years
to seven years, was allowed by Colorado law which authorizes the AQCC
to extend the duration for which new vehicles are exempt from I/M
testing; 42-4-310(1)(a)(II)(C) and 42-4-306(8)(b), Colorado Revised
Statute (C.R.S.)
    The Division noted that the revision to extend the new vehicle
model year exemption results in an overall cost savings and increased
convenience to the public for tests not performed. In addition, the
Division stated that the population of vehicles in this age group, and
their vehicle miles traveled, are relatively high; however, since they
are relatively new vehicles, their emissions are lower than those of
older vehicles.
    The Division concluded that increasing the duration of the new
vehicle exemption increases emissions from the entire fleet. However,
the EPA notes that with this particular revision to Reg. No. 11, the
State simultaneously included revisions to Reg. No. 11 to initiate OBD
testing requirements for applicable vehicles. As discussed above and as
presented in Table 3 above, the net result of the implementation of
both the seven-year extended exemption for I/M test and OBD testing
showed a negligible increase of CO emissions and a slight decrease in
NOX and TGH emissions. Based on our above analysis of the
Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan and relevant ambient CO air quality
monitoring data, the EPA finds that the increase in the new vehicle
seven-year I/M test exemption will not have an adverse effect on the
approved revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan (72 FR 46148, August
17, 2007). We also find that the emissions from the revised seven-year
I/M test exemption are offset by the additional reduction in ozone
precursor emissions of NOX and TGH realized through the
State's implementation of OBD testing that covers the Metro-Denver/NFR
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area.

c.) Gas Cap Full Retest Clarification and Other Minor Non-Substantive
Revisions

    There was a clarification to the gas cap test requirements and
several other minor revisions included with the March 15, 2013 Reg. No.
11 SIP revision submittal.
    The state revised Reg. No. 11 to clarify that, in accordance with
federal law, a full I/M retest is required after a test failure due to
the lack of a gas cap or a faulty gas cap. The EPA notes that missing
or malfunctioning gas caps automatically cause a test failure and
require replacement of the cap and then a full emissions retest. The
full retest is necessary because the gas cap seals and pressurizes the
entire fuel evaporative emissions control system. If other components
of the evaporative system are functional, there will be no effect on
tailpipe emissions; however, if other elements of the evaporative
system are faulty replacing a faulty or missing gas cap can trigger a
tailpipe emissions failure. In addition, the inclusion or replacement
of a malfunctioning gas cap will reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from a vehicle's fuel tank. This is a beneficial as
VOCs are a precursor emission to the formation of ground level ozone.
    The Reg. No. 11 revisions also include several `housekeeping' items
including: Correcting typographical and grammatical errors; deleting
obsolete language and implementation dates; removing titles and text
that were inadvertently left unchanged from prior Reg. No. 11 changes;
and renumbering and recodifications according to adopted language
additions and deletions.

d.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That Were Revised With the State's
March 15, 2013 Submittal Were as Follows:

    1.) Part A, section I: Minor wording changes to add new language
and remove obsolete language in sections I.B, I.C.3, I.C.3.a, I.C.3.b,
I.C.3.c, I.C.4, I.C.7, I.C.7.c, I.C.8, and I.C.9.b.
    Part A, section II: A new definition number 20 was added entitled
``Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Test Analyzer System;'' a new
definition number 22 was added entitled ``Diagnostic Trouble Code
(DTC);'' and, definitions number 23 to 43 were renumbered. A new
definition number 44 was added and entitled ``On-Board Diagnostics II
(OBD or OBDII) Test'' and definitions numbered 45 to 52 were
renumbered.
    Part A, section IV: Section IV. D was removed which involved
obsolete language and section IV.E was renumbered IV.D and also had
obsolete language removed.
    2.) Part B, section IX: Section IX was added and is entitled
``Approval of the Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Test Analyzer
System. Also, Part B, section X was added and is entitled ``The
Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Test Analyzer System.''
    3.) Part C, title: The title was modified by adding ``On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD).''
    Part C, section I.C.3: This involved minor language changes to
clarify data transmission and analyzer requirements.
    Part C, section II.A: This section was renumbered from II.A through
II.F to instead become II.A.1 through II.A.11. Minor clarification
language was added along with revised references to sections in Part C.
    Part C, section II.G: This section was renumbered to II.B and
clarifying

language was added regarding OBD testing. Sections II.G.1 through
II.G.6 were renumbered II.B.1 through II.B.6. Section II.B.4 had
clarifying language added regarding applicable vehicles that were
unable to be tested with the IM240 test would then be OBD tested.
    Part C, section II.C: A new section II.C (II.C 1 through II.C.9)
was added which specifies which vehicles are to be OBD tested and the
requirements and testing procedures for an OBD test.
    Part C, section III.A: This section had clarifying language added
and sections III.B and III.C were removed as they addressed the model
year 1996 and newer visual inspection procedures. The remaining
applicable portions of section III.C were then renumbered III.B.
Sections III.D and III.E were renumbered to III.C and III.D.
    Part C, section IV: A new section IV was added which addressed the
requirements for applicable vehicles (1996 through those vehicles that
had reached their 11th model year of age) to be evaluated with and OBD
test.
    Part C, prior section IV: The existing section IV was renumbered
section V and also modified with clarifying language regarding the
requirement for a full retest of vehicles which previously had a
missing or malfunctioning gas cap.
    Part C, section VIII.A.2: A new section VIII.A.2 was added which
states that vehicles in their model years seven through 10 need to meet
the OBD passing criteria in Part F, section VII. Sections VIII.A.2
through VIII.A.4 were renumbered VIII.A.3 through VIII.A.5.
    Part C, sections VIII.B.1, VIII.B.2, and VIII.B.3: These sections
had minor wording changes and deletion of obsolete language.
    Part C, sections VIII.D.A through VIII.D.E: These sections were
renumbered VIII.D.1 through VIII.D.5.
    Part C, sections IX.G and X.A: These sections had minor clarifying
language added.
    4.) Part F, section V: This section was entitled ``Visible Smoke.''
    Part F, section VII: A new section VII was added (sections VII.A
through VII.F) which stated the required OBD diagnostic inspection test
passing criteria.
    5.) Part G: This part had previously contained obsolete high-
emitting vehicle identification pilot project language which was
removed and Part G was retitled ``Reserved.''

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the State's 2013 Revisions to Part A, Part C,
Appendix A, and Appendix B

    In 2013, the AQCC adopted several minor changes to Reg. No. 11.
These revisions were subsequently submitted to the EPA on March 3,
2014. The sections of Reg. No. 11 that were revised with the State's
March 3, 2014 submittal were as follows:
    a.) Part A, section I.C.3.c: This section was revised to clarify
that the seven year new vehicle exemption, which excused vehicles from
an I/M test for seven years and was previously adopted by the AQCC in
December 2012, would take effect on January 1, 2015. Also, this
exemption would apply retroactively to existing vehicles in their
fourth, fifth, and sixth years of service.
    b.) Part A, sections I.C.8, I.C.9, and I.C.10: These sections were
revised to clarify ambiguous, contradictory and obsolete Reg. No. 11
language concerning the issuance of and duration periods for
``Verification of Emissions Test'' exemption windshield stickers issued
by motor vehicle dealers. Part A, section I.C.8 was further clarified
to note that vehicles in their fourth, fifth, and sixth years of
service would have the seven year exemption applied retroactively.
    c.) Part A, section I.C.3 and Part C, sections III and IV: These
sections were revised to clarify that the seven-year new vehicle
exemption from I/M testing, OBD testing requirements and procedures,
and other changes made to Reg. No. 11 by the AQCC in December 2012,
would go into effect January 1, 2015. In addition, the I/M visual
inspection procedures for 1996 and newer vehicles would be retained
through December 2014.
    d.) Part C, section C VIII.B.3: This section was revised to codify
in Reg. No. 11 the vehicle emissions repair cost waiver amount of $715.
The AQCC has previously directed the Division to change the amount from
$450 to $715 in November 2002, which was done. However, at that time,
the AQCC had declined to note the changed repair amount in the text of
Reg. No. 11.
    e.) Part C, section VIII.D.4: This section was revised regarding
the qualifying criteria for an economic hardship waiver for a vehicle
failing its emissions test. Section VIII.D.4 was further revised to
allow the economic hardship waiver to apply to households owning two
vehicles rather than restricting hardship waivers to households owning
only one vehicle.
    f.) Appendix A of Reg. No. 11 was revised as follows:
    1.) Appendix A was revised to remove the text of three technical
document attachments and to note that the documents are available at
CDPHE's Emissions Technical Center Procedures Manual. The technical
documents are incorporated by reference into Reg. No. 11. Appendix A.
The technical documents that are incorporated by reference into Reg.
No. 11 are: Attachment I ``PDF 1000 Scanner,'' Attachment II ``Thermal
Transfer Printer,'' and Attachment III ``Colorado Automobile Dealers
Transient Mode Test Analyzer System.''
    2.) Updated Attachment IV, entitled ``Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment Specification for Colorado 97 Analyzer,'' to
reflect technological changes to data specifications, communications
protocols, and forms generation.
    3.) Included a new Attachment V ``Test Analyzer Specification for
On-board Diagnostics'' for licensed fleets who self-inspect their own
vehicles. Note: Part B section X required this Test Analyzer
Specification to be in place by December 31, 2013.
    g.) Appendix B of Reg. No. 11 was revised as follows:
    1.) Attachment II; the ``Calibration Span Gas'' labels were updated
to reflect the current version of the State-official labels.
    h.) Overall revised formatting and other non-substantive changes
were made throughout Reg. No. 11.

VII. Conclusion

    Our review of the State's Reg. No. 11 revisions, as presented above
in sections IV, V, and VI, involved: 1.) The Low Emitter Index (LEI)
and Clean Screen program components, 2.) The On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)
I/M testing program component, 3.) The seven model-year exemption from
I/M testing provisions, 4.) The requirement for a full I/M retest after
the replacement of a missing or malfunctioning gas cap, 5.) New
definitions, clarification language, and removal of obsolete language,
6.) Numerous revisions to Reg. No. 11 Parts A, B, C, F, G, Appendix A,
and Appendix B, and 7.) Overall formatting, correction of typographic
errors and other non-substantive changes. Based on our review and
evaluation discussion presented above, we have determined that the Reg.
No. 11 SIP revisions, submitted by the State in letters dated June 11,
2008, March 15, 2013 and March 3, 2014 sufficiently address applicable
provisions in 40 CFR 51, Subpart S, 40 CFR 85, Subpart W, and
applicable EPA guidance for I/M programs and that our approval is
warranted.

VIII. Consideration of Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act

    Section 110(1) 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 only portions
of the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we described above which we believe
require further consideration with regard to section 110(l) of the CAA
are the revisions to the Clean Screen program to add the LEI component
and the seven-year I/M test exemption.
    For the LEI component of the Clean Screen program, we noted above
that with our December 14, 2001 approval the Metro-Denver CO
maintenance plan and implementation of the Clean Screen program as
adopted at that time, the State concluded there would be an approximate
4% disbenefit for CO emissions and a 7% disbenefit for HC emissions if
it was assumed that 35% of the eligible vehicles were clean-screened.
Our further evaluation of the LEI component of the Clean Screen
program, as discussed above in section IV, involved the review of the
State's Clean Screen annual reports for 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The
annual reports detailed the overall effectiveness of the Clean Screen
program and also contained the results of the random 2% sampling for
the LEI component. The data from the State's Clean Screen reports
demonstrate that the disbenefit from the Clean Screen program,
including its LEI component, continue to be within the original
estimates from the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we approved on December
14, 2001. Although those original 2001 disbenefit estimates (4% for CO,
7% for HC, and 35% vehicles being clean-screened) were prepared with
then current tools, the Clean Screen program and LEI component continue
to perform within those estimates. Also, from the above four years of
Clean Screen annual reports that we evaluated, the State's Reg. No. 11
revisions original estimate of 35% of the fleet being clean-screened
has not be been achieved. Based on the four referenced Clean Screen
reports, we note that 22% or less of the eligible vehicles have been
clean-screened. Therefore, the actual emissions reduction disbenefit
has been less than predicted as more vehicles have then been required
to go through the IM240 test.
    With regard to the seven-year new vehicle exemption from I/M
testing, as explained above in section V, we noted that with the
implementation of the Reg. No. 11 provisions of the combination of the
OBD testing component and the seven-year exemption from I/M testing
there was estimated to be a small increase in CO emissions and a minor
reduction in ozone precursor emissions (NOX and TGH). As
noted above, the EPA evaluated this small increase in estimated CO
emissions and has concluded it will not have a detrimental effect on
the approved revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan (72 FR 46148,
August 17, 2007). Our evaluation considered the negligible increase in
CO emissions of approximately four tons per day as compared to the CO
mobile sources emission inventory data in the Metro-Denver CO
maintenance plan. As we noted above, the maintenance plan's estimated
2015 mobile source CO emissions are 1,416 tpd and the estimated 2021
(last year of the maintenance plan) mobile source CO emissions are
1,372.10 tpd. Therefore, the four tpd increase would be 0.28% of the
2015 mobile source CO emissions and the 0.29% of the 2021 mobile source
CO emissions. We also reviewed available state-certified and EPA-
reviewed ambient CO air quality monitoring data from the EPA's AQS
database from 2007 through 2015. These data show no exceedance or
violation of the CO NAAQS. We further noted that the minor increase in
reductions of ozone precursor emissions of NOX and TGH will
be beneficial as the Metro-Denver/NFR 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area continues to work towards attainment of that NAAQS.
    With respect to other NAAQS that have the potential to be affected
by our proposed approval of the above Reg. No. 11 revisions, we note
that the Metro-Denver area is designated ``unclassifiable/attainment''
for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS \14\ and the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS \15\ (see: 40 CFR 81.306). We reviewed available
state-certified and EPA-reviewed ambient air quality monitoring data
for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, and the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Our review involved EPA's AQS database and
relevant data from 2007 through 2015. The data demonstrate continued
attainment of the 1-hour NO2 and PM2.5 annual and
24-hour NAAQS in the Metro-Denver area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 1-hour NO2 NAAQS: 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010.
    \15\ PM2.5 NAAQS: Annual NAAQS (78 FR 3086, January
15, 2013); 2006 24-hour NAAQS (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the above, we have determined the revisions to Reg.
No. 11 contained in all three SIP revision submittals involving the
language changes necessary to implement the LEI and Clean Screen
program components, the OBD I/M testing program component, the seven
model-year exemption from I/M testing provisions, the requirement for a
full I/M retest after the replacement of a missing or malfunctioning
gas cap, new definitions, clarification language, removal of obsolete
language, numerous minor revisions to Parts A, B, C, F, G, Appendix A
and Appendix B of Reg. No. 11, overall formatting, correction of
typographic errors and other non-substantive changes do not affect
emissions and therefore do not have CAA section 110(l) implications.
    In view of the above, the EPA proposes to find that the revisions
to Colorado's Reg. No. 11 that are contained in the State's SIP
submittals dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013 and March 3, 2014 will
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA.

IX. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing approval of the June 11, 2008 submitted SIP
revisions to Colorado's Regulation Number 11, Part A, Part C, Part F,
and Appendix A. The EPA notes that Part F, section III.A.2 was also
provided with the State's June 11, 2008 submittal. This section
contains IM240 test light duty vehicle emissions cutpoints for 1996 and
newer vehicles (all in grams per mile). The CO, HC, and NOX
entries for calendar year 2006 are incorrect as the State had
previously provided an August 8, 2006 SIP revision submittal to remove
these 2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 0.6, CO 10.0, and NOX 1.5).
EPA approved the removal of these 2006 cutpoints on December 20, 2012
(77 FR 75388).
    In addition, the EPA is proposing approval of the March 15, 2013
submitted SIP revisions to Regulation Number 11, Part A, Part B, Part
C, Part F, and Part G. Finally, the EPA is proposing approval of the
March 3, 2014 submitted SIP revisions to Regulation Number 11, Part A,
Part C, Appendix A, and Appendix B.

X. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation Number 11
as discussed in section IX of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section of this preamble for more information).

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations [42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)]. Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 26, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-18878 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 4, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-99-5743

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of   United Parcel Service Co.   filed   12/3/04  to:

XX Renew exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following
service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between any
point or points in the United States, and any intermediate point or
points, and any point or points in Japan, and any point or points beyond
Japan.  UPS requests the right to integrate such authority with its
other existing certificate and exemption authority to provide foreign
air transportation.  UPS states that the requested authority will be
used solely in conjunction with a code-share agreement between UPS and
Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd.

No answers were filed to this application.

Applicant rep:   David L. Vaughan<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  January 4, 2005, through
January 4, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the 1998 Memorandum of
Understanding between the United States and Japan.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

(See Reverse Side)

2

Conditions:  (a) The route integration authority granted is subject to
the condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (i) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon UPS rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or
beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited
unless UPS notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights); (ii) should there be a request by any carrier
to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in UPS’
authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but
that are not then being used by UPS, the holding of such authority by
route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for
UPS in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which
carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

(b) The authority granted to operate via intermediate points and beyond
Japan to third countries shall be limited to blind-sector operations
only.

(c) The authority granted to operate to third countries is limited to
countries with which the United States has signed open-skies agreements
and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to serve under
certificates or exemptions issued by the Department, and for which it
holds route integration authority by virtue of either the present action
or other action by the Department.

(d) The authority granted is limited to code-share operations with
Nippon Cargo Airlines on flights operated by Nippon Cargo Airlines.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

(1) the action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the
exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3)
grant of the authority would not constitute a “major regulatory
action” under the Energy, Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.  To the
extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We
may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any
time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

									Attachment

U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations, and with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, including, but not limited to 49 CFR
Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign
airport, contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI)
to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the
Transportation Security Administration has determined that security is
adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

									05/2004


Placeholder:  Confidential Business Information item

California Strawberry Commission CUE application for 2007

For more information please contact Marta Montoro by phone at
202-343-9321 or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>