[Federal Register: August 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 159)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46148-46157]
[DOCID:fr17au07-9]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0465; FRL-8453-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Revised Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado.
On September 25, 2006, the Governor's designee submitted revised carbon
monoxide (CO) maintenance plans for the Denver metropolitan and
Longmont areas for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). These revised maintenance plans address maintenance of the CO
standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation, extends the
horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets.
In addition, Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program,'' and Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels Program,'' are
removed from Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. EPA
is approving Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans, and
the revised transportation conformity budgets. In addition, EPA is also
approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from
Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 16, 2007 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 17,
2007. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-0465, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie A. Videtich, Director, Air and
Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-0465. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
/

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov
 your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g. CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation

Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air and Radiation
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, phone (303) 312-
6493, and e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. What is the purpose of this action?
III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Denver's and Longmont's Revised CO
Maintenance Plans
V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements
VI. EPA's Evaluation of Regulation No. 11 Revisions
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Regulation No. 13 Revisions
VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
IX. Final Action
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to
certain words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials NAAQS mean National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
    (iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (v) The word State means the State of Colorado, unless the
context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the purpose of this action?

    In this action, we are approving revised maintenance plans for the
Denver and Longmont CO attainment/maintenance areas, that are designed
to keep the areas in attainment for CO for a second ten-year period
beyond redesignation. In addition, we are approving revised
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs), and
the removal of Regulation No. 11, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program,'' and Regulation No. 13, ``Oxygenated Fuels Program,'' from
Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans.
    We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Denver area on December 14, 2001 (see 66 FR
64751), and a revised CO maintenance plan for the Denver area on
September 16, 2004 (see 69 FR 55752). The State has made the following
changes: (1) Revised and updated the mobile source CO emissions with
MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11, the
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and Regulation No. 13, the
oxygenated fuels program; (2) updated the transportation projections
and stationary source inventories; (3) revised the MVEBs including
applying a selected amount of the available safety margin to the
transportation conformity MVEBs; and, (4) extended the horizon

year to 2021. We have determined that these changes are approvable as
further described below.
    We approved the original CO redesignation to attainment and
maintenance plan for the Longmont area on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR
51694), and a revised CO maintenance plan for the Longmont area on
September 30, 2004 (see 69 FR 58264). The State has made the following
changes: (1) Revised and updated the mobile source CO emissions with
MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of the I/M and oxygenated fuels
programs; (2) updated the transportation projections and stationary
source inventories; (3) revised the MVEBs including applying a selected
amount of the available safety margin to the transportation conformity
MVEBs; and, (4) extended the horizon year to 2020. We have determined
that these changes are approvable as further described below.

III. What is the State's process to submit these materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of
revisions to a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA requires States
to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions
for submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each
SIP revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.
This must occur prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
    The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Denver and Longmont carbon monoxide (CO)
maintenance plans, Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 on December
15, 2005. The AQCC adopted the revised CO maintenance plans and removal
of Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 from Denver's and Longmont's
revised CO maintenance plans directly after the hearing. This SIP
revision became State effective on March 2, 2006, and was submitted by
the Governor's designee to us on September 25, 2006.
    We have evaluated the revised maintenance plans and have determined
that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public
hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As required by section
110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, we reviewed these SIP materials for
conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
V and determined that the submittal was administratively and
technically complete. Our completeness determination was sent on
February 21, 2007, through a letter from Robert E. Roberts, Regional
Administrator, to Governor Bill Ritter.

IV. EPA's evaluation of Denver's and Longmont's Revised CO Maintenance
Plans

    EPA has reviewed the State's revised CO maintenance plans for the
Denver and Longmont attainment/maintenance areas and believes that
approval is warranted. The following are the key aspects of these
revisions along with our evaluation of each:
    (a) The State has revised the Denver and Longmont CO maintenance
plans and has provided air quality data that show continuous attainment
of the CO NAAQS.
    As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the national primary ambient air
quality standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (10
milligrams per cubic meter) for an 8-hour average concentration not to
be exceeded more than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 continues by stating
that the levels of CO in the ambient air shall be measured by a
reference method based on 40 CFR part 50, Appendix C and designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an equivalent method designated in
accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The original Denver CO maintenance
plan, approved by EPA on December 14, 2001, relied on ambient air
quality data from 1996 through 1999. The previously revised Denver CO
maintenance plan, approved by EPA on September 16, 2004, relied on
ambient air quality data from 2000 through 2002. This revised Denver CO
maintenance plan submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air
quality data from 2002 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient
air quality data from 2005 and 2006 and the Denver area shows
continuous attainment of the CO NAAQS from 2000 to present.
    The original Longmont CO maintenance plan, approved by EPA on
September 24, 1999, relied on ambient air quality data from 1989
through 1996. The previously revised Longmont CO maintenance plan,
approved by EPA on September 30, 2004, relied on ambient air quality
data from 1993 through 2003. This revised Longmont CO maintenance plan
submitted September 25, 2006, relies on ambient air quality data from
1999 through 2004. Further, we have reviewed ambient air quality data
from 2005 and 2006 and the Longmont area shows continuous attainment of
the CO NAAQS from 1993 to present. All the above-referenced air quality
data are archived in our Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
(AIRS).
    (b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission factor model, the State updated
the attainment year, projected years and the maintenance year emission
inventories.
    (1) The State updated the attainment year (2001), projected years
(2009, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2020) and the maintenance year (2021) emission
inventories for Denver's revised CO maintenance plan.
    Denver's revised CO maintenance plan submitted on September 25,
2006, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the Denver
area. These inventories include emissions from stationary point
sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road mobile
sources. More detailed descriptions of the 2001 attainment year
inventory, the revised 2013 projected inventory, the new 2009, 2010,
2015, and 2020 projected inventories, and the 2021 maintenance year
projected inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in
section C, ``Emission Inventories'' and in the State's Technical
Support Document (TSD). The State's submittal contains emission
inventory information that was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance. Summary emission figures from the 2001 attainment year and
the projected years are provided in Table IV-1 below.

                         Table IV-1.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2001     2009     2010     2013     2015     2020     2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources....................................     15.3     18.1     18.5     19.8     20.4     22.9     23.3
Area Sources.....................................     74.1     80.5     81.2     83.4     84.9     88.7     89.4
Non-Road Mobile Sources..........................    199.4    239.0    241.3    245.6    250.4    262.6    265.6
On-Road Mobile Sources...........................   1708.1   1476.8   1523.9   1429.2   1416.0   1362.7   1372.1

    Total........................................   1997.0   1814.5   1864.9   1778.1   1771.7   1736.9  1750.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the small contribution of certain source
  categories. They are not intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals may not add due
  to rounding.

    (2) The State updated the attainment year (1993), projected years
(2009, 2010, 2015) and the maintenance year (2020) emission inventories
for Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan.
    Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan submitted on September 25,
2006, included comprehensive inventories of CO emissions for the
Longmont area. These inventories include emissions from stationary
point sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and on-road
mobile sources. More detailed descriptions of the 1993 attainment year
inventory, the revised 2010, and 2015 projected inventories, the new
2009 projected inventory, and the 2020 maintenance year projected
inventory are documented in the revised maintenance plan in section C,
``Emission Inventories and Maintenance Demonstration,'' and in the
State's TSD. The State's submittal contains emission inventory
information that was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. Summary
emission figures from the 1993 attainment year and the projected years
are provided in Table IV-2 below.

                        Table IV-2.--Summary of CO Emissions in Tons per Day for Longmont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source category                     1993          2009         2010         2015          2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................         0.18         0.053        0.055         0.059        0.066
Area.........................................         3.503        2.948        2.956         3.0          3.048
Non-Road Mobile..............................         6.36         5.983        6.012         5.829        5.988
On-Road Mobile...............................        43.255       39.952       40.452        36.459       35.456
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................        53.298       48.938       49.565        45.348       44.558
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: The significant figures in this table are used to show the
small contribution of certain source categories. They are not
intended to indicate a level of accuracy in the inventories. Totals
may not add due to rounding.

    The State's approach follows EPA guidance on projected emissions
and we believe it is acceptable.\1\ Further information on these
projected emissions may also be found in the State's TSD. The revised
mobile source emissions show the largest change from the original and
previously revised maintenance plans and this is primarily due to the
removal of the vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) (Regulation No. 11)
and oxygenated fuels (Regulation No. 13) programs, effective January 1,
2008. The phase-out of residual I/M program benefits is estimated in
the 2009 and 2010 analysis years. January 1, 2009 will have half the
benefit of a biennial I/M program and January 1, 2010 will have no
residual benefit due to the I/M program. The MOBILE6.2 modeling
information is contained in the State's TSD. Much of the modeling data,
input-output files, fleet makeup, MOBILE6.2 input parameters, etc. are
on a compact disc (CD), included with the docket for this action, and
available from either EPA or the State. Other revisions to the mobile
sources categories were due to revised vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
estimates that were provided to the State from the Denver Regional
Council of Governments (DRCOG) which is the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) for both the Denver and Longmont areas. The revised
VMT were extracted from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan of
January, 2005. In summary, the revised maintenance plans and State TSDs
contain detailed emission inventory information, that was prepared in
accordance with EPA guidance, and are acceptable to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas'', signed by D.
Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division,
November 30, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The State revised the maintenance demonstration used in the
original and previously revised maintenance plans.
(1) Denver
    The original Denver CO redesignation maintenance plan, approved on
December 14, 2001, was revised and approved by EPA on September 16,
2004. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a
second ten-year period beyond redesignation.
    The September 25, 2006 revised maintenance plan updated mobile
source CO emissions with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of
Regulation No. 11, the vehicle I/M program and Regulation No. 13, the
oxygenated fuels program (from the CO maintenance plan), and using the
most recent planning assumptions for the Denver metropolitan area from
DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The modeling domain-
wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are presented in section C.2.(a) of
Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and Table IV-3 below.

                                        Table IV-3.--Estimated Daily VMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                           2001         2005         2015         2020         2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  57,984,600   61,842,200   77,544,600   84,765,600   98,499,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section C.2.(b) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan contains a
discussion of the State's assessment of point source emissions. Point
source inventories were updated including new sources permitted since
the previously approved maintenance plan. The State indicates point
sources have little or no impact on the maintenance demonstration,
consistent with what EPA has approved in previous maintenance plans. We
find the State's overall analysis of revised point source emissions
acceptable.
    For the non-road and area source emissions, the State relied upon
updated demographic information from DRCOG. Several of the non-road and
area source emissions are dependent on demographic data as a surrogate
emission factor. DRCOG demographics are presented below from section
C.1 (Table 4) of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and a further
discussion is presented in the State's TSD.

                                            Table IV-4.--Demographics
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                           2001         2005         2015         2020         2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population.....................................    2,304,700    2,454,300    2,853,200    3,099,300    3,591,600
Households.....................................      916,480      988,000    1,156,300    1,262,300    1,474,400
Employment.....................................    1,306,800    1,267,100    1,612,300    1,721,300    1,939,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have concluded that the revised maintenance demonstration is
approvable.
(2) Longmont
    The original Longmont CO redesignation maintenance plan, approved
on September 24, 1999, was revised and approved by EPA on September 30,
2004. The State has revised and updated the maintenance plan for a
second ten-year period beyond redesignation.
    This revised maintenance plan updated mobile source CO emissions
with MOBILE6.2, based on the pending removal of Regulation No. 11 and
Regulation No. 13 (from the CO maintenance plan), and using the latest
transportation and demographic data from DRCOG. All emission source
categories (point, area, non-road, and mobile) were updated using the
latest version of applicable models (including MOBILE6.2),
transportation data sets, emissions data, emission factors, population
figures and other demographic information. As discussed above, the
State prepared emission inventories for the years 1993, 2009, 2010,
2015 and 2020. The results of these calculations are presented in Table
3, ``1993-2020 Longmont CO Attainment Area Emissions (Tons per Day),''
on page 7 of the Longmont CO revised maintenance plan and are also
summarized in our Table IV-2 above. Emissions for all future years are
less than emissions for the 1993 attainment year. Therefore,
maintenance of the CO NAAQS is demonstrated and is approvable.
(d) Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in both the Denver and
Longmont areas depend, in part, on the State's efforts to track
indicators throughout the maintenance period. This requirement is met
in section F, ``Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued
Attainment'' of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan and section E,
``Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment'' of the
revised Longmont CO maintenance plan. In these sections, the State
commits to continue operating the CO monitors in both the Denver and
Longmont areas, and to annually review the monitoring networks and make
changes as appropriate.
    Also, in these sections, the State commits to track CO emissions
from mobile sources (which are the largest component of the
inventories) through the ongoing regional transportation planning
process done by DRCOG. Since regular revisions to the transportation
improvement programs are prepared every two years, and must go through
a transportation conformity finding, the State will use this process to
periodically review the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and mobile source
emissions projections used in the revised maintenance plans. This
regional transportation process is conducted by DRCOG in coordination
with the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC) (in Denver), the City of
Longmont (in Longmont), the State's Air Pollution Control Division
(APCD), the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), and EPA.
    Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements[R3] from ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' signed by
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4,
1992. We note that our final rulemaking approval renders the State's
commitments federally enforceable. These commitments are also the same
as those we approved in the original and the previously revised
maintenance plans.
(e) Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. To meet this requirement, the State has
identified appropriate contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures.
    As stated in section G of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan
and section F of the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, the
contingency measures for both the Denver and Longmont areas will be
triggered by a violation of the CO NAAQS. (However, the maintenance
plans note that an exceedance of the CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary,
local process by the RAQC (in Denver) or the City of Longmont (in
Longmont), and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency
measures.)
    The RAQC (in Denver) or the City of Longmont (in Longmont), in
coordination with the APCD and AQCC, will initiate a subcommittee
process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures no more than
60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation of the CO
NAAQS has occurred. The subcommittee will present recommendations
within 120 days of notification and recommended contingency measures
will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days of notification. The AQCC
will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency
measures, along with any other contingency measures that the AQCC
believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation of the
CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and
implemented within one year after the violation occurs.
    The potential contingency measures that are identified in section
G.1 of Denver's revised CO maintenance plan and section F.3 of
Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan include: (1) A

3.1% oxygenated fuels program from November 8 through February 7, with
a 2.0% oxygen content required from November 1 through November 7, and
(2) reinstatement of the enhanced I/M program in effect before January
10, 2000. Denver's revised CO maintenance plan also includes a third
potential contingency measure: Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
such as financial incentives for Ecopass, Auraria transit pass, and
improved traffic signalization. Longmont's revised CO maintenance plan
also includes a third potential contingency measure: Nonattainment New
Source Review permitting requirements.
    Based on the above, we find that the contingency measures provided
in Denver's and Longmont's revised CO maintenance plans are sufficient
and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA. We note the
contingency measures and methodology to implement them are the same as
those we approved in the original and previously revised maintenance
plans.
(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
(1) Denver
    The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 2001
through 2013 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of
the CAA, that the CO standard will be maintained for the initial ten-
year period (through 2011). In accordance with section 175A(b),
Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan eight years after our
approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised
maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the CO standard for
the additional ten years (through 2021) following the first ten-year
period.
(2) Longmont
    The previously approved maintenance plan addressed the period 1999
through 2009 and demonstrated, in accordance with section 175A(a) of
the CAA, that the CO standard will be maintained for the initial ten-
year period (through 2009). In accordance with section 175A(b),
Colorado has submitted a revised maintenance plan eight years after our
approval of the original redesignation. The purpose of this revised
maintenance plan is to provide for maintenance of the CO standard for
the additional ten years (through 2020) following the first ten-year
period.
    Based on our review of the components of the revised Denver and
Longmont CO maintenance plans, as discussed in items IV.(a) through
IV.(f) above, we have concluded that the State has met the necessary
requirements for us to fully approve the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans. It is important to note that neither the maintenance
plans nor the control measures relied upon in these maintenance plans
simply go away after the maintenance year (2021 for Denver, 2020 for
Longmont). Both the maintenance plans and control measures relied upon
in these maintenance plans will continue to be a part of Colorado's SIP
unless we approve their removal. Both maintenance plans will remain in
effect until they are revised and we approve the revision.

V. EPA's Evaluation of the Transportation Conformity Requirements

    One key provision of our conformity regulation requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Long Range Transportation Plan
and the Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the
emissions budgets in the SIP (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The emissions
budgets are defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon
in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance
with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area. The rule's
requirements and EPA's policy on emissions budgets are found in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62193-62196) and in the sections of the rule referenced above. With
respect to maintenance plans, our conformity regulation requires that
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) must be established for the last
year of the maintenance plan and may be established for any other years
deemed appropriate (40 CFR 93.118).
    For transportation plan analysis years after the last year of the
maintenance plan, a conformity determination must show that emissions
are less than or equal to the maintenance plan's MVEBs for the last
year of the implementation plan. EPA's conformity regulation (40 CFR
93.124) also allows the implementation plan to quantify explicitly the
amount by which motor vehicle emissions could be higher while still
demonstrating compliance with the maintenance requirement. The
implementation plan can then allocate some, or all, of this additional
safety margin to the emissions budgets for transportation conformity
purposes.
(1) Denver
    Section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan describes the
applicable transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs for
the revised Denver CO maintenance plan. The State has established a
MVEB for 2013 through 2020 and 2021 and beyond. Specifically, the CO
MVEBs are defined as 1625 tons per day for 2013 through 2020, and 1600
tons per day for 2021 and beyond. As we explain more fully below, we
view these as the budgets for 2013, and 2021 respectively.
    Under our conformity rules, a MVEB is established for a given year,
not for a range of years. This is because the MVEB reflects the
inventory value for motor vehicle emissions in a given year, plus,
potentially, any safety margin in that year. (We explain the concept of
safety margin more fully below.) It is not possible to specify the same
MVEB for a range of years absent specific analysis supporting the
derivation of that budget for each year in the range. As a practical
matter, this is not usually important because our conformity rules also
say that a MVEB for a particular year applies for conformity analyses
of emissions in that year and all subsequent years before the next
budget year. See 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii), ``Emissions in years for
which no motor vehicle emissions budget(s) are specifically established
must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
established for the most recent prior year.'' Therefore, the ``2013
through 2020'' and the ``2021 and beyond'' budgets were derived from,
the 2013 and 2021 inventory values, respectively, for on-road vehicle
emissions and available safety margin. Thus, we will refer to these as
the 2013 and 2021 budgets in the remainder of this action.
    Section E. ``Carbon Monoxide Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget'' of
the revised Denver CO maintenance plan describes the applicable
transportation conformity requirements and updated MVEBs. The State has
revised the 2013 MVEB, and established a new MVEB for the last year of
the revised maintenance plan, 2021. Based on this, in order for a
positive conformity determination to be made, transportation plan
analyses for years between 2013 and 2020 must show that motor vehicle
emissions will be less than or equal to the MVEB in 2013. In addition,
transportation plan analyses for years after 2021 must show that motor
vehicle emissions will be less than or equal to the MVEB in 2021. Our
conformity regulation also allows the implementation plan (maintenance
plan in this case) to quantify explicitly the

amount motor vehicle emissions that could be higher in 2013, while
allowing a demonstration of maintenance of the NAAQS (40 CFR 93.124).
This process is known as allocating all or a portion of the designated
safety margin to the MVEB and is further described in 40 CFR 93.124 and
below.
    In addition, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy states that `` * *
* regardless of the technique used for attainment or maintenance
demonstrations, a more rigorous assessment of the SIP's demonstration
may be necessary if a State decides to reallocate possible excess
emission reductions to the motor vehicle emissions budget safety
factor.'' Since the State decided to allocate available excess
emissions reductions in the revised maintenance plan to the 2013 and
2021 MVEBs, we required a ``more rigorous assessment'' in order to
ensure that even with the allocation of safety margin to the 2013 and
2021 MVEBs, the revised maintenance plan would continue to demonstrate
maintenance. The ``more rigorous assessment'' is described in section
E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan, in the State's TSD, and
below.
    In section E.2 of the revised Denver CO maintenance plan, the State
revises the 2013 MVEB and establishes a MVEB for 2021 and these MVEBs
are applicable to the boundaries of the Denver CO attainment/
maintenance area. The revised maintenance plan estimates the available
safety margin using the EPA recommended ``more rigorous assessment''
methodology and allocates a portion of the available safety margin to
the MVEBs in 2013 and 2021 as illustrated in Table V-2 below.

 Table V-2.--Derivation of the MVEBs for 2013 and 2021 and Allocation of
                            the Safety Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Budget years             2013   2021         Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Total Attainment Inventory.   1997   1997  2001 attainment year
                                                 inventory from all
                                                 sources that
                                                 established attainment
                                                 level of emissions in
                                                 the attainment/
                                                 maintenance area.
Area and Point Source Emissions.    349    378  Total estimated
                                                 emissions from point
                                                 and area sources.
Mobile Source Emissions.........   1429   1372  Estimated mobile source
                                                 emissions based on
                                                 MOBILE6.2 and State
                                                 control strategies.
Total Emission Inventory........   1778   1750
Potential Safety Margin.........    219    247  Difference between the
                                                 2001 and 2013 and 2021
                                                 total emission
                                                 inventories,
                                                 respectively.
Allowable Mobile Source            1648   1619  Total mobile source
 Emissions.                                      emissions that
                                                 demonstrate maintenance
                                                 of the CO NAAQS based
                                                 on EPA's recommended
                                                 ``more rigorous
                                                 assessment''.
Available Safety Margin.........    219    247  Difference between
                                                 allowable mobile source
                                                 emissions and estimated
                                                 mobile source emissions
                                                 which equals the
                                                 available safety margin
                                                 that may be allocated
                                                 to the MVEB.
Portion of the Safety Margin         23     19  Portion of the available
 Reserved.                                       safety margin that is
                                                 reserved to account for
                                                 point/area growth and
                                                 other modeling
                                                 uncertainties.
Safety Margin allocated to the      196    228  Difference between
 MVEB.                                           available safety margin
                                                 and the reserved safety
                                                 margin.
2013 and 2021 MVEBs.............   1625   1600  Total of estimated
                                                 mobile source emissions
                                                 and safety margin
                                                 assigned to the budget,
                                                 which establishes the
                                                 MVEB for 2013 and 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy required a
``more rigorous assessment'' in order to ensure that even with the
allocation of safety margin emissions to the MVEBs, the revised
maintenance plan would continue to demonstrate maintenance. We
determined that a ``more rigorous assessment'' for the revised Denver
CO maintenance plan would be an intersection modeling analysis similar
to that performed by the State for the original EPA-approved Denver CO
maintenance plan and the previously revised EPA-approved Denver CO
maintenance plan. The State's intersection analysis used a background
CO concentration combined with CAL3QHC intersection (``hot spot'')
modeling of the same six high-volume, high congestion intersections
that were analyzed for the original and previously revised maintenance
plan.
    The background CO concentration for each intersection used the
second highest 8-hour maximum monitored value at a nearby CO ambient
air quality monitor for the time period of 2000 through 2002. The
CAL3QHC intersection modeling used 2013 and 2021 MOBILE6.2 mobile
sources emissions and DRCOG projected traffic data. The background
concentration and results from the CAL3QHC modeling were then combined
for each intersection. If the resulting concentration was greater than
9 ppm (the CO NAAQS), the background concentration was reduced by the
necessary percentage to bring the total intersection value below 9 ppm.
Since it is assumed that background concentrations are influenced by
regional emissions of CO, the State, in order to determine the
allowable regional emissions, reduced the base regional emissions (1997
tons per day in 2001) by the same percentage it had to reduce the
initial background concentration.
    The State modeled the six intersections based on the 2013 MVEB of
1625 tons per day and the 2021 MVEB of 1600 tons per day of CO. The
results are shown in Table 13 on page 23, of the State's revised
maintenance plan and are reproduced in Table V-3 below.

                Table V-3.--Intersection Modeling Results
                         [In parts per million]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2013     2021
                     Intersection                        Total    Total
                                                          ppm      ppm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28th & Arapahoe (Boulder).............................      7.8      7.3
University & Belleview................................      7.1      6.8
University & 1st Ave..................................      7.5      7.1
Foothills & Arapahoe (Boulder)........................      7.3      6.9
Wadsworth & Alameda...................................      6.5      6.0
20th & Broadway (CAMP)................................      6.6      6.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling results presented in the revised Denver CO maintenance
plan and the State's TSD, and repeated in Table V-3 above, show that CO
concentrations are not estimated to exceed the 9.0 ppm 8-hour average
CO NAAQS for 2013 or 2021. We have concluded that the State has
satisfactorily addressed the requirements of our January 18, 2002
MOBILE6 policy for a ``more rigorous assessment'' of MVEBs and has also
demonstrated maintenance of the CO NAAQS while using a transportation
conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day

for 2013 and 1600 tons per day for 2021. Therefore, we are approving
the transportation conformity MVEB of 1625 tons per day of CO, for the
Denver attainment/maintenance area, for 2013 and 1600 tons per day of
CO, for the Denver attainment/maintenance area, for 2021.
    Pursuant to Sec.  93.118(e)(4) of EPA's transportation conformity
rule, as amended, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted MVEBs.
EPA reviewed the Denver CO 2021 budget for adequacy using the criteria
in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2021 budget was
adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was made
in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this
adequacy finding, the 2021 budget took effect for conformity
determinations in the Denver area on June 28, 2007. However, we are not
bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan.
(2) Longmont
    Section D, ``Transportation Conformity and Mobile Source Carbon
Monoxide Emission Budgets,'' of the Longmont CO revised maintenance
plan briefly describes the applicable transportation conformity
requirements, provides MVEB calculations, identifies safety margin, and
indicates that the City of Longmont and DRCOG elected to apply the
identified safety margin to the MVEB for 2010 through 2014, 2015
through 2019, and 2020 and beyond. Specifically, the CO MVEBs are
defined as 43 tons per day for 2010 through 2014, 43 tons per day for
2015 through 2019, and 43 tons per day for 2020 and beyond. As we
explained more fully above in V.(1), ``Denver,'' we view these as the
budgets for 2010, 2015, and 2020 respectively.
    For the revised Longmont CO maintenance plan, the safety margin is
the difference between the attainment year (1993) total emissions and
the projected future year's total emissions. Part, or all, of the
safety margin may be added to projected mobile source CO emissions to
arrive at a motor vehicle emissions budget to be used for
transportation conformity purposes. The safety margins, less one ton
per day, were added to projected mobile source CO emissions for 2010,
2015, and 2020. The derivation and determination of safety margins and
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Longmont CO maintenance plan is
further illustrated in Table V-4 below and in section D of the revised
maintenance plan.

            Table V-4.--Mobile Sources Emissions, Safety Margins, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                                           In Tons of CO per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Mobile
                                   source       Total                                Margin of     Motor vehicle
             Year                emissions    emissions            Math            safety  (tpd)     emission
                                   (tpd)        (tpd)                                              budget  (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993..........................  ...........       53.298
2010..........................       40.452       49.565  53.298 - 49.565 =                2.733              43
                                                           3.733.
                                                          3.733 - 1 = 2.733.....
                                                          2.733 + 40.452 =
                                                           43.185.
2015..........................       36.459       45.348  53.298 - 45.348 = 7.95            6.95              43
                                                          7.95 - 1 = 6.95.......
                                                          6.95 + 36.459 = 43.409
2020..........................       35.456       44.558  53.298 - 44.558 = 8.74            7.74              43
                                                          8.74 - 1 = 7.74.......
                                                          7.74 + 35.456 = 43.196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis indicates that the above figures are consistent with
maintenance of the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period.
Therefore, we are approving the 43 tons per day CO MVEB for 2010, 2015,
and 2020 for the Longmont area.
    As described above, EPA must determine the adequacy of submitted
MVEBs. EPA reviewed the Longmont CO 2020 budget for adequacy using the
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and determined that the 2020 budget
was adequate for conformity purposes. EPA's adequacy determination was
made in a letter to the State on May 3, 2007, and was announced in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32646). As a result of this
adequacy finding, the 2020 budget took effect for conformity
determinations in the Longmont area on June 28, 2007. However, we are
not bound by that determination in acting on the maintenance plan.

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Regulation No. 11 Revisions

    Colorado's Regulation No. 11 is entitled, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program.'' In developing the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of
mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest
transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Based on the results from the modeling demonstration in the State's TSD
[R4], Colorado's Regulation No. 11 can be removed from the
revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans effective December 31,
2007. These revised maintenance plans reflect the removal of Regulation
No. 11 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without
the CO emissions reduction benefit of an inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program starting January 1, 2008 and continuing through 2021 for
Denver and 2020 for Longmont. The phase-out of residual I/M program
benefits is estimated in the 2009 and 2010 analysis years. January 1,
2009 will have half the benefit of a biennial I/M program and January
1, 2010 will have no residual benefit due to the I/M program. Even with
the elimination of the I/M program from the revised Denver and Longmont
CO maintenance plans beginning on January 1, 2008, the areas were still
able to meet our requirements to demonstrate maintenance of the CO
standard through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for Longmont.
    We note that the removal of the I/M program from Denver's revised
CO maintenance plan does not mean the I/M program is eliminated. The
State relies on the I/M program in Denver's 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan and Denver's 8-hour ozone Early Action Compact (EAC). Therefore,
the motor vehicle I/M program will remain intact in the Denver-metro
area. We have

reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation No. 11 from the
revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans.
    Additionally, we note that the State had made previous revisions to
Regulation No. 11 regarding the repeal of the basic vehicle emissions
inspection program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas that were
adopted by the Colorado AQCC on November 17, 2005, and submitted to us
for approval by the Governor on August 8, 2006. We previously approved
Fort Collins' and Greeley's revised CO maintenance plans which
eliminated the Basic I/M program from the Federal SIP on July 22, 2003
and August 19, 2005, respectively (68 FR 43316 and 70 FR 48650).
Without the CO emissions reduction benefit of a Basic I/M program,
these areas were still able to meet our requirements to demonstrate
maintenance of the CO standard. The August 8, 2006 submittal merely
clarifies the geographical applicability in Part A.1 and Part A.IV. In
addition, the August 8, 2006 submittal also eliminates the inspection
requirement for vehicles that have not yet reached their fourth model
year, registering in the I/M program area for the first time. This is
consistent with the regulation and the mobile source modeling that the
first four model years are exempt from the I/M program. We have
reviewed and are approving Part A.1 and Part A.IV of Regulation No. 11
as submitted on August 8, 2006, to repeal the Basic Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas.[R5]
Please note we are not acting on other Regulation No. 11 revisions
submitted on August 8, 2006 at this time. These other revisions are
located in Part F and revise the emissions limits for motor vehicle
exhaust, evaporative and visible emissions for light-duty and heavy-
duty vehicles.

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

    Colorado's Regulation No. 13 is entitled, ``Oxygenated Fuels
Program.'' The purpose of this regulation is to reduce CO emissions
from gasoline powered motor vehicles through the wintertime use of
oxygenated gasoline. In developing the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the State conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of
mobile source control programs with MOBILE6.2 and the latest
transportation sets from DRCOG's 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Based on the results from the modeling demonstration in the State's
TSD[R6], Colorado's Regulation No. 13 can be removed from
the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans effective December
31, 2007. These maintenance plans reflect the removal of Regulation No.
13 in that the mobile source CO emissions were calculated without the
CO emissions reduction benefit of an oxygenated fuels program starting
January 1, 2008 and continuing through 2021 for Denver and 2020 for
Longmont. Even with the elimination of the oxygenated fuels program
from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans beginning on
January 1, 2008, the areas were still able to meet our requirements to
demonstrate maintenance of the CO standard through 2021 for Denver and
2020 for Longmont.
    Additionally, we note that the State had made previous revisions to
Regulation No. 13 regarding methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) that were
adopted by the Colorado AQCC on January 11, 2001, and submitted to us
for approval by the Governor on July 31, 2002. With our approval of the
removal of Regulation No. 13 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, the oxygenated fuels program is not federally
required and will no longer be federally applicable in any area.
Regulation No. 13 will, however, remain as a state only regulation.
Therefore, this July 31, 2002 submittal does not require further EPA
action. We have reviewed and are approving the removal of Regulation
No. 13 from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans.

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

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. As stated above, the revised CO maintenance plans show
continuous attainment of the CO NAQAQS since 2001 for Denver and 1993
for Longmont. The revised maintenance plans along with the removal of
Regulation No. 11 and Regulation No. 13 will not interfere with
attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.

IX. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is approving the revised Denver and Longmont CO
maintenance plans, that were submitted on September 25, 2006, and we
are also approving the revised transportation conformity motor vehicle
emission budgets for CO for the years 2013 and 2021 for Denver, and
2010, 2015, and 2020 for Longmont. Furthermore, we are approving the
removal of Regulation No. 11 (I/M) and Regulation No. 13 (Oxygenated
Fuels) from the revised Denver and Longmont CO maintenance plans.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2007
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
September 17, 2007. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 31, 2007.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(111) [R7]to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (111) On August 8, 2006, the Governor of Colorado submitted SIP
revisions to Colorado's Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Program'' that repeals the basic vehicle emissions
inspection program in the Fort Collins and Greeley areas.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Regulation No. 11 ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Program,'' 5CCR1001-13, Part A.1 and Part A.IV, as adopted on November
17, 2005, and effective January 30, 2006.
0
3. Section 52.349 is amended by adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.349  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (m) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Denver, as adopted by the Colorado
Air Quality Control Commission on December 15, 2005, State effective on
March 2, 2006, and submitted by the Governor's designee on September
25, 2006.
    (n) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan, revised
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Longmont, as adopted by the
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 15, 2005, State
effective on March 2, 2006, and submitted by the Governor's designee on
September 25, 2006.

[FR Doc. E7-16146 Filed 8-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 77587]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-9353-001]

Notice of Filing; Shah, P.E., Smita N.

    Take notice that on December 12, 2022, Smita N. Shah, P.E.
submitted for filing, notice of change in status regarding interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 825d (b) and part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part
45.8.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2, 2023.

    Dated: December 13, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27458 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 43799-43801]
[DOCID:fr28jy08-115]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58199; File No. SR-Amex-2008-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Modifying the Provisions Governing
Contacts Between Specialists and Issuers

 July 21, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On May 20, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposal to amend

Amex Rule 27 to (i) modify the provisions governing contacts between
specialists and issuers or, in the case of exchange traded funds
(``ETFs'') and structured products, sponsors, and (ii) clarify other
procedures applicable to the allocation of securities to specialists.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 18, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no comments
regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57952 (June 11, 2008),
73 FR 34809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise Amex Rule 27
in order to better reflect the different treatment that is afforded
ETFs and structured products in connection with the allocation of
securities to specialists. This is reflected in the fact that ETFs and
structured products are typically allocated to a specialist within a
few days after approval of the issuer's application for listing on the
Exchange. However, in the case of other equity securities, the
allocation process may take a longer period of time so that allocation
to a specialist may not occur within a few days of approval of the
issuer's listing application.
    Amex Rule 27 sets forth the procedures and policies pursuant to
which the Allocations Committee allocates securities listing on the
Exchange to specialists. In particular, paragraph (e) describes the
Exchange's ``issuer choice'' program under which issuers or, in the
case of an ETF or structured product, sponsors, select their
specialists from a list of the most qualified specialists prepared by
the Allocations Committee and is designed to be read in conjunction
with Commentaries .02 and .03 thereto.
    Commentaries .02 and .03 contain guidelines for communications
between specialists and issuers or, in the case of ETFs and structured
products, sponsors that have not yet listed a security on the Exchange,
have applied to list a security on the Exchange and/or have a security
that has been approved for listing on the Exchange.

(i) Commentary .02

    Commentary .02 applies to equity securities other than ETFs and
structured products, and prohibits specialists and other members from
making direct or indirect contact with an issuer that has requested a
listing qualification review \4\ for the purpose of influencing the
issuer's choice of a specialist. In addition, any communication between
equity specialists and issuers is prohibited once an issuer has been
approved for listing and the Allocations Committee has prepared the
list of qualified specialists. The exception to such prohibition is
Exchange-arranged interviews between an issuer approved for listing and
any specialist(s) the issuer requests to interview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The listing qualification review is the process whereby an
issuer undergoes review by the Exchange's Listing Qualifications
Department. The listing qualification review will commence once the
listing application is submitted to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interviews are closely monitored by the Exchange and the
Exchange will take appropriate action in the event an inappropriate
communication is deemed by the Exchange to have occurred during the
interview. The Exchange proposes to clarify that such appropriate
action may include the disqualification of a specialist for the
allocation.
    The Exchange also proposes adding a provision to Commentary .02
addressing post-interview communications between specialists and
issuers approved for listing on the Exchange. The proposed rule change
would prohibit post-interview contacts between specialists and issuers
and provide a means for issuers to obtain further information from the
specialists through the Exchange's Equity Sales Group.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to simplify the description of the
procedures set forth in Commentary .02 by adding defined terms and
moving the provision concerning an issuer's ability to request
specialists to be placed on the list of qualified specialists to
paragraph (e)(i) of Rule 27.

(ii) Commentary .03

    Current Commentary .03 applies only to ETFs and structured products
and contains provisions governing contacts between specialists and
other members and sponsors and issuers prior to such sponsor or issuer
deciding to list a security on the Exchange. Pursuant to current
Commentary .03, specialists and other members must notify the Exchange
in writing before any planned contact with a potential sponsor or
issuer for the purpose of listing the ETFs or structured products of
such sponsor or issuer on the Exchange, or within five (5) business
days of unanticipated contact where discussions regarding the listing
occur. Exchange approval of planned contact is required and the
Exchange will grant such approval where it appears that the contact
will assist rather than impede the Exchange's effort to list the new
ETF or structured product.
    ETF and structured product specialists are also currently required
to promptly report to the Exchange any representations or commitments
that they, or an individual acting on their behalf, have made to an
employee of, or any individual acting on behalf of, an issuer or
sponsor. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .03 to require
specialists to only disclose in their applications to be allocated an
ETF or structured product representations or commitments that relate to
the prospective listing of the ETF or structured product and that are
made within the six (6) months preceding the date allocation
applications are solicited with respect to that ETF or structured
product. The Exchange further proposes, in the event an ETF or
structured product is not allocated within five (5) days of the
allocation application, to require specialists and other members to
update their applications accordingly to report all representations or
commitments since last reported to the Exchange.
    Commentary .03 also includes procedures related to the interview
process. The Exchange proposes to clarify that such procedures apply to
issuers and sponsors whose securities have been approved for listing on
the Exchange in accordance with Rule 27(e)(i).

(iii) Other Changes

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make technical revisions to
paragraphs (c) and (e)(i) of Rule 27 in order to consistently use the
term ``issuer'' as opposed to ``company'', clarify the applicability of
the provisions to equity, ETF and structured product listings and, in
general, to simplify the reading of the text.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\5\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among other things,
that a national securities exchange's rules be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open

market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange is proposing, among other things, to
amend Commentary .03 to Amex Rule 27 to eliminate the requirement that
specialists and other members notify the Exchange in writing before any
planned contact with a potential sponsor or issuer for the purpose of
listing the ETFs or structured products of such sponsor or issuer on
the Exchange, or within five business days of unanticipated contact
where discussions regarding the listing occur. As noted above, under
current Commentary .03, the Exchange will grant such approval where it
appears that the contact will assist rather than impede the Exchange's
effort to list the new ETF or structured product. The Exchange has
stated that it no longer believes this restriction is necessary because
it is unlikely that such contact would impede the Exchange's effort to
list an issuer. The Commission believes this is a reasonable
modification of the Exchange's allocation procedures. As discussed
below, representations or commitments that relate to the prospective
listing still must be disclosed on the listing application.
    The Exchange also proposes to shorten the disclosure timeframe in
Commentary .03 to require specialists to only disclose in their
applications to be allocated an ETF or structured product
representations or commitments that relate to the prospective listing
of the ETF or structured product and that are made within the six
months preceding the date allocation applications are solicited with
respect to that ETF or structured product. The Commission believes that
this shorter timeframe should be sufficient to enable the Exchange to
continue to monitor the appropriateness of such representations and/or
commitments, without impairing the allocation process by requiring
specialists to disclose every representation or commitment that they
have ever made to the issuer or sponsor. The Commission also notes that
ETFs and structured products are generally allocated to the specialist
very quickly after approval of the listing application. However, in the
event an ETF or structured product is not allocated within five days of
the allocation application, specialists and other members would be
required to update their applications to report all representations or
commitments since last reported to the Exchange, which should help to
ensure the integrity of the allocation process.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes a change to Commentary .03 to
clarify that the Exchange may arrange telephone or in-person interviews
on the Exchange's premises, if an issuer or sponsor wishes to interview
one or more specialists once the Allocation Committee has prepared the
list of qualified specialists. Because ETFs and structured products are
typically allocated to a specialist within a few days after (and often
the same day as) approval of the issuer's application for listing on
the Exchange, the Commission would expect such interviews to occur
infrequently. Should an interview occur, the Commission notes that
Commentary .03 permits the Performance Committee to disqualify any
specialist that has made inappropriate representations.
    Finally, in addition to other minor changes to Rule 27 and
Commentaries .02 and .03 thereto, the proposal amends Commentary .02 to
clarify that the Exchange's Performance Committee may disqualify for
allocation any specialist that is deemed to have made an inappropriate
communication to an issuer of an equity security that has been approved
for listing on the Exchange. The Commission notes that this proposed
change would make Commentary .02 more consistent with Commentary .03.
The Exchange also proposes adding a provision to Commentary .02 that
would prohibit post-interview contacts between specialists and issuers
and provide a means for issuers to obtain further information from the
specialists through the Exchange's Equity Sales Group. The Commission
believes that these proposed changes to Commentary .02 are reasonable
modifications of, and should further the public interest by helping to
promote the integrity of, the allocation process.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2008-44) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17141 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


 ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS>   DISTRIBUTION Page ___ of _

Project Name: 304( m)

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 6/ 27/ 05 Time: 4: 00 PM EST Company Name: Engelhard Corporation Seneca, SC Contact Name: Rodney Kutz Phone No.: ( 864) 885 1356 Name: Audrey Kasenge Eastern Research Group GENERAL SUBJECT : Sodium Nitrite Releases Reported to TRI TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN On Monday June 27, 2005 I called Mr. Kutz to ask how Engelhard Corp in SC estimates their sodium nitrite releases. He informed me that the facility measures nitrite in the wastewater monthly. Due to the large excess of sodium in the wastewater, the remaining pollutant is assumed to be sodium. The amount of sodium nitrite released is determined by multiplying the nitrite concentration by the annual flow rate, and then adding the sodium contribution based on its molecular weight.