# STATE OF COLORADO

Bill Ritter, Jr

., Governor Martha E

. Rudolph, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr

. S

. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 81 00 Lowry Blvd

. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TOO Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe

.state.co.us 

### March 31 , 2010
Carol Rushin Acting Regional Administrator US EPA Region VIII 1595 Wynkoop St. Denver, CO 80202 Dear Ms. Rushin: 

# -·· Colorado Department of

### PublicHealth andEnvironment
RECEIVED U.S. EPA Region 8 RA's Oftlc:e 

## APR 

## 012010

The following actions are submitted to EPA for final approval and incorporation into the Colorado State Implementation Plan pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 , Appendix V, 2.l(a)
. Two copies ofthe materials needed for your review ofeach action are included with this letter.

• Colorado Spdngs Carbon MOnoxide Maintenance Plan

- The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (Commission) adopted a second ten-year maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs area using the Limited Maintenance Plan option
. There were no revisions to the control measures in the plan.

• Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan- The Commission adopted a second ten-year maintenance plan for the Greeley area using the Limited Maintenance Plan option. There were no revisions to the control measures in the plan
. • Pagosa Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan

- The Commission adopted a second ten-year maintenance plan for the Pagosa Springs area. There were no revisions to the control measures in the plan, however, the mobile source emissions budget was reduced.

• Telluride PMl0 Maintenance Plan- The Commission adopted a second ten-year maintenance plan for the Telluride area. There were no revisions to the control measures in the plan, however, the mobile source emissions budget was reduced.

• Common Provisions

- The Commission adopted a revision to the Common Provisions Regulation to revise the definitions of"negligibly reactive volatile organic compound" and
"volatile organic compound" (VOC) in Section I.G. to be consistent with the federal definitions for these terms
.Carol Rushin March 31 , 2010 Page 2

• Interstate Air Pollutant Transport State Implementation Plan

- the Commission adopted a proposal to revise the interstate transport element ofthe State Implementation Plan to address outstanding issues that the US EPA had identified with plan previously adopted by the Commission. We look forward to your timely review and approval ofthis request. The office ofthe Colorado Air Quality Control Commission may submit any additional technical suppmi documentation or information that you may need for review directly to the EPA. Should there be any questions regarding these materials, please contact the Commission office at 303-692-3478
. Thank you.

Martha E. Rudolph Executive Director Colorado Department ofPublic

Health and Environment

cc. Paul Tourangeau Doug Lempke MarkKomp

# Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS Copies ofthe following administrative materials are included in this submittal ofrevisions to Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. Hearing held on December 1 7, 2009.

• Hearing Notice as Published on the Commission Website 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

## v2.1(f) • Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred and Notice published in the Legal Ads ofthe Denver Post 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V2.1(f) • Procedural Documents ofthe Commission (this includes the Agenda Item Control Sheet) • Parties Hearing Documents (this includes a list ofthe parties, the parties prehearing statements and rebuttal statements, and any orders by the Commission

- - do not include all the attachments from the parties) • Proposed Language for State Implementation Plan Element • Technical Support Document 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2
.2 • State Implementation Plan Element Adopted by the Commission 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2
.1(d) • Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Meeting Minutes 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2
.1(g)

# Hearing Notice as Published on the Commission Website 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f)

# STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Rttter, Jr. , Governor James B

. Martm, Executive Dtrector Dedicated to protecting and tmprovmg the health and envtronment of thepeople ofColorado COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http://www.cdphe
.stale
.co.us EDO-AQCC-A5 4300 Cherry Creek Drtve South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-3100 Fax (303) 691-7702 TDD (303) 691-7700 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

### NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING BEFORE THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION Regarding proposed revisions to: 

### Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan SUBJECT: The Air Quality Control Commission will hold a public rulemaking hearing to consider revisions to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Colorado Springs. This is the second oftwo 1 0- year plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. 

### FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: The federal act requires the adoption ofa second 1 0-year maintenance plan to demonstrate long term compliance with the national standard. 

### HEARING SCHEDULE: DATE: December 17, 2009 TIME: 9:00 AM PLACE: Colorado Department ofPublic Health & 

### Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Room Denver, Colorado 80246 The hearmg may be contmuedatsuchplaces andtime as the Comm1sswn mayannounce. Interested

parties may contact the Comm1sswn Office at 303-692-3476 to confirm meetingdates andt1mes
. 

### PUBLIC COMMENT: The Commission encourages all interested persons to provide their views either orally at the hearing or in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Commission especially solicits comments and analyses from persons who will incur directly some cost or benefit from the proposed revisions. Public testimony will be taken as close to the start ofthe hearing as possible and during the hearing as necessary. Written and/or electronic submissions priorto the hearing are requested to allow review prior to presentation at the hearing. Written and/or electronic submissions should be mailed to the Commission Office at least 14 days prior to the hearing.

Page 1of3PARTY STATUS: 

### In order to obtain party status at the hearing, compliance with several requirements as defined in the Commissions Procedural Rules is necessary. A petition for party status must be filed by electronic mail with the Office ofthe Air Quality Control Commission no later than close of business on October 19, 2009. 

### The petition must: 1) identify the applicant; 2)provide the name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, andemail address of the applicants representative, and3) briefly summarize what, 

### if any, policy ,factual, andlegal issues the applicant has with the proposal(s) as of the time of filing the application. 

### Electronically mailed copies must also be received, by this same date, by the Division staffperson and the Assistant Attorneys General representing the Division and the Commission identified below. Any person may petition the Commission to file documents in paper copy format ifthey are unable for any reason to not comply with the requirements of 1.3.8(2) ofthe Commissions Procedural Rules. An original and a specified number ofpaper copies must be filed in the Office ofthe Air Quality Control Commission, Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246. Individuals may also obtain party status through the submittal ofan initial alternative rule to the proposed rule. The submittal ofan alternative proposal must be accompanied by an electronic copy ofthe initial alternative proposed rule and all other associated documents as required by the Commission's procedural rules and must be filed by electronic mail with the Office ofthe Commission by the date specified for party status requests. Initial alternative rules must also be filed by electronic mail with the Division staffperson and with each ofthe Assistant Attorneys General. Air Quality Control Commission Theresa 

### L. Martin EDO-AQCC-A5 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Theresa.Martin@state.co.us Jerry Goad Attorney for the Commission Attorney General's Office 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Jerry.Goad@state.co.us Air Pollution Control Division Chris Dann APCD-B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Christopher.Dann@state.co.us Thomas Roan Attorney for the Division Attorney General's Office 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Tom.Roan@state.co.us Requests received beyond the above stated deadline shall only be considered upon a written motion for good cause shown. The Commission reserves the right to deny party status to anyone that does not comply with the Commission's procedural rules. STATUS CONFERENCE: 

### A status conference will be held October 22, 2009 at 11:00 a.m., 

### at the Department ofPublic Health and Environment to ascertain and discuss the issues involved, and to ensure that parties are making all necessary efforts to discuss and resolve such issues prior to the submission of prehearing statements. Attendance at this status conference is mandatory for anyone who has requested party status. Page 2 of3PREHEARING CONFERENCE/PREHEARING STATEMENTS: Attendance at the prehearing conference is mandatory for all parties to this hearing. A prehearing conference will be held November 13, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. in the Commission Offices at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver. All parties must submitby electronic mail a preliminary prehearing statement to the Commission Office by close ofbusiness November 9, 2009. In addition, electronically mailed copies ofthese documents must be delivered by that date to all persons who have requested party status. A copy ofthe prehearing statement must also be electronically mailed to the Division point ofcontact and each ofthe Assistant Attorney's General identified above by close ofbusiness November 9, 2009. Any revisions to the prehearing statement must be submitted to the Administrator ofthe Commission at the prehearing conference and by electronic mail to the Commission Office on the day ofthe prehearing conference. Any exhibit included in the prehearing statements will be electronically mailed to individual Commissioners for review prior to the hearing, provided the party files electronic copies ofsuch exhibit. Rebuttals to the prehearing statement may be submitted to the Commission Office and all other parties by close ofbusiness November 24,2009. EXCEPTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: The Commission's Procedural Rules provide for an exception to file documents by electronic mail. Ifgranted an exception to electronic filing pursuant to the provisions of 1
.3.8(3) ofthe Commissions Procedural Rules, the applicant for party status shall file an original and fifteen copies ofthe prehearing statement in the Office ofthe Air Quality Control Commission, and shall also deliver copies to each other party, applicant for party status, the Assistant Attorneys General representing the Commission and Division, and the Division staffperson for the proceedings, by electronic mail or as otherwise provided by the exception granted under Subsection 1.3
.8(3), by that same day. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FORTHE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS: The Commission proposes these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Sections 25- 7-106,25-7-107,25-7-109 and 25-7-302, C.R.S. The rulemaking hearing will be conducted in accordance with sections 24-4-103 and 25-7-1"10, C.R.S., as amended, the Procedural Rules of the Commission and as otherwise stated in this notice. This list ofstatutory authority is not intended as an exhaustive list ofthe Commission's statutory authority to act in this matter
. Dated this 5th day ofOctober 2009 at Denver, Colorado Colorado Air Quality Control Commission

# 97-'~ Douglas A. Lempke, Administrator

Page 3 of3

# Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred and Notice published in the Legal Ads ofthe Denver Post 40 C· FRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1(f)

# STATEOF COLORADO

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor Ned Calonge, M
.D
., lntenm Executive Dtrector COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http: //www.cdphe
.state
.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South OED-OLRA-A5 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-3100 Fax (303) 691-7702 TDD (303) 691-7700 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

# Notice ofMeeting and Agenda Air Quality Control Commission December 17,2009 Colorado Department ofPublic Health & 

## Environment 4300 Cherry CreekDrive South, Sabin Room

Call to Order: Approval ofMinutes:
Public Comment:

Agenda Review: 

### Denver, Colorado 

## 9:00a.m.

Determination ofa Quorum Review/Approval of the November 19, 2009 meeting minutes of the Air Quality Control Commission. The public is invited to comment on any air pollution issue not on the agenda. The Commission will not take action on issues discussed under this agenda item today; however, items may be scheduled for further discussion or action. The Commission Administrator will review the meeting agenda and discuss any proposed revisions to the agenda for the Commission's consideration. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FEBRUARY 

### 18, 2010 

### 1. 

### Contingency Plan Provisions for the Rocky Mountain National ParkNitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan (10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) The Division will request that the Commission hold a public hearing in February to consider endorsing the contingency plan provisions for the Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan that have been developed by the Department ofPublic Health and Environment/Air Pollution Control Division, US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service.REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING HEARING MARCH 18, 2010 

### 2. Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation (5 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) The Division will request that the Commission hold a rulemaking hearing to consider revisions to the Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation to remove the ambient air quality standards table in Section II and replace it with a reference to the federal standards, to remove Section LB. regarding the S02 increment standards and to make typographical, grammatical, and formatting revisions as necessary. 

### 3. Regulation Number 8, Part C (5 minutes presentation, 5 minutes discussion) The Division will request the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider revisions to Regulation Number 8, Part C, to repeal the lead emission standard. 

### 4. Regulation Number 11, Vehicle Emission Inspection Program in the North Front Range - Program Area Review (5 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion) The Division will request the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider revisions to Regulation No. 11 regarding the implementation ofthe vehicle emissions inspection program in Larimer and Weld Counties. Specifically, the Division will propose that the program area be expanded in Larimer and Weld Counties consistent with the statutory boundaries established in 2009 Senate Bill 003 and that the implementation date ofthe program be revised to reflect the implementation date requirements ofthe 2009 SB 003. The Division is also proposing to establish interim tailpipe emission limitations for the area and to update technical specifications for testing equipment. WRITTEN COMMENT 0NLYRULEMAKING HEARING 

### 5. Common Provisions Regulation (5 minutes presentation, 5 minutes discussion) The Division proposed revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation, Section I.G., specific to the definition of"negligibly reactive volatile organic compound" and "volatile organic compound" to be consistent with the federal definitions. COMMISSION ACTION 0NLY 

### 6. Regulation Number 13: Oxygenated Fuels Program (5 minutes discussion) On August 20, 2009 the Commission acted to adopt a proposal to repeal the requirements of Regulation Number 13 in its entirety effective February 1, 2011. This action ofthe Commission was not timely filed withthe Secretary ofState and did not become effective. The Commission will consider an action to resubmit their August action to the Secretary of State for publication. PUBLIC HEARINGS 

### 7. Denver Regional Council ofGovernments (DRCOG) Conformity (20 minutes presentation, 50 minutes discussion) The DRCOG will present to the Commission its anticipated Transportation Conformity findings regarding the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the 2008/2013 TIP.
2RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

### 8. Interstate Transport SIP (20 minutes presentation, 30 minutes discussion) The Division will present a proposal to revise previously adopted provisions to address the Clean Air Act Section 110; interstate air pollutant transport requirements. The Division received adverse comment on the previously adopted provision in May 2009 and has worked to revise the interstate transport plan consistent with the comments ofEPA. 

### 9. Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision (10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) The Division will present to the Commission revisions to the carbon monoxide maintenance plan for Colorado Springs. This is the second oftwo 10-years plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. 

### 10. Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision (10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) The Division will present to the Commission revisions to the carbon monoxide maintenance plan for Greeley. This is the second oftwo 10-years plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

### 11. Commissioner Informational Items Commissioners will discuss among themselves activities that they have participated in over the past month that they believe other Commissioners and/or members ofthe public may be interested in hearing about. 

### 12. Division Director's Report- Paul Tourangeau Monthly activities report 

### 13. Attorney General's Report- Jerry Goad Update ofany recent court actions on air quality issues 

### 14. Administrator's Report- Doug Lempke • February meeting agenda items review • Review ofAction Items from Today's Commission Meeting • Status ofPending Action Items Adjourn

3

### The Denver Newspaper Agency DENVER, CO PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT 

### City and County ofDenver, STATE OF COLORADO, SSo

• o •••••• Jean Birch

........ being of lawful age and being first duly swom upon oath, deposes and says:
That hetsh• Is the Legal Advertising Reviewer of The Denver Newspaper Agency, publisher ofthe Denver Post, dally newspaper of general circulation published and printed In whole or In part In Denver, In the County of Denver and State of Colorado, and that said newspaper was prior to end during all the time hereinafter mentioned duly qualified for the publication of legal notices and advertisements within the Meaning of an Act ofthe General Assembly of the State of Colorado, approved April 71 1g21, •• amended and approved March 30 1 1123; and •• amended and approved March 5, 1135, entitled •An Act Concemlng Legal Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the fees of printers and publishers thereof, and to repeal all •eta and parts of acts In conflict with the provision ofthis Act• and amendments thereto:

That the notice, of which the annexed Is • true copy, was published In the said**n~•P:6oto ~b**  (elates of publication)



# ..........**~~!-2,**

# ...**~.1.**

## ............ 0



# ................. y:.··· ···········rJ···r··········o·······


# ..................**~~a**

# .............. Signature •
Subscribed and swom to before me this ••••• 12 ••••• clay
ot 0 •• october ••• A.Dfooe.**·** 

# c.

0


# .........**~**

# .... J.;
- .......................... '·

...''J' Notary Public. My commission expires., •• , September 14, 2013, ••••

# Procedural Documents ofthe Commission

- Agenda Item Control Sheet

### COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM CONTROL SHEET 

### Item Title Proposed Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision Meeting date December 17. 2009

TYPES OF ACTION

NON-HEARING ACTIONS REQUESTFOR HEARING HEARING



### - Administrative

_ Public Rulemaking 

## X Public Rulemaking _Briefing



### - Informational



### - Informational _Policy _Area Designations RECOMMENDED ACTION _Adoption 

## X Approval



## - Denial MOTION 

## X Required



### - Attached

_ Not applicable
STATUTORY AUTHORITY General 25-7-1 05 Specific 25-7-1061 -1071 -109 -302
EPA SUBMITTAL Is this issue considered a SIP revision? Yes X No Which SIP? Colorado Sgrings CO Date of EPA submission deadline: 8/25/07



### Agenda Item Control Sheet 

### 12/2/09 Page 1

### ISSUE STATEMENT: The Division is requesting that the Commission approve a proposed revision for the Colorado Springs CO attainmenUmaintenance area. Approval ofthe document was obtained from the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) -the lead planning agency for the area- in November 2009. The Air Pollution Control Division also recommends approval ofthe revision. The documentation confirms that the Colorado Springs area will continue to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide through 2020, and has recorded no violations ofthe standard since the 1993 attainment year established in the original carbon monoxide maintenance plan adopted by the AQCC in January 1998. No additional control measures are required for the Colorado Springs area to comply with the standard

. Since carbon monoxide levels in Colorado Springs are significantly below the NAAQS, the Air Pollution Control Division is using the limited maintenance plan option for areas that the EPA assumes cannot reasonably be expected to experience enough growth to violate the standards. The Colorado Springs area's carbon monoxide values are 26 percent ofthe 8-hour NAAQS, which is below the 85 percent criteria for utilizing the limited maintenance plan option

. This revision satisfies the federal requirement for confirming attainment for the second ten-year period after redesignation to attainmenUmaintenance. No additional revisions ofthe Colorado Springs attainmenUmaintenance plan are anticipated. Iffuture changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with maintaining the carbon monoxide standard, the State will address the need to revise the attainmenUmaintenance plan at that time

. Please note that this maintenance plan was to be submitted to EPA by August 25, 2007 (which is 8 years after EPA's approval ofthe initial redesignation request and maintenance plan, as required by the CAA)

. The Colorado Springs area attainmenUmaintenance plan was amended in 2004 and maintenance ofthe CO NAAQS was demonstrated through 2015

. Though the plan update is late, no adverse environmental or administrative impact has occurred

.



### Agenda Item Control Sheet 12/2/09 Page2

### ATIACHMENTS: 1

. Proposed Colorado Springs Maintenance Plan revision 2. Technical Support Document SIGNATURES: 

### Preparer

Division Director

Agenda Item Control Sheet 

### 12/2/09 Date

# J~l~/o9 

# ,:£ly/OJ

Date

Page 3

# Parties Hearing Documents (this includes a list ofthe parties, the parties prehearing statements and rebuttal statements, and any orders by the Commission)BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO
PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COLORADO SPRINGS CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (''DIVISIOn") confirms that it supports Its original proposal. Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, the only party, suppmts this proposal. The Division is aware ofno Issues
. The economic impact analysis has not changed.

DATED this 

### 9th day ofNovember, 

### 2009

JOHN W
. SUTHERS Attorney**Q._~**

## ,.//**~~- ~** **C-- ----** 

## ~~**tlfoMMfA:ioAN:30867*** Assistant Attorney General Envuonmental Quality Natural Resources and Environment Section Attorneys for AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

DIVISION 

### 1525 She1man Street. 5th Floor Denver, Colorado 

### 80203 Telephone: 

### (303) 866-5280 *Counsel ofRecord



## RECEIVED NOV 

## 16 2009 AIR (} 

### ·A l.ITY 

### CONTROL COMr ''SSIONCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I cert1fy that I have duly served the foregomg Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, 

### Air Pollution Control Div1s10n's Prehearing Statement upon the followmg parttes by electronic mail on November 

### 9th, 2009·
Jerry Goad Attorney General's Office 

### 1525 Shennan St., 

### 5tJ1Floor Denver, CO 

### 80203 Jen}'.gq!}d((i1 state.co.us Rtck Muzzy Pikes Peak Are Council ofGovernments 

### 15 S. 

### 7th Street Colorado Springs, CO 

### 80905 rrnuzzv@.ppacg.org Theresa

### L. Martin Air Quality Control Commission 

### 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 

### 80246 Theresa.martJn@state.co.us**~** I

### AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

## RECEIVED 

## NOV 16 2009

AIR QUALITY CONTMl<XJMSSION



# ---------------------------------------------------- RESPONSIVE PREHEARINGSTATEMENT OFTHEPIKES

### PEAKAREA COUNCIL OFGOVERNMENfS IN TilE

### MA'ITER OFTHEPROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE COLORADO SPRINGS CARBON MONOXIDEMAINTENANCEPLAN
PPACG supports the changes as proposed bythe AirPollution Control Division in the Notice of Public Rulemaking Hearing for the Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. The PPACG Board recommended approval of the Revised Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan at their November 9 meeting.


### II. WITNESSES Respectfully submitted this 16th day ofNovember, 2009 By:

Rich Muzzy Environmental Program Manager 

### rikes Peak Area Council ofGovernments 15 S. 7th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80905 Phone: (719) 471-7080 xl09 Fax: (719) 471-1226

# Pikes PeakArea council of Governments

October 16,2009 

### Mr. Douglas A. Lempke, Technical Secretary CDPHE-AQCC APCD-CC-B 1, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80222-1530 Re: Party Status for Colorado Springs Carbon MonoxideMaintenance Plan Dear Doug: 

## RECEIVED 

## OCT 15 2009

AIR QUALITY CON1lO..COIIMISSDI

Pikes Peak Area Council ofGovernments (PPACG) would like to apply for party status for the Colorado Springs Carbon MonoxideMaintenance Plan. The contact information is provided below: Applicant: Representative: Address: Phone#: 

### Fax#: Email address: Pikes Peak Area Council ofGovernments (PPACG) Rich Muzzy 15 S. 7th Street Colorado Springs, CO 80905 719-471-70890 x109 719-471-1226 rmuzzy@ppacg.org PP ACG is the lead air quality planning agency for the Colorado Springs Urbanized Area. Overthe past several months, PP ACG has been working inconjunction with members of the Air Pollution Control Division on revisions to the Plan. Theserevisions are in the process ofbeing reviewed byour committees and byourregion's citizens during a 30- daypublic review and commentperiod. Thank you for your consideration ofthis application for party status. Sincerely,

# ~~ Rich Muzzy, Environmental ProgramManager Pikes Peak Area Council ofGovernments Cc: Theresa Martin, Air Pollution Control Division Chris Dann, Air Pollution Control Division Jerry Goad and Thomas Roan, Attorney Generals Office

# Proposed Language and State Implementation Plan Elements

## Revised Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area

10-vearRevision: • In draft , August 31, 2009 

### 'Z'd Revision to the Attainment/Maintenance Plan Adoptedby : The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , September 7, 2004 The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, December 18 , 2003 The Pikes PeakArea Council ofGovernments, September 10 , 2003 151 Revision to the Attainment/Maintenance Plan Approvedby : The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , December22, 2000 Original Redesignation Request andAttainment/Maintenance Plan approvedby : The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , August 25, 1999

Colorado Department ofPublicHealth andEnvironment Revisions prepared by: The Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 (303) 692-3100

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 1

### Background The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a carbon monoxide (CO) redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs area on August 25, 1999 (64 FR46279), which became effective on October 29, 1999. This action, which was adopted bythe Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) in January 1998, established a base (attainment) year of 1993 and an out (maintenance) year of2010, provided for the continuation ofthe State's basic inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and the oxygenated gasoline program inthe Colorado Springs area (as the programs existed in January 1998), established a CO emission budget of212 tons per day (tpd) to be utilized intransportation conformity determinations, and established a contingency plan inthe event a violation ofthe CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) was measured. On December 22, 2000, the EPA approved arevised Colorado Springs area CO attainment/maintenance plan, which became effective onFebruary 20, 2001 (65 FR 80779). This action, which was adopted bythe AQCC in February 2000, revised the attainment year from 1993 to 1990, provided for the continuation ofthebasic 

### liM program, eliminatedthe oxygenated gasoline program in El Paso County, revised the maintenance demonstration, revised the contingency plan, and revised the CO emission budget from 212 tpd to 270 tpd for the period 2001 and beyond
. On September 7, 2004, the EPA approved another revised Colorado Springs area CO attainment/maintenance plan, which became effective onNovember 8, 2004 (69 FR 54024). This action, which was adopted bythe AQCC in December 2003, updated the emission inventories using the latest EPA-approved tools (including the MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile sources emission model), eliminated the basic I/M program in El Paso County from the federal State Implementation Plan (SIP), extended the maintenance year to 2015, and revised the CO emission budget from 270 tpdto 531 tpd for the period 2010 and beyond. This revision to the attainment/maintenance plan

-- considered a "limited maintenance plan"

- revises the attainment year from 1990 to 2007, updates the base year emission inventory using the latest EPA-approved tools (including the MOBILE 6
.2 on-road mobile sources emission model), and extends the maintenance year through 2020. This attainment/maintenance plan confirms thatthe CO standard will be maintained for a secondten-year period after the original redesignation. Limited Maintenance Plan Option Colorado is using the Limited Maintenance Plan option in preparing this second ten-year revision. The option is explained in EPA guidance ofOctober 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. The guidance allows for a less rigorous approach than was previously required in developing attainment/maintenance plans for CO nonattainment areas that have design
Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 2

### values at orbelow 7
.65 ppm (85% ofthe CO NAAQS). The Colorado Springs area's design value in this plan revision is 2
.3 ppm (approximately 26% ofthe CO NAAQS). The Colorado Springs area's design value inthe first ten-year plan was 5
.5 ppm. The design values were determined by using the second-highest maximum eight-hour value of eight consecutive quarters, as required by EPA guidance
. The Colorado Springs area has shown a continued reduction in CO values throughout the maintenance period. The limited maintenance plan approach requires development ofan emission inventory but does not require the inventory to be projected for future years. The maintenance demonstration is considered to be satisfied ifthe monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (at orbelow 7.65 ppm or 85% ofthe CO NAAQS). Transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing thatthe transportation plans are consistent with the emissionbudget. The guidance for limited maintenance plans state that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expectthat such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budget test" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. Continued Attainment ofthe Carbon Monoxide Standard Attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards for CO is demonstrated when monitoring data for each site show no more than one exceedance per year ofthe 8-hour (9 ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) standards. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded in the Colorado Springs area since 1989
. The 1-hour standard has not been exceeded since 1979
. Monitoring data for 1999-2008 demonstrates that the Colorado Springs area continues to attain/maintainthe national standard for CO as required by 40 CFR 50.8. Data from 1999 through 2008 are provided to demonstrate continual attainmen t/maintenance since the redesignation to attainment was promulgated in 1999. This demonstration is based on quality assured monitoring datarepresentative ofthe location ofexpected maximum concentrations ofCO in the Colorado Springs area. Datapresented is the second highest maximum value recorded at the monitors. The second maximum value is used by EPA for determining compliance with the CO NAAQS. The monitoring datapresented inTable 1verifies that the Colorado Springs area continues to attain the 8-hourNAAQS for CO. Datarecovery rates for the monitor exceeded the 75% completeness requirements for all years. All state and federal quality assurance procedures were complied with, further substantiating the validity ofthe measurements as indicators ofambient CO levels in the Colorado Springs area.

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 3

### Table 1 1999-2008, 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Summary for Colorado Springs Standard: 8-hour = 

### 9 ppm* 8-Hour 

### 2"d Maximum (ppm)

Site Name 1999 2000 2001 Colo. Spgs., 690 

### W. Hwy
.24 5.2 4.2 4.4 8-Hour 2" 0 

### Maximum (ppm) 2002 5.1

Site Name 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Colo. Spgs., 690 

### W. Hwy. 24 3.9 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.1 *Dueto mathematical rounding, a value of9.5 ppm or greater is necessary to exceed the standard.

### 2008 2.3
Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Area Boundaries Beginning near the Town ofPalmer Lake, at the Northwest comer ofthe Study Area at a point on the El Paso/Douglas County line, also on the PikeNational Forest boundary, then: east along the County line to Elbert Road; south onElbert Road to Judge Orr Road; east on Judge Orr Road to Ellicott Highway; south onEllicott Highway to Squirrel Creek Road; west on Squirrel Creek Road to Williams Creek; south along Williams Creek to the confluence ofWilliams and Fountain Creeks; south along Fountain Creekto the El Paso/Pueblo County line; west onthe County line to 1-25; north on I-25 to Exit 132; west on Magrath to Weston Ave.; south on Weston Ave
.to Barkeley Ave
. and then straight on to Specker Ave.; northwest on Specker Ave
. to Titus Blvd.; west on Titus Blvd. to SH115; south on SH-115 to Rock Creek; northwest along Rock Creekto the Pike National Forest boundary; north along the Forestboundary to Old Stage Road; southwest on Old Stage Road to Gold Camp Road; north on Gold Camp Road to High Drive; north on High Drive to Lower Gold Camp Road; north on Lower Gold Camp Road to the Pike National Forest boundary; west along southern boundary ofSections 16, 17, and 18 ofTownship 14 South (T 14 S), Range 67 West (R 67 W); north along the westernboundary of Sections 7 and 6 ofT 14S R67 W; and east along the northern boundary ofSections 5 and 4 ofT14S, R67W to US-24; northwest on US-24 to the Pikes Peak Toll Road; west on the Toll Road to the El Paso/Teller County line; north along the County line to Crystola Creek; west on Crystola Creek to County Road 28, north on County Road 282 to US-24; northeast onUS-24 to Trout Creek Road; northwest on Trout Creek Road to Trout Creek; north along Trout Creekto the confluence ofTrout and Mule Creeks; north along Mule Creekto Long Gulch; east along Long Gulch to White Gulch; east along White Gulch to Rampart Range Road; southeast on Rampart Range Road to the Pike National Forest Boundary; north along the Forestboundary to the El Paso/Douglas County line, to the point oforigin.

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 4

### Figure 1. Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Area

0 2

.5 5 

# - 

# -

Map Created bythe APCD Tectnical Services Program Colaado Department of Public Health end Environment

# CJ D 10 15 20 Miles 

### Legend Attainment/Maintenance Area County Boundary

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 N 

# A

Page 5

### Emission Inventories 

### The area shown in Figure 1represents the area in which the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) serves as the "Lead Planning Agency" for air quality and the "Metropolitan Planning Organization" (MPO) for transportation. This attainment/maintenance plan revision utilizes 2007 as the attainment year for emission inventories, which is the same year from which the 2.3 ppm design value was derived. Emission inventories for a typical winter day are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 attainment year. Each inventory accounts for the emission control programs effective during thatperiod. The modeling domain consists ofthe Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area, which encompasses the city ofColorado Springs and surrounding communities (see Figure 1). The emission inventories, included here and detailed in the Technical Support Document for this attainment/maintenance planrevision, were developed using U.S
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and local VMT datafor on-road mobile source emissions, EPA's non-road model, local demographic information for area and off-road sources, and reported actual emissions for point sources. The inventory represents average daily winter emissions. The MOBILE6 and non-road model inputs represent these average daily winter conditions. Heating and wood burning emissions were apportioned from annual emission estimates by heating degree day data from the Western Regional Climate Center. Other source categories were apportioned from annual to daily by dividing by 365. 

### Table 2. CARBON MONOXIDE Emission Inventory (tons per day) Inventory Summary Source Category 2007 

### Aircraft 2
.92 Biogenic 0.00 Commercial Cooking 0.19 Fuel Combustion 1.62 Highway Vehicles 319.16 Non O&G Point Sources 

### 227 Non-Road 40.45 Railroads 021 Structure Fires 0.09 Wood burning 140.49 Grand TOTAL 507.39

. . Note: Results are reported wtth two dectmal place prectston to provtde representation ofsmaller source categones
. This level ofprecision is not intended to suggest a level ofaccuracy.

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 6

### Enforceable Control Measures for the Maintenance Period


### • Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control tailpipe standards and regulations, including those for small engines and non-road mobile sources. Credit is taken for these federal requirements, but they are part of a federally-administered program and not a state commitment ofthe Colorado SIP.

• Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No.3, Air Pollution Emission Notices

- Permits

• AQCC RegulationNo.4, Wood Stove Standards

• AQCC Regulation Number 6, New Source Performance Standards

• AQCC Common Provisions Rule The Common Provisions and Regulation No.6 delineate industrial source control programs. The Common Provisions, and Parts A and B ofRegulation No.3, already are included inthe approved Colorado SIP. RegulationNo.6 and Part C ofRegulationNo.3 implement the federal standards ofperformance for new stationary sources and the federal operating permit program. The revised Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance plan makes no changes to these regulations. Maintenance Demonstration 

### This attainment/maintenance planutilizes the EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan option, as explained above. The Limited Maintenance Plan approach can be utilized when an area has a design value at orbelow 7.65 ppm (85% ofthe CO NAAQS). The design value for the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area is 2.3 ppm (approximately 26% ofthe CO NAAQS), which is the highest second maximum concentration for the 2007-2008 monitoring period
.

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 7

### Transportation Conformity Determination Under the Limited Maintenance Plan approach, transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that transportationplans are consistent with any existing emission budgets
. When any existing budgets expire, conformity is then presumed and regional analyses and emission budgettests for transportation conformity are no longer necessary. The guidance for limited maintenance plans states that emission budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance periodthat a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the
"budgettest" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. Forthe Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area, the EPA approved emission budgets are 536 tons per day (2010-2014), and 531 tons per day (2015 and beyond). According to the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, these budgets are to remain in place, and conformity with these budgets is demonstrated, through the year 2015. Beginning in 2016, the budgets expire. While the Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area (underthe Limited Maintenance Plan approach) is not subject to the budget test, the arearemains subjectto other transportation conformity requirements
. 

### Monitoring Network I 

### Verification ofContinued Attainment The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) will continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFRPart 58 to verify the continued attainment ofthe CO NAAQS. Ifmeasured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, fleet mix, etc
.) change significantly over time, the APCD will perform the appropriate studies to determine whether additional and/or resited monitors are necessary. An annual review ofthe NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance system will be conducted 

### in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 to determine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary andto determine whetherthe system continues to meetthe monitoring objectives presented in Appendix D of40 CFR Part 58
. 

### Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) ofthe Clean Air Act requires thatthe attainment/maintenance plan contain contingency provisions to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation ofthe CO NAAQS which occurs 

### inthe Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. The contingency plan must ensure thatthe contingen'Cy measures are adopted expeditiously once the need is triggered. The primary elements ofthe contingency plan involve the tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process for implementing appropriate control measures.
Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 8

### Tracking The tracking plan for the Colorado Springs area consists ofcontinuous CO monitoring and analysis ofCO concentrations by the APCD. The APCD will notify the EPA,the AQCC, the PPACG and local governments ofany exceedance ofthe CO standard within 30 days ofoccurrence. The ongoing regional transportation planning process carried out by the PPACG in coordination with the Colorado Department ofTransportation (CDOT), the APCD, the AQCC, and the EPA, will serve as another means oftracking mobile source CO emissions into the future
. Since revisions to the regions' transportation improvementprograms are prepared every two years and must go through a transportation conformity determination, a process is inplace to periodically review the VMT and mobile source emissions ofCO presented in this attainment/maintenance plan. 

### Triggering and Response Triggering ofthe contingency plan does not automatically require a revision ofthe SIP, nor is the area necessarily redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead,the State will have an appropriate time-frame to correct a violation by implementing one or more adopted contingency measures. In the event that violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are corrected. An 

### exceedance ofthe CO NAAQS (any value 9
.5 ppm or greater) may trigger a voluntary, local process by the PPACG and the APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. However, the only federally enforceable trigger for mandatory implementation ofcontingency measures shall be a violation ofthe CO NAAQS. Specifically, this would be a 

### secondvalue of 9
.5 ppm or greater at the same monitor during any calendar year. The State will move forward with mandatory implementation ofcontingency measures under the SIP ifa violation ofthe CO NAAQS occurs. No more than 60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation occurred,the PPACG

- inconjunction with the APCD,the AQCC and local governments- will initiate a process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures. The PPACG will presentrecommendations within 120 days ofnotification, and the recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days ofnotification
. The AQCC then will hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along with any other contingency measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one year after a violation occurs.

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 9

### List ofPotential Contingency Measures The PPACG and the APCD may choose one or more ofthe following measures to recommend to the AQCC for consideration. The measures will be designed to bring the area quickly back into compliance with the CO NAAQS.
• An 

### enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program as set forth in AQCC RegulationNo. 11, withthe addition ofany on-board diagnostics components required by federal law.

• The State may evaluate other potential strategies including, butnot limitedto, transportation control measures and mandatory wood burning restrictions in order to address any future violations in the most appropriate and effective manner possible. Subsequent Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revisions It

### is required that an attainment/maintenance planrevision be submittedto the EPA demonstrating thatthe CO standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period. The purpose ofthis fmal revision is to fulfill that requirement for an additional ten years (through 2020) following the first ten-year period. Iffuture changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues withthe conformityprocess, the State will address the need to revise the attainment/maintenance plan at thattime.

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 8/31/09 Page 10

# Technical Support Document 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.2Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

# Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Colorado Springs

Technical Support Document Emission Inventory

December 17, 2009 

### Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246

Colorado Springs Technical SupportDocument 12/2/09 Page 1Colorado Department ofPublic·Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division



# Table of Contents 1. EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOG¥
..................................................................................................3 2. 2007 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY
....................................................................................................4 3
. REFERENCES
......................................................................................................................................................6

Colorado Springs Technical SupportDocument 12/2/09 Page2Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

## 1. Emission Inventory Methodology The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) developed the 2007 emission inventory in the "Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Colorado Springs" using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and the latest transportation data from the Colorado Department ofTransportation (CDOT) and demographic data from the State Demographers Office. Highway mobile source emissions are from the EPA model MOBILE6, an emission factor model for predicting gram per mile emissions ofHydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Dioxide (C02), Particulate Matter (PM), and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions
. Non-road source emissions are from the EPANon-Road Model. Area source emissions (including heating, construction, railroads, etc.) are from the 2002 EPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI), grown to 2007 bypopulation growth from data from the State. For more documentation for these categories, refer to the NEI documentation (EPA, 2008)
. Under Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No.3, the APCD requires any source that emits two tons per year or greater to submit an Air Pollutant EmissionNotice (APEN) (APCD, 2008). This means that sources that emit less than two tons per year are not necessarily accounted for in an emissions inventory. The point source emissions for Colorado Springs were obtained from this tracking system. The emission estimates are made using a variety ofmethodologies. Data from source-specific emission tests, or continuous emission monitors are preferable, but not always available. The EPA has developed a variety ofemission factors to estimate emissions as well. Emission factors are frequently the best or only method available for estimating emissions.

Colorado Springs Technical Support Document 12/2/09 Page3Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division


## 2. 2007 Emission Inventory Summary This sectionpresents the 2007 emission inventories for the maintenance plan
. 

### Table 1. 2007 CARBON MONOXIDE Emission Inventory (tons peryear). Inventory Summary**~0** (TonsNear Commerc1al Cookmg 68

.6S Fuel Combustion 317.07 Non-Road 3S,SS6.16 ' Structure Fires 34

.13 Woodburnmg 27,S09.28 A1rcraft 1 ,064

.31 Highway Vehicles 89,068

.77 Biogenic 1 ,0S9

.71 Railroads 7S

.S2 Non O&G Pomt Sources 826

.78 Grand TOTAL 155,580.4 Non O&G Point Sources site 

### id facility n 0003 COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES-BIRDSALL PLT 1S.9 0004 COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES-DRAKE PLT 2S3

.0 0006 U

.S

. AIR FORCE ACADEMY 24

.8 0007 COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES LAS VEGAS WWT 4

.0 0010 TRANSIT MIX CONCRETE 1.8 0014 FORT CARSON USARMY (DECAM) 78

.7 0016 PETERSON AFB 21CES CEV 18

.3 0017 LAFARGE WEST, INC

. -FILLMORE 93

.0 0022 COLORADO SPRINGS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 12

.0 0023 BROADMOOR HOTEL INC 2

.8 0036 W FORGE HOLDINGS, INC 19.1 0037 AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES 7.8 0041

. ATMEL CORP 20

.8 0042 TRANSIT MIX CONCRETE CO 0.0 004S IR SECURITY AND SAFETY 0.2 ooso OGLEBAY NORTON INDUSTRIAL SANDS 4.4 OOS4 PIKES PEAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2

.6 pass PENROSE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 2.1 OOS6 PENROSE HOSP 8

.8 0063 CHEYENNE MTN ZOO 0.1 K>067 ST FRANCIS PENROSE HOSP SYS 1.3 0069 COLORADO COLLEGE 4.S 007S EVERGREEN PARK MAUSOLEUM ASSOCIATION 0.0 K>o8o INTEL CORP (WAS ROCKWELL & UNITED TECH) 2S

.S 0096 LAFARGE WEST- VOLLMER CONCRETE PLANT 0

.0 p121 SCHRIEVER AFB USAF 4

.S K>178 VILLA SAN JOSE APT BLDG 0

.0 0192 PETE LIEN & SONS DBA TRANS-COLO CONCRETE 0.3 Colorado Springs Techmcal SupportDocument 12/2/09 Page4Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division
0223 HEWLETT-PACKARD CORPORATION 0
.6 0301 MOBILE ENERGY PRODUCTS 27
.5 0307 TEGRANT DIVERSIFIED BRANDS, INC

. 3
.8 0310 BURTS AUTO SUPPLY 0
.0 0316 RAMTRON INTL CORP 0
.1 0328 SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION CO.-DELTA DRIVE FAG 28
.0 0331 FOUNTAIN LANDFILL 31
.0 0411 AEROFLEX UTMC MICROELECTRONICS 0
.2 p522 SINTON DAIRY FOODS CO 1.9 0535 SNO WHITE LINEN &UNIFORM RENTAL INC 0
.5 0548 NUSTAR LOGISTICS- COLO SPGS TERMINAL 6
.5 0783 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AIR FORCE STATION 3.3 0812 COLORADO SPRINGS MORTUARY &CREMATIONS 0
.1 0831 VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP 3
.0 0850 CAPPADONA'S FAMILY SVCES 0
.2 0856 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP 0
.1 0882 KLK INC

. -IOWA AVE 1 1 0888 ROCKY MOUNTAIN PREMIX 2
.1 1595 U

.S

. CORP OF ENGINEERS- TSA/ONRA 0
.2 1608 TRANSIT MIX CONCRETE CO
- EAST PLANT 1
.6 1996 CAPPADONA FUNERAL HOME 0
.2 1997 EL PASO CNTY- CENTRAL HEATING &COOLING 11 4 2000 ROCKY MOUNTAIN MATERIALS &ASPHALT INC 80
.0 2001 ROCKY MOUNTAIN MATERIALS &ASPHALT INC 17
.1 2004 DPIX, LLC 0
.3 TOTAL 826
.8

Colorado Springs Technical SupportDocument 12/2/09 PageSColorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

## 3. References
APCD, 2008. Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 3. Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant EmissionNotice Requirements. 5 CCR 1001-5
. <http:/ /www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/airregs/100103stationarysourcepermitting
.pdf> U.S. EPA, 2008. "2002 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation." < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief /net/2002inventory.html#documentation >

Colorado Springs Technical SupportDocument 12/2/09 Page6

# State Implementation Plan Element Adopted by the Commission 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1 (d)

## Revised Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Plan Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area

10-yearRevision to the Attamment/Mamtenance Plan Adoptedby· The Colorado Air Quality Control Comm1ss1on, December 17 , 2009 '?d Rev1s1on to the Attamment/Maintenance Plan Adopted by· The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , September7, 2004 The Colorado A1r Quality Control Comm1ss1on, December 18 , 2003 The Pikes PeakArea Council ofGovernments, September 10, 2003 1st Revision to the Attainment/Maintenance Plan Approvedby· The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , December22, 2000 Origmal Redes1gnation Reguest andAttainment!Mamtenance Plan approvedby· The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , August25 , 1999

Colorado Department ofPublicHealth andEnvironment Revisions prepared by: The Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 (303) 692-3100

Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monoxide Attarnment/Marntenance Dian Rev1 s1

on 12/ 17/09 Page 1Background The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a carbon monoxide (CO) redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs area on August 25 , 1999 (64 FR 46279), which became effective on October 29, 1999. This action, which was adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) in January 1998, established a base (attainment) year of 1993 and an out (maintenance) year of2010, provided for the continuation ofthe State's basic inspection and maintenance (VM) program and the oxygenated gasoline program in the Colorado Springs area (as the programs existed in January 1998), established a CO emission budget of212 tons per day (tpd) to be utilized in transportation conformity determinations, and established a contingency plan in the event a violation ofthe CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) was measured. On December 22, 2000, the EPA approved a revised Colorado Springs area CO attainment/maintenance plan, which became effective on February 20, 2001 (65 FR 80779). This action, which was adopted by the AQCC in February 2000, revised the attainment year from 1993 to 1990, provided for the continuation ofthe basic 

### UM program, eliminated the oxygenated gasoline program in El Paso County, revised the maintenance demonstration, revised the contingency plan, and revised the CO emission budget from 212 tpd to 270 tpd for the period 2001 and beyond
. On September 7, 2004, the EPA approved another revised Colorado Springs area CO attainment/maintenance plan, which became effective on November 8, 2004 (69 FR 54024). This action, which was adopted by the AQCC in December 2003, updated the emission inventories using the latest EPA-approved tools (including the MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile sources emission model), eliminated the basic 1/M program in El Paso County from the federal State Implementation Plan (SIP), extended the maintenance year to 2015, and revised the CO emission budget from 270 tpd to 531 tpd for the period 2010 and beyond. This revision to the attainment/maintenance plan-- considered a "limited maintenance plan"

- revises the attainment year from 1990 to 2007, updates the base year emission inventory using the latest EPA-approved tools (including the MOBILE 6.2 on-road mobile sources emission model), and extends the maintenance year through 2020. This attainment/maintenance plan confirms that the CO standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period after the original redesignation
. Limited Maintenance Plan Option Colorado is using the Limited Maintenance Plan option in preparing this second ten-year revision. The option is explained in EPA guidance ofOctober 6, 1995, from Joseph W
. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The guidance allows for a less rigorous approach than was previously required in developing attainment/maintenance plans for CO nonattainment areas that have design
Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monox1de Atta1nment1Mamtenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 2values at or below 7.65 ppm (85% ofthe CO NAAQS). The Colorado Springs area's design value in this plan revision is 2.3 ppm (approximately 26% ofthe CO NAAQS). The Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area's design value in the first ten-year plan was 5.5 ppm. The design values were determined by using the secqnd-highest maximum eight-hour value ofeight consecutive quarters, as required by EPA guidance
. The Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area has shown a continued reduction in CO values throughout the maintenance period
. The limited maintenance plan approach requires development ofan emission inventory but does not require the inventory to be projected for future years. The maintenance demonstration is considered to be satisfied ifthe monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (at or below 7.65 ppm or 85% ofthe CO NAAQS). Transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that the transportation plans are consistent with the emission budget. The guidance for limited maintenance plans state that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budget test" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. Continued Attainment ofthe Carbon Monoxide Standard Attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide is demonstrated when monitoring data for each site show no more than one exceedance per year ofthe 8-hour (9 ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) standards. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded in the Colorado Springs area since 1989. The 1-hour standard has not been exceeded since 1979. Monitoring data for 1999-2008 demonstrates that the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area continues to attain/maintain the national standard for carbon monoxide as required by 40 CFR 50.8. Data from 1999 through 2008 are provided to demonstrate continual attainment/maintenance since the redesignation to attainment was promulgated in 1999. This demonstration is based on quality assured monitoring data representative ofthe location ofexpected maximum concentrations ofcarbon monoxide in the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area. Data presented is the second highest maximum value recorded at the monitors. The second maximum value is used by EPA for determining compliance with the CO NAAQS. The monitoring data presented in Table 1verifies that the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area continues to attain the 8-hour NAAQS for carbon monoxide. Data recovery rates for the monitor exceeded the 75% completeness requirements for all years. All state and federal quality assurance procedures were complied with, further substantiating the validity ofthe measurements as indicators of ambient carbon monoxide levels in the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area. 

### Table 1
Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monoxide Attammeni:/Mamtenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 31999-2008, 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Summary for Colorado Springs Standard: 8-hour 

### = 9 ppm* 8-Hour 2°0 Maximum (ppm)

Site Name 1999 12000 12001 Colo. Spgs., 690 W
. Hwy
. 24 5.2 14.2 14.4 8-Hour 2nd Maximum {ppm} 12002 15.1

Site Name 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Colo. Spgs., 690 W. Hwy. 24 3.9 3.1 2
.7 2.4 2.1 *Due to mathematical rounding, a value of9.5 ppm or greater is necessary to exceed the standard.2008 2.3
Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Area Boundaries Beginning near the Town ofPalmer Lake, at the Northwest comer ofthe Study Area at a point on the El Paso/Douglas County line, also on the Pike National Forest boundary, then: east along the County line to Elbert Road; south on Elbert Road to Judge Orr Road; east on Judge Orr Road to Ellicott Highway; south on Ellicott Highway to Squirrel Creek Road; west on Squirrel Creek Road to Williams Creek; south along Williams Creek to the confluence ofWilliams and Fountain Creeks; south along Foun:ain Creek to the El Paso/Pueblo County line; west on the County line to 1-25; north on 1-25 to Exit 132; west on Magrath to Weston Ave.; south on Weston Ave. to Barkeley Ave. and then straight on to Specker Ave. ; northwest on Specker Ave. to Titus Blvd.; west on Titus Blvd
. to SH115; south on SH-115 to Rock Creek; northwest along Rock Creek to the Pike National Forest boundary; north along the Forest boundary to Old Stage Road; southwest on Old Stage Road to Gold Camp Road; north on Gold Camp Road to High Drive; north on High Drive to Lower Gold Camp Road; north on Lower Gold Camp Road to the Pike National Forest boundary; west along southern boundary ofSections 16, 17, and 18 ofTownship 14 South (T 14 S), Range 67 West (R 67 W); north along the western boundary of Sections 7 and 6 ofT 14S R67 W; and east along the northern boundary ofSections 5 and 4 ofTl4S, R67W to US-24; northwest on US-24 to the Pikes Peak Toll Road; west on the Toll Road to the El Paso/Teller County line; north along the County line to Crystola Creek; west on Crystola Creek to County Road 28, north on County Road 282 to US-24; northeast on US-24 to Trout Creek Road; northwest on Trout Creek Road to Trout Creek; north along Trout Creek to the confluence ofTrout and Mule Creeks; north along Mule Creek to Long Gulch; east along Long Gulch to White Gulch; east along White Gulch to Rampart Range Road; southeast on Rampart Range Road to the Pike National Forest Boundary; north along the Forest boundary to the El Paso/Douglas County line, to the point oforigin.

Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monox1de Attamment/Mamtenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 4

### Figure 1. Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance Area

:.



### "'**~** "**~** 

# 1**~**

'<: " /

# ~ I' \ 

### / ,'

- \iS**~~ys ~** **l~le"'O:w!'**

·- SttiC'**H~\'l' yt** **~oc.a~A!):aCJtl**

c.- (' \ 

## j ) f

I / I / 

### ,.

.....

# --
...

# - -·--..

# -- ( \

Colorado Springs

CO Attain/Maint. Area**"- ··** **~-** ..**·~ ---** **---** ,!!! 

### 5 (.) i

## l I I I

(')

c 2: <fJ (

94

c

.9**~** O.. ·

Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monox1de AttammentjMa1ntenance Plan Rev1sion 12/17/09 

# l

I
'**~:** I

Page 5

### Emission Inventories The area shown in Figure 1 represents the area in which the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) serves as the "Lead Planning Agency" for air quality and the "Metropolitan Planning Organization" (MPO) for transportation. This attainment/maintenance plan revision utilizes 2007 as the attainment year for emission inventories, which is the same year from which the 2.3 ppm design value was derived. Emission inventories for a typical winter day are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 attainment year. Each inventory accounts for the emission control programs effective during that period. The modeling domain consists ofthe Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area, which encompasses the city ofColorado Springs and surrounding communities (see Figure 1). The emission inventories, included here and detailed in the Technical Support Document for this attainment/maintenance plan revision, were developed using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and local VMT data for on-road mobile source emissions, EPA's non-road model, local demographic information for area and off-road sources, and reported actual emissions for point sources. The inventory represents average daily winter emissions. The MOBILE6 and non-road model inputs represent these average daily winter conditions. Heating and wood burning emissions were apportioned from annual emission estimates by heating degree day data from the Western Regional Climate Center. Other source categories were apportioned from annual to daily by dividing by 365. 

### Table 2. CARBON MONOXIDE Emission Inventory (tons perday) Inventory_Summary Source Category 2007 Aircraft 2.92 Biogenic 0.00 Commercial Cooking 0.19 Fuel Combustion 1.62 Highway Vehicles 319.16 Non O&G Point Sources 2.27 Non-Road 40.45 Railroads 0.21 Structure Fires 0.09 Woodburning 140.49 

### Grand TOTAL 507.39 Note: Results are reported w1th two dec1mal place prec1s1on to prov1de representatiOn ofsmaller source categones
. Th1s level ofprec1s1on IS not mtended to suggest a level ofaccumcy. Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monoxide Attamment/Mamtenance Plan Revision 12/17/09 Page 6

### Enforceable Control Measures for the Maintenance Period

• Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control tailpipe standards and regulations, including those for small engines and non-road mobile sources. Credit is taken for these federal requirements, but they are part of a federally-administered program and not a state commitment ofthe Colorado SIP.

• Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 3, Air Pollution Emission Notices

- Permits

• AQCC Regulation No.4, Wood Stove Standards

• AQCC Regulation Number 6, New Source Performance Standards

• AQCC Common Provisions Rule The Common Provisions and Regulation No. 6 delineate industrial source control programs. The Common Provisions, and Parts A and B ofRegulation No.3, already are included in the approved Colorado SIP. Regulation No.6 and Part C ofRegulation No.3 implement the federal standards ofperformance for new stationary sources and the federal operating permit program. The revised Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance plan makes no changes to these regulations. 

### Maintenance Demonstration This attainment/maintenance plan utilizes the EPA' s Limited Maintenance Plan option, as explained above
. The Limited Maintenance Plan approach can be utilized when an area has a design value at or below 7.65 ppm (85% ofthe CO NAAQS)
. The design value for the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area is 2.3 ppm (approximately 26% ofthe CO NAAQS), which is the highest second maximum concentration for the 2007-2008 monitoring period.

Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monoxide Attamment/Maintenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 7Transportation Conformity Determination Under the Limited Maintenance Plan approach, transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that transportation plans are consistent with any existing emission budgets. When any existing budgets expire, conformity is then presumed and regional analyses and emission budget tests for transportation conformity are no longer necessary. The guidance for limited maintenance plans states that emission budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the
"budget test" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. For the Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area, the previous EPA-approved motor vehicle emission budget was531 tons ofcarbon monoxide per day for 2010 and beyond (69 FR 54019, September 7, 2004). According to the EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan guidance and SIP and conformity requirements, the motor vehicle emission budget budget is to remain in place, and conformity demonstrated to this motor vehicle emission budget, through 2010. Beginning in 2011, this motor vehicle emission budget is no longer applicable and a regional emissions analysis will not need to be performed for conformity dterminations for the respective long range transportation plan (LRTP) or transportation improvement program (TIP) because the 2010 motor vehicle emission budget would no longer be in the timeframe
.ofthe transportation plan
. However,, until such time as the Limited Maintenance Plan revision becomes Federallyeffective (i
.e., until EPA's adequacy finding is effective), the PPACG will need to continue to perform the necessary regional emissions analyses for the current motor vehicle emission budget for the appropriate years in their respective LRTP and TIP conformity determinations. While the Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area (under the Limited Maintenance Plan approach) is not subject to the budget test, the area remains subject to other transportation conformity requirements. Monitoring Network I Verification ofContinued Attainment The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) will continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify the continued attainment ofthe CO NAAQS. Ifmeasured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, fleet mix, etc.) change significantly over time, the APCD will perform the appropriate studies to determine whether additional and/or resited monitors are necessary. An annual review ofthe NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance system will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 to determine, whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary and to determine whether the system continues to meet the monitoring objectives presented in Appendix D of40 CFR Part 58
.

Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monoxide Attamment/Mamtenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 8Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) ofthe Clean Air Act requires that the attainment/maintenance plan contain contingency provisions to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation ofthe CO NAAQS which occurs in the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area. The contingency plan must ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once the need is triggered. The primary elements ofthe contingency plan involve the tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process for implementing appropriate control measures. Tracking The tracking plan for the Colorado Springs attainment/maintenance area consists of continuous carbon monoxide monitoring and analysis ofcarbon monoxide concentrations by the APCD. The APCD will notify the EPA, the AQCC, the PPACG and local governments ofany exceedance ofthe carbon monoxide standard within 30 days ofoccurrence. The ongoing regional transportation planning process carried out by the PPACG in coordination with the Colorado Department ofTransportation (CDOT), the APCD, the AQCC, and the EPA, will serve as another means oftracking mobile source carbon monoxide emissions into the future. Since revisions to the regions' transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years and must go through a transportation conformity determination, a process is in place to periodically review the VMT and mobile source emissions ofcarbon monoxide presented in this attainment/maintenance plan. Triggering and Response Triggering ofthe contingency plan does not automatically require a revision ofthe SIP, nor is the area necessarily redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead, the State will have an appropriate time-frame to correct a violation by implementing one or more adopted contingency measures. In the event that violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are corrected. An exceedance ofthe CO NAAQS (any value 9.5 ppm or greater) may trigger a voluntary, local process by the PPACG and the APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. However, the only federally enforceable trigger for mandatory implementation ofcontingency measures shall be a violation ofthe CO NAAQS. Specifically, this would be a secondvalue of9.5 ppm or greater at the same monitor during any calendar year. The State will move forward with mandatory implementation ofcontingency measures under the SIP ifa violation ofthe CO NAAQS occurs. No more than 60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation occurred, the PPACG

- in conjunction with the APCD, the AQCC and local governments- will initiate a process to begin evaluating Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monox1de Atta1nment/Mamtenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 9potential contingency measures. The PPACG will present recommendations within 120 days ofnotification, and the recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days ofnotification
. The AQCC then will hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along with any other contingency measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one year after a violation occurs.

List ofPotential Contingency Measures The PPACG and the APCD may choose one or more ofthe following measures to recommend to the AQCC for consideration. The measures will be designed to bring the area quickly back into compliance with the CO NAAQS.

• An basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 11 , prior to modifications made as ofDecember 18, 2003, with the addition ofany on-board diagnostics components required by federal law
.
• A 2
.7% oxygenated gasoline progam as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 13, prior to modifications made as ofFebruary 17, 2000
.
• In addition to these potential contingency measures, the State may evaluate other potential strategies, including but not limited to, nonattainment New Source Review permitting requirements, enhanced liM, transportation control measures and mandatory wood burning restrictions, in order to address any future violations in the most appropriate and effective manner possible. Subsequent Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revisions It is required that an attainment/maintenance plan revision be submitted to the EPA demonstrating that the carbon monoxide standard will be maintained for a second tenyear period. The purpose ofthis final revision is to fulfill that requirement for an additional ten years (through 2020) following the first ten-year period. I f future changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the conformity process, the State will address the need to revise the attainment/maintenance plan at that time.

Colorado Spnngs Carbon Monox1de Attamment/Mamtenance Plan Rev1s1on 12/17/09 Page 10

# Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Meeting Minutes

- Action ofthe Commission to SIP Element Revision 

# 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1 (g)

# STATEOFCOLORADO

Bill Ritter, Jr. , Governor James B
. Martm, Executive Director COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South OED

-OLRA-A5 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-3 100 Fax (303) 69 1-7702 TDD (303) 691-7700 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

# Colorado Air Quality Control Commission**~unber17,2009** 

## MEETING MINUTES Location: Colorado Department ofPublic Health & Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Room
Members Present: Denver, CO 80246 Robert Amott Teresa Coons Barbara Roberts MembersAbsent: None Commission Staff: Division Staff: Doug Lempke Paul Tourangeau Dena Wojtach Attorney General's Office: Jerry Goad Radford Byerly John Loewy Jon Slutsky

Theresa Martin Ray Mohr Lisa Silva

CALLTO ORDERAND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Ashley Campsie Dawn Meyers 

### (depart J·OO) Jim Wilson 

### (depart J·OO)

Lisa Clarke Bob True Chris Dann

Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM and determined that a quorum of Commissioners was nowpresent with nine Commissioners. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FORNOVEMBER 

### 19,2009 Chair Roberts asked the Commission ifthere were any modifications to the minutes
. There were minor revisions provided by Commissioner Wilson. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the November 19, 2009 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Coons Commissioner Meyers none 9-0PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Roberts asked ifthere were any members ofthe public who wished to make a comment on any air pollution issue not on the agenda. David Wolfsey with Sonic Spark, LLC presented the Commission with documentation regarding his concerns regarding the HHO convertor. Wolfsey commented that he believed that the HHO produced major destructive ECO pollutants such as nitric acid, hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides and wishes the Commission to look into this matter and his findings ofthis product. Wolfsey provided the Commission with a copy ofthe web pages advertising the HHO systems noting that there was no mention in the literature ofthe environmental effects.
AGENDA REVIEW Chair Roberts asked Lempke to review the meeting agendanoting any items that may have changed, been added or deleted. Lempke commented that Item #8 Interstate Transport SIP had some issues that were raised by EPA and the Commission agreed to continue this item to January 13,2010 in order to allow EPAto provide further recommendations how the Division can produce a document that would be acceptable by EPA. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 18, 2010 

### Contingency Provisions for the Rocky Mountain NationalParkNitrogen Deposition Reduction Contingency Plan At 9:29AM Lisa Clarke ofthe Divisionprovided the Commission with background surrounding the RMNP Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan and that a draft Contingency Plan was required by the end of2009. Clarke reviewed the Contingency Plan timeline and the measurement development process. Clarke requested that the Commission set a public hearing to consider and endorse the Contingency Plan. Roberts commented that the Commission typically does not take public comment however; there was a request by a citizen to be heard regarding the timeliness of this hearing. Evelyn King representing citizens that had submitted 140 plus letters to the NFRMPO and Lempke. King noted her oppositionto the Contingency Planbecause ofthe inclusion ofand reliance on

### liM information. The Commission discussed this issue. Coons asked to conduct the hearing after the Regulation Number 11 hearing that occurs in March. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the motion for hearing onApril15, 2010 Commissioner Wilson Commissioner Amott none 9-0 REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING HEARINGS NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

### Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation At 9:44AM Dena Wojtach ofthe Divisionprovided the Commission with an overview ofthe Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation and the reasons surrounding the proposedrevisions. Wojtach noted that the removal ofthe Ambient Air Standards Table in Section II was necessary, as it was a duplication ofthe standards set by EPA and nationally applied without any action by the State.

2Wojtach also noted that the removal ofS02 increments in Section I.

### B. was necessary as they were artifacts from the 1970's rulemaking, could not be applied per currentrules, and were not applicable to any area ofColorado. Wojtach noted that while this proposal removes the stateonly S02 increment standards, it does not undermine existingprotectionfor Colorado Federal Class I and II areas, orthe national monuments and forest service primitive areas granted under RegulationNumber 3. Wojtachrequested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to considerthe revisions to the regulation
. Coons asked ifa linkto what could be added and Wojtach noted that there is a possibility that the link changes and then itbecomes inaccurate information. Tourangeau commented that the Division would discuss ifthere were a way to include a link, but also noted where it could be found in case the link was changed or otherwise disconnected. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the motion for hearing on March 18, 2010 Commissioner Wilson Commissioner Slutsky none 9-0 

### Regulation Number 8, Part C At 9:53AM DenaWojtach ofthe Divisionprovided the Commission with an overview ofwhy the Division believes the lead emission standard and associated compliance demonstrations requirement should be removed from RegulationNumber 8, Part C. Wojtach noted thatthe proposal to remove the existing lead emission standard and its associated compliance demonstration requirements was due to the recent promulgation ofa new LeadNational Ambient Air Quality Standard. Wojtachrequested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to considerthe revisions to the regulation. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the motion for hearing on March 18,2010 Commissioner Byerly Commissioner Loewy none 9-0 

### Regulation Number 11 At 9:57AM Garry Kaufman ofthe Divisionprovided an overview ofthe revisions proposed which included: proposed program area boundaries in Larimer and Weld Counties, phase-in of the IM240 emissions pass/fail cutpoints, technical specifications for fleet-only emissions testing equipment, and the modification ofthe start-up date consistent with statutory directives. Kaufman commented that subsequent to the Commission's action in December 2008, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 09-003 that revised the North Front Range program area boundaries to more accurately reflect the current ozone nonattainment area boundary and redefined the boundaries to incorporate a greater land area and affected population. Kaufman noted thatthe boundaries for the program would be set in accordance with the boundaries set forth in statute as a result ofSB09-003.

3Kaufman commented that in order to provide an ease oftransition in the North Front Range a less stringent set ofIM240 emissions pass/fail cutpoints was being proposed as well as limited flexibility to the state date ofthe enhanced inspectionprogram. Kaufman also noted that the technical proposal included a set ofdetailed specifications for an exhaust Test Analyzer System that would be used by owners ofgasoline vehicle fleets that choose to do their own inspections. Kaufman requested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider the proposed changes. Roberts commented that there were a number ofpublic who wished to comment. State Representative Glenn Vaad ofWeld County noted his support to delay the hearing. Senator Scott Renfroe urged the Commissionto listen to the citizens ofWeld and Larimer Counties and noted that he was bringing this issue to Legislation as an act to repeal SB09-003. Barbara Kirkmeyer Weld County Commissioner noted her opposition to program area boundaries. Kirkmeyer stated that local monitors continued to showfalling levels ofozone and that the proposed program would be burdensome for the county clerk and citizens. Bruce Barker Weld County Attorney referenced Section 42 in SB09-003, doesn't need to implement requirement until end of2011. Sean Conway Weld County Commissioner expressed his agreement with the others and presented NFRMPO Resolution 2009-7 and asked for postponement ofthis hearing. Carol Kirkstadt ofLarimer County expressed her support ofpostponement. Evelyn King noted her support ofthe request to delay this hearing and noted that she believed thatthere was lack of compliance. King commented that ifthe Commission chose to go forward with the hearing in March, that they request that the hearing occur in the evening and at a location in the North Front Range to accommodate the citizens ofLarimer and Weld counties. King also noted that several ofthe letters had been sent directly to the Division and asked that the Division turn those letters over to the Commission for the record. King also commented that the program would create more emissions as it would force citizens to drive long distances to test centers. Campsie and Wilson asked howthis might impact the Ozone SIP adopted from December 2008 and what the fallout may be such as does the timing impact what has already been done. Silverstein responded that the expansion to the North Front Range is a state-only provision so it's not inthe SIP that was submitted to EPA. Pierre De Milt Mayor ofthe Town ofSeverance expressed his support in postponement ofthe Regulation Number 11 hearing. Roberts noted that there was a statute before us that changes some ofthe decisions made to the Ozone Plan from December 2008. Roberts commentedthat the statute would indicate that a hearing must be conducted to hear the statutory authority as well as to hear from both sides on this. Roberts questioned ifthere was a delay could it still get up and running by July and Tourangeau responded that a postponement would delay everything. Kaufman noted that it could impact implementation ofstations, hiring ofcontractors and otherprocesses and believes that the sooner the hearing occurs the better. Roberts noted that one ofthe questions that the Commission will have to answer is the interpretation ofthe statute and determine whether it is self-implementing; does the statute say that the Commissionhas the authority ofpostponing the program and this must be discussed within a public hearing. Amott expressed concern ifthe changing standard would impact the boundaries and implementation. Slutsky commented that it sounds like the Division is planning to move forward with implementation ofa full I/M program and ifthere is going to be a delay, that decision should be made sooner rather than laterto avoid the Division doing all the work for nothing. Roberts noted to the Commission that there were two decisions to be made: 1) postponement ofthe hearing or not and 2) location ofthe hearing.



### 4

### The Commission agreed that the hearing would be conducted in March, the venue would be in the North Front Range and the hearing would be held during the day. Barbara Kirkmeyer noted that they would be willing to work with Lempke to determine a location. Motion: Moved: To approve the motion for hearing onMarch 18, 2010 and CommissionerLoewy Second: Commissioner Slutsky Discussion: none Carried: 9-0
WRITTEN COMMENT 0NLY RULEMAKING HEARING 

### Common Provisions Regulation 

### At 11 :04 AM Lempke noted that there would not be an official presentation as this was a written comment only rulemaking hearing regarding proposed revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation, Section I.

### G., specific to the definition of"negligibly reactive volatile organic compound" and "volatile organic compound" to be consistent with the federal definitions. Lempke commented that the Commission had not received any comments. Motion: To adopt Common Provisions Regulation revisions as proposed by the Division Moved: Commissioner Slutsky Second: Commissioner Campsie Discussion: none Carried: 9-0
COMMISSION ACTION ONLY 

### Regulation Number 13: Oxygenated Fuels Program 

### At 11 :07 AM Lempke notedthat on August 20, 2009 the Commission acted to adopt aproposal to repeal the requirements ofRegulation Number 13 in its entirety effective February 1, 2011. Lempke noted that this action ofthe Commission was not timely filed with the Secretary ofState and did not become effective. The Commission considered an action to resubmit their August action to the Secretary ofState for publication. Motion: To resubmit the August 20, 2009 adoption by the Commission repealing the requirements ofRegulation Number 13 in its entirety effective February 1, 2011 to the Secretary ofState for publication in the CCR Moved: Commissioner Wilson Second: Commissioner Coons Discussion: none Carried: 9-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS 

### Denver Regional Council ofGovernments (DRCOG) Conformity 

### At 11:10 AM Lisa Silva ofthe Division noted that the presentation would include information from the DRCOG regarding its anticipated Transportation Conformity findings regarding the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan second cycle amendments and the 2008/2013 TIP.

5

### Silva commented that the NFRMPO was also in concurrence. Silva noted that neither the NFRMPO northe Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region had amended their plans but because they were part ofthe 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment area, transportation conformity must be assured for those areas as well as the Denver region until the emission budgets for the individual areas were approved. Emily Chen ofthe DRCOGreviewed the Cycle 2 Amendments to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the 2008/2013 TIP. Chen noted that the amendments included a newtoll facility to the regional system and three partial interchanges associated with the Jefferson Parkway, widening to the roadway system on Federal Blvd and also on 1441h 

### Avenue, and a RTD station location change in the North Metro corridor. Chen reviewed with the Commission the conformity tests conducted and what the results indicated. Chen commented that DRCOG believed they had made a positive conformity finding for its amended 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Silvareviewed with the Commission the Division's transportation modeling inputs and noted that they had ran the air quality model, finding that future emissions were below allowable mobile source emission budgets for carbon monoxide, PM10, and NOx and VOC for the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area. Silva also commented that future VOC and NOx emissions inthe 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area were lower than base case (year 2002), and lower than 1-Hour Ozone emission budgets i
.e., the interim conformity tests passed and asked that the Commission concur with the positive conformity findings
. Slutsky asked about the $204 million and ifit isjustfrom tolls and private entities and Chen responded that it was construction costs on the project. Slutsky questioned whether or not this was really considered fiscally constrained." Byerly expressed concern regarding the Commission's commitment to this Plan commenting that there is about a 2-mile gap between the roadways. Cook commented that the project was proposed by the Jefferson Parkway Authority and they hadprovided information in the proposal such as traffic, economic development in the area. Cook noted that DRCOG had run it through the conformity modeling and found that the region still was passing the required tests. Byerly commented that ifthe roads are connected up, there will be a lot more traffic. Arnott asked if there was an obligation to relook at the impact ofthe other segments that had been approved for adding a segment. Cook replied that there isn't a legal obligation and the DRCOG Board of Directors had not directed them to do a larger scale analysis, butthe Public Highway Authority is required to conduct a smaller analysis for the southern corridor to Highway 93. Roberts asked if a project was proposed and the initial analysis indicated it would not conform would DRCOG then work withthe Divisionto work out an offsetting program. Cook replied that the amendments would not be passed and DRCOG would have to change the amendment package or look at alternatives with the Division and the RAQC. Coons asked ifrecentprojections that were implemented in the Plan were reflective ofthe recent economic downturn. Cook responded that those had not been incorporated; that DRCOG revises the assumptions every three to four years and isn't scheduled to do that for another couple ofyears, but have done modifications to the transportation model to reflect the downturn. Wilson asked when the segment is modeled; does it have an impact on the modeled factors ofpopulation growth? Cookreplied that there was a cyclical process ofland use in the transportation model; and that the more accessible an area was, the more development that the land use model would plug into that area and those zones. Cook noted that DRCOG didn't do a thorough analysis though
.

6Motion: To adopt revisions as proposed by DRCOG and the Division with a letter identifying the Commission's concerns regarding the processes, analyses, and funding Moved: Commissioner Coons Second: Commissioner Meyers Discussion: None Carried: 7-2 (Byerly and Arnott opposed)
RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

### InterstateTransport SIP 

### THISITEM WAS CONTINUED TO JANUARY13, 2010 Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision At 1:04PM Chris Dann ofthe Division and Rich Muzzy ofPPACG presented to the Commission revisions to the CO maintenance plan for Colorado Springs. Dann noted that this was the second oftwo 10-yearplans that were required by the Clean Air Act. Dann commented that the data confirms that the Colorado Springs area would continue to attain the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through 2020 and that the areahad recorded no violations ofthe standard since the 1993 attainment year. Coons remarked about the spike in 2002 and ifthe Division knew what triggered this and Muzzy responded that it was possibly due to it being at a different location and possibly construction occurring at the time. Dann noted that particular location had beenretired. Motion: To adopt Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan revisions as proposed by the Division Moved: Commissioner Coons Second: Commissioner Campsie Discussion: none Carried: 7-0 

### Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision At 1:17 PM Bob True ofthe Division and Suzette Mallette ofNFRMPO presented to the Commission revisions to the CO maintenance plan for Greeley. True noted thatthis was the second oftwo 1 0-year plans that were required by the Clean Air Act. True commented that the data shows that Greeley would continue to attain the NAAQS through 2020 and that no additional control measures were required for Greeley to continue attaining the standard. True did note that iffuture changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the maintenance ofthe standard that the State would address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time. Motion: To adopt Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan revisions as proposed by the Division Moved: Commissioner Slutsky Second: Commissioner Coons Discussion: none Carried: 7-0

7BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

### CommissionerInformational Items Byerly noted that Silverstein had some information for the Commission about his discussions with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Silverstein commented on a meeting that occurred a few months ago. Silverstein noted that Amott and Byerly were responsible for this meeting and it was with scientists and researchers to evaluate the science for ozone. Silverstein noted that there was excellent dialogue on photochemistry, the research on air shed modeling, and ozone balloons
. Silverstein commented that he would provide a matrix to the Commission at the February meeting. Amott commented that the matrix was very helpful. Byerly commented that it was an excellent meeting and the scientists felt it was beneficial to develop a relationship with the Division. Amott thanked the Division stafffor the ozone data that had been requested by himselfand Wilson. Coons discussed the PM10 issues related to Mesa County. Slutsky asked about the HHO documentationprovided by David Wolfsey and ifa letter should be written. Lempke noted that it was something that needed to be addressed and that he would contact Wolfsey after investigation oftheproduct. Slutsky commented that he and one ofthe Water Commissioner's visited the sugarplant inFort Morgan. Slutsky noted that they did admit that things weren't working and that they were not sure howto make things work. Roberts noted that it would be beneficial to have a briefing regarding odor regulations. Tourangeau noted that Lind had been invited to tour the facility and had a discussion with the plant manager. Tourangeau commented that the Division would send Lind a letter. 

### Division Director's Report Tourangeau discussed: • Greenhouse gas affects and the Clean Air Act Tailoring Rule. Tourangeau noted that the rule would bring C02 into the permitting world • EPA 8-hour ozone NAAQS proposal should be out before Christmas • Power plants (Lamar and Comanche 

### 3)- EPA's rule under CAMRwas vacated which triggered Section 112
. Lamar and Comanche 3 fall under Section 112.g. and there is currently litigation occurring to ensure the plants were in compliance. 

### Attorney General's Report Goad discussed: • Valmont

- Roy Young appeal to the Commission: Lempke provided an overview ofwhat had occurred with the Valmont hearing and the letter received from Roy Young requesting an appeal. Goad provided input about the Commission's obligation regarding the appeal and what the Commission's options are in responding to the petition. Goad noted there were three options: 1) to do further or more detailed investigation into the allegations, 2) to deny the appeal on grounds oflack ofsubstantial factual basis or pending an investigation, and 3) to provide an opportunity to gather more information
· such as a request for submittals or to conduct a hearing. Roberts commented she felt that

the Division should readdress Young's initial letter and provide a more complete response to Young. Will Allison provided information regarding the permit process relating to Young's letter. Coons noted that ifa letter were done that it should be noted that even ifthere is an investigation that it doesn't mean there would be a dif ferent response.

8

### Arnott asked what would occur ifthrough an investigation Young was found to be correct. Allison responded that it could cause the plantto cease operation or operation with coal. Tourangeau agreed with Roberts that the Division could produce a letter however the letter cannot address the initial letter from Young as it had already gone to EPA, but should address his appeal or petition letter. Lempke noted that the Division should respond to the Commission on the petition and the Commission would then respond to Young. Goad asked that this discussion be put into a motion as it is part ofa statutory requirement. Motion: Move to respond Mr. Young's petition ofDecember 2, 2009 and ask the Division provide the Commission with additional information. Moved: Commissioner Slutsky Second: Commissioner Coons Discussion: none Carried: 7-0 Administrator's Report 

### Lempke reviewed: • January meeting: will provide lunch and the meeting will be held in CIA, Commissioners will need to meet at the guard's desk in Bldg. A and would be escorted to Bldg. C. ACTION ITEMS 

### • Wolfsey investigation and response • Determination ofMarch meeting location • Send letter to DRCOG about conformity concerns • Provide matrix from APCD/NCAR meetings • Schedule briefing on odor regulation for informational exchange and invite the facility and the Lind's • Get response from Division regarding Young petition and then respond to Young Roberts commented that Commissioners should keep Interstate Transport documents for the January meeting so as not to duplicate materials. Adjourn at 2:35 PM

9