58264 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 29, 2004. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purpose of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: September 10, 2004. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 04–21824 Filed 9–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2004–CO–

0003; FRL–7822–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Longmont Revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Colorado. On 

April 12, 2004, the Governor of 

Colorado submitted a revised 

maintenance plan for the Longmont 

carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance 

area for the CO National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The revised 

maintenance plan contains revised 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the years 2010 

through 2014 and for 2015 and beyond. 

In this action, EPA is approving the 

Longmont CO revised maintenance plan 

and the revised transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 29, 2004 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 1, 2004. If 

adverse comment is received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by RME Docket Number R08–

OAR–2004–CO–0003, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME), 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system for regional actions, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and 

russ.tim@epa.gov.

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2004–

CO–0003. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available at http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp,

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

EPA’s Regional Materials in EDOCKET 

and federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET online or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the Regional Materials in 

EDOCKET index at http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

Regional Materials in EDOCKET or in 

hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th 

Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466, phone (303) 312–6479, and 

e-mail at: russ.tim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58265

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

III. What Is the State’s Process To Submit 

These Materials to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Maintenance Plan 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the Transportation 

Conformity Requirements 

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

VII. Final Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we are 

giving meaning to certain words or initials as 

follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials NAAQS mean National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(v) The word State means the State of 

Colorado, unless the context indicates 

otherwise.

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through Regional Materials in 

EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD–

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Is the Purpose of This Action? 

In this action, we are approving a 

revised maintenance plan for the 

Longmont CO attainment/maintenance 

area that is designed to keep the area in 

attainment for CO through 2015, and 

we’re approving revised transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEB). We approved the 

original CO redesignation to attainment 

and maintenance plan for the Longmont 

area on September 24, 1999 (see 64 FR 

51694). 

The original Longmont CO 

maintenance plan that we approved on 

September 24, 1999 (hereafter 

September 24, 1999 maintenance plan) 

utilized the then applicable EPA mobile 

sources emission factor model, 

MOBILE5a. On January 18, 2002, we 

issued policy guidance for States and 

local areas to use to develop SIP 

revisions using the new, updated 

version of the model, MOBILE6. The 

policy guidance was entitled ‘‘Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for 

SIP Development and Transportation 

Conformity’’ (hereafter, January 18, 2002 

MOBILE6 policy). On November 12, 

2002, EPA’s Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality (OTAQ) issued an 

updated version of the MOBILE6 model, 

MOBILE6.2, and notified Federal, State, 

and local agency users of the model’s 

availability. MOBILE6.2 contained 

additional updates for air toxics and 

particulate matter. However, the CO 

emission factors were essentially the 

same as in the MOBILE6 version of the 

model. 

For the years analyzed in the 

September 24, 1999 maintenance plan 

(1993, 2005, 2010, and 2015), the State 

revised and updated the mobile sources 

CO emissions using MOBILE6.2. With 

the revised maintenance plan, the State 

also provided emissions data for 2006. 

The State recalculated the CO MVEB for 

2010 through 2014 and applied a 

selected amount of the available safety 

margin to the 2010 through 2014 

transportation conformity MVEB. The 

State recalculated the CO MVEB for 

2015 and beyond and also applied a 

selected amount of the available safety 

margin to the 2015 and beyond 

transportation conformity MVEB. We 

have determined that all the revisions 

noted above are Federally-approvable, 

as described further below. 

III. What Is the State’s Process To 

Submit These Materials to EPA? 

Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses 

our actions on submissions of revisions 

to a SIP. The CAA requires States to 

observe certain procedural requirements 

in developing SIP revisions for 

submittal to us. Section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA requires that each SIP revision be 

adopted after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. This must occur prior to 

the revision being submitted by a State 

to us. 

The Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (AQCC) held a public 

hearing for the revised Longmont 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance 

Plan December 18, 2003. The AQCC 

adopted the revised maintenance plan 

directly after the hearing. This SIP 

revision became State effective on 

March 1, 2004, and was submitted by 

the Governor to us on April 12, 2004. 

We have evaluated the Governor’s 

submittal for the revised maintenance 

plan and have determined that the State 

met the requirements for reasonable 

notice and public hearing under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA. We reviewed these 

SIP materials for conformance with the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V and determined that the 

submittal was administratively and 

technically complete. The Governor was 

advised of our completeness 

determination through a letter from 

Robert E. Roberts, Regional 

Administrator, dated June 17, 2004. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the Revised 

Maintenance Plan 

EPA has reviewed the State’s revised 

maintenance plan for the Longmont 

attainment/maintenance area and 

believes that approval is warranted. The 

following are the key aspects of this 

revision along with our evaluation of 

each: 

(a) The State has revised the 

Longmont maintenance plan and has air 

quality data that show continuous 

attainment of the CO NAAQS. 

As described in 40 CFR 50.8, the 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard for carbon monoxide is 9 parts 

per million (10 milligrams per cubic 

meter) for an 8-hour average 

58266 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

concentration not to be exceeded more 

than once per year. 40 CFR 50.8 

continues by stating that the levels of 

CO in the ambient air shall be measured 

by a reference method based on 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix C and designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53 or an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The 

September 24, 1999 maintenance plan 

relied on ambient air quality data from 

1989 through 1996. In our consideration 

of the revised Longmont CO 

maintenance plan, submitted by the 

Governor on April 12, 2004, we 

reviewed ambient air quality data from 

1993 through 2003 and the first calendar 

quarter of 2004. The Longmont area 

shows continuous attainment of the CO 

NAAQS from 1993 to present. All of the 

above-referenced air quality data are 

archived in our Aerometric Information 

and Retrieval System (AIRS).

(b) Using the MOBILE6.2 emission 

factor model, the State revised the 

attainment year inventory (1993), prior 

projected years (2005, 2010, and 2015) 

inventories and a new projected year 

(2006) emission inventory. 

The revised maintenance plan that the 

Governor submitted on April 12, 2004 

includes comprehensive inventories of 

CO emissions for the Longmont area. 

These inventories include emissions 

from stationary point sources, area 

sources, non-road mobile sources, and 

on-road mobile sources. More detailed 

descriptions of the revised 1993 

attainment year inventory, the revised 

2005, 2010, and 2015 projected 

inventories, and the new projected 2006 

inventory, are documented in the 

maintenance plan in section 2 entitled 

‘‘Emission Inventories and Maintenance 

Demonstration’’ and in the State’s 

Technical Support Document (TSD). 

The State’s submittal contains emission 

inventory information that was prepared 

in accordance with EPA guidance. 

Summary emission figures from the 

1993 attainment year and the projected 

years are provided in Table IV.–1 below.

TABLE IV.–1.—SUMMARY OF CO EMISSIONS IN TONS PER DAY FOR LONGMONT

Source category 1993 2005 2006 2010 2015 

Point ......................................................................................................... 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.07 

Area ......................................................................................................... 2.69 1.92 1.86 1.60 1.28 

Non-Road ................................................................................................. 6.58 7.91 8.03 8.47 9.02 

On-Road .................................................................................................. 43.26 33.97 35.32 28.01 25.99 

Total .................................................................................................. 52.71 43.92 45.33 38.17 36.36 

The revised mobile source emissions 

show the largest change from the 

September 24, 1999 maintenance plan 

and this is primarily due to the use of 

MOBILE6.2 instead of MOBILE5a. The 

MOBILE6.2 modeling information is 

contained in the State’s TSD (see 

‘‘Mobile Source Emission Inventories,’’

page 6) and on a compact disk we 

prepared (a copy is available upon 

request). The State’s TSD information is 

also available on a compact disk that 

may be requested from the State or it 

can be downloaded directly from the 

State’s Web site at http://

apcd.state.co.us/documents/

techdocs.html. The TSD compact disk 

contains much of the modeling data, 

input-output files, fleet makeup, 

MOBILE6.2 input parameters, and other 

information and is included with the 

docket for this action. Other revisions to 

the mobile sources category resulted 

from revised vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) estimates that were provided to 

the State from the Denver Regional 

Council of Governments (DRCOG), 

which is the metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) for the Longmont 

area. In summary, the revised 

maintenance plan and State TSD 

contain detailed emission inventory 

information that was prepared in 

accordance with EPA guidance and is 

acceptable to EPA. 

(c) The State revised the maintenance 

demonstration used in the September 

24, 1999 Longmont maintenance plan. 

As noted above, the State used the 

MOBILE6.2 model to revise the 

Longmont CO maintenance plan. Our 

January 18, 2002, MOBILE6 policy 

allows areas to revise their motor 

vehicle emission inventories and 

transportation conformity MVEBs using 

the MOBILE6 model without needing to 

revise the entire SIP or completing 

additional modeling if: (1) The SIP 

continues to demonstrate attainment or 

maintenance when the MOBILE5-based 

motor vehicle emission inventories are 

replaced with MOBILE6 base year and 

attainment/maintenance year 

inventories; and (2) the State can 

document that the growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor 

vehicle emission sources continue to be 

valid and minor updates do not change 

the overall conclusion of the SIP. Our 

January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy also 

speaks specifically to CO maintenance 

plans on page 10 of the policy. The first 

paragraph on page 10 of the policy 

states ‘‘* * * if a carbon monoxide (CO) 

maintenance plan relied on either a 

relative or absolute demonstration, the 

first criterion could be satisfied by 

documenting that the relative emission 

reductions between the base year and 

the maintenance year are the same or 

greater using MOBILE6 as compared to 

MOBILE5.’’

The State could have used the 

streamlined approach described in our 

January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy to 

update the Longmont CO MVEB. 

However, the Governor’s April 12, 2004 

SIP submittal instead contained a 

completely revised maintenance plan 

and maintenance demonstration for the 

Longmont area. That is, all emission 

source categories (point, area, non-road, 

and mobile) were updated using the 

latest versions of applicable models 

(including MOBILE6.2), transportation 

data sets, emissions data, emission 

factors, population figures, and other 

demographic information. We have 

determined that this fully revised 

maintenance plan SIP submittal exceeds 

the requirements of our January 18, 

2002 MOBILE6 policy and, therefore, 

our January 18, 2002 MOBILE6 policy is 

not relevant to our approval of the 

revised maintenance plan and its 

MVEB. 

As discussed above, the State 

prepared revised emission inventories 

for the years 1993, 2005, 2006, and 

2010, and 2015. The results of these 

calculations are presented in Table 1 

‘‘Longmont Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan Emission 

Inventories’’ on page 4 of the revised 

Longmont maintenance plan and are 

also summarized in our Table IV.–1 

above. The State has demonstrated that 

with the use of MOBILE6.2, mobile 

source emissions show a continuous 

decline from 1993 to 2015 and that the 

total CO emissions, from all source 

categories, projected for each future year 

(2005, 2006, 2010, and 2015) are all 

below the 1993 attainment year level of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58267

CO emissions. Therefore, we have 

determined that the revised 

maintenance plan continues to 

demonstrate maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS from 1993 to 2015 and is 

approvable. 

(d) Monitoring Network and 

Verification of Continued Attainment:

Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS 

in the Longmont area depends, in part, 

on the State’s efforts to track indicators 

throughout the maintenance period. 

This requirement is met in section 5. 

‘‘Monitoring Network/Verification of 

Continued Attainment’’ of the revised 

Longmont CO maintenance plan. In 

section 5., the State commits to continue 

the operation of the CO monitor in the 

Longmont area and to annually review 

this monitoring network and make 

changes as appropriate to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

Also, in section 6.A, the State 

commits to track mobile sources’ CO 

emissions (which are the largest 

component of the inventories) through 

the ongoing regional transportation 

planning process that is done by 

DRCOG. Since regular revisions to 

Longmont’s transportation improvement 

programs must go through a 

transportation conformity finding, the 

State will use this process to 

periodically review the Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT) and mobile source 

emissions projections used in the 

revised maintenance plan. This regional 

transportation process is conducted by 

DRCOG in coordination with the State’s 

Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), 

the AQCC, and EPA.

Based on the above, we are approving 

these commitments as satisfying the 

relevant requirements. We note that our 

final rulemaking approval renders the 

State’s commitments federally 

enforceable. These commitments are 

also the same as we approved in the 

original maintenance plan. 

(e) Contingency Plan: Section 175A(d) 

of the CAA requires that a maintenance 

plan include contingency provisions. To 

meet this requirement, the State has 

identified appropriate contingency 

measures along with a schedule for the 

development and implementation of 

such measures. 

As stated in section 6 of the revised 

maintenance plan, the contingency 

measures for the Longmont area will be 

triggered by a violation of the CO 

NAAQS. (However, the maintenance 

plan does note that an exceedance of the 

CO NAAQS may initiate a voluntary, 

local process by the City of Longmont, 

DRCOG, and APCD to identify and 

evaluate potential contingency 

measures.) 

The City of Longmont and DRCOG, in 

conjunction with the APCD and AQCC, 

will initiate a subcommittee process to 

begin evaluating potential contingency 

measures no more than 60 days after 

being notified by the APCD that a 

violation of the CO NAAQS has 

occurred. The subcommittee will 

present recommendations within 120 

days of notification and the 

recommended contingency measures 

will be presented to the AQCC within 

180 days of notification. The AQCC will 

then hold a public hearing to consider 

the recommended contingency 

measures, along with any other 

contingency measures that the AQCC 

believes may be appropriate to 

effectively address the violation of the 

CO NAAQS. The necessary contingency 

measures will be adopted and 

implemented within one year after the 

violation occurs. 

The potential contingency measures 

that are identified in section 6.C of the 

revised Longmont CO maintenance plan 

include: (1) An enhanced vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program as 

described in AQCC Regulation No. 11 as 

it existed prior to the modifications 

adopted by the AQCC on January 10, 

2000; (2) a 3.1% oxygenated gasoline 

program from November 8 through 

February 7, with a 2.0% oxygen content 

required from November 1 through 

November 7; and (3) nonattainment 

New Source Review (NSR) permitting 

requirements. 

Based on the above, we find that the 

contingency measures provided in the 

State’s revised Longmont CO 

maintenance plan are sufficient and 

continue to meet the requirements of 

section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

(f) Subsequent Maintenance Plan 

Revisions: In accordance with section 

175A(b) of the CAA, Colorado 

committed to submit a revised 

maintenance plan eight years after our 

approval of the original redesignation. 

This provision for revising the 

maintenance plan is contained in 

section 7 of the revised Longmont CO 

maintenance plan. In section 7, the State 

commits to submit a revised 

maintenance plan in 2007 to correspond 

with our initial approval of the original 

maintenance plan on September 24, 

1999 (64 FR 51694). 

Based on our review of the 

components of the revised Longmont 

CO maintenance plan, as discussed in 

our items IV.(a) through IV.(f) above, we 

have concluded that the State has met 

the necessary requirements in order for 

us to fully approve the revised 

Longmont CO maintenance plan. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Transportation Conformity 

Requirements 

One key provision of our conformity 

regulation requires a demonstration that 

emissions from the transportation plan 

and Transportation Improvement 

Program are consistent with the 

emissions budget(s) in the SIP (40 CFR 

93.118 and 93.124). The emissions 

budget is defined as the level of mobile 

source emissions relied upon in the 

attainment or maintenance 

demonstration to maintain compliance 

with the NAAQS in the nonattainment 

or maintenance area. The rule’s 

requirements and EPA’s policy on 

emissions budgets are found in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62193–62196) and in the sections of the 

rule referenced above. 

With respect to maintenance plans, 

our conformity regulation requires that 

MVEB(s) must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan and may 

be established for any other years 

deemed appropriate (40 CFR 93.118). 

For transportation plan analysis years 

after the last year of the maintenance 

plan (in this case 2015), a conformity 

determination must show that emissions 

are less than or equal to the 

maintenance plan’s motor vehicle 

emissions budget(s) for the last year of 

the implementation plan. EPA’s 

conformity regulation (40 CFR 93.124) 

also allows the implementation plan to 

quantify explicitly the amount by which 

motor vehicle emissions could be higher 

while still demonstrating compliance 

with the maintenance requirement. The 

implementation plan can then allocate 

some or all of this additional ‘‘safety 

margin’’ to the emissions budget(s) for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Section 4 ‘‘Transportation Conformity 

and Mobile Source Carbon Monoxide 

Emission Budgets’’ of the revised 

Longmont CO maintenance plan briefly 

describes the applicable transportation 

conformity requirements, provides 

MVEB calculations, identifies ‘‘safety 

margin,’’ and indicates that the City of 

Longmont and DRCOG elected to apply 

the identified ‘‘safety margin’’ to the 

MVEB for 2010 through 2014 and 2015 

and beyond.

In section 4 of the revised 

maintenance plan, the State evaluated 

two MVEBs; a budget for 2015 (the last 

year of the maintenance plan) and 

beyond and a budget applicable to the 

years 2010 through 2014. For the 2015 

MVEB, the State subtracted the total 

estimated 2015 emissions (from all 

sources) of 36.36 Tons Per Day (TPD) 

from the 1993 attainment year total 

58268 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

emissions of 52.71 TPD. This produced 

a ‘‘safety margin’’ of 16.35 TPD. The 

State then reduced this ‘‘safety margin’’

by one TPD. The identified ‘‘safety 

margin’’ of 15.35 TPD for 2015 was then 

added to the estimated 2015 mobile 

sources emissions, 25.99 TPD, to 

produce a 2015 MVEB of 41 TPD. For 

the 2010 through 2014 MVEB, the State 

subtracted the total estimated 2010 

emissions (from all sources) of 38.17 

TPD from the 1993 attainment year total 

emissions of 52.71 TPD. This produced 

a ‘‘safety margin’’ of 14.54 TPD. The 

State then reduced this ‘‘safety margin’’

by one TPD. The identified ‘‘safety 

margin’’ of 13.54 TPD for 2010 was then 

added to the estimated 2010 mobile 

sources emissions, 28.01 TPD, to 

produce a 2010 through 2014 MVEB of 

41 TPD. These MVEBs were identified 

in the first sentence of paragraph two of 

section 4 of the revised maintenance 

plan which states, ‘‘The Longmont 

attainment/maintenance area mobile 

source emission budgets are 41 tons/day 

for 2010 through 2014 and 41 tons/day 

for 2015 and beyond.’’ Based on this 

choice, and in order for a positive 

conformity determination to be made, 

transportation plan analyses for years 

2010 through 2014 must show that 

motor vehicle emissions will be less 

than or equal to the 2010 through 2014 

MVEB of 41 TPD of CO and 

transportation plan analyses for years 

2015 and beyond must show that motor 

vehicle emissions will be less than or 

equal to the 2015 MVEB of 41 TPD of 

CO. The revised maintenance plan also 

states that the previously approved CO 

MVEB of 16.76 TPD for 2015 and 

beyond (see 64 FR 51694, September 24, 

1999) is removed from the SIP and is 

replaced by the new MVEBs of 41 TPD 

for the years 2010 through 2014 and 41 

TPD for 2015 and beyond. Therefore, we 

are approving the transportation 

conformity MVEBs of 41 TPD of CO for 

2010 through 2014 and 41 TPD of CO 

for 2015 and beyond for the Longmont 

attainment/maintenance area. 

VI. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The revised 

Longmont CO maintenance plan will 

not interfere with attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

VII. Final Action 

In this action, EPA is approving the 

revised Longmont CO maintenance 

plan, that was submitted by the 

Governor on April 12, 2004, and the 

revised transportation conformity motor 

vehicle CO emission budgets for the 

years 2010 through 2014 and 2015 and 

beyond. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register publication, EPA is publishing 

a separate document that will serve as 

the proposal to approve the SIP revision 

if adverse comments are filed. This rule 

will be effective November 29, 2004 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comments by 

November 1, 2004. If the EPA receives 

adverse comments, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58269

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 29, 

2004. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 22, 2004. 

Kerrigan G. Clough, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G—Colorado

■ 2. Section 52.349 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 52.349 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide.

* * * * *

(k) Revisions to the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan, carbon monoxide 

NAAQS, revised maintenance plan for 

Longmont entitled ‘‘Revised Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the 

Longmont Attainment/Maintenance 

Area’’, as adopted by the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission on 

December 18, 2003, State effective 

March 1, 2004, and submitted by the 

Governor on April 12, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04–21926 Filed 9–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[OAR–2003–0228, FRL–7821–6] 

RIN 2060–AG12 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; 

Listing of Substitutes in the Foam 

Sector

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 

action to change the listing of HCFC–

141b from acceptable to unacceptable 

for use as a foam blowing agent under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) Program under section 612 of 

the Clean Air Act. The SNAP program 

reviews alternatives to Class I and Class 

II ozone depleting substances and 

approves use of alternatives which 

reduce the overall risk to public health 

and the environment. On July 11, 2000 

EPA issued a proposed rule concerning 

the use of several 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) in 

foam blowing applications. On July 22, 

2002, EPA took final action with respect 

to a number of the HCFCs, but deferred 

its decision on changing the list for 

HCFC–141b in foam blowing 

applications due to the pending 

production and import ban of HCFC–

141b (effective as of January 1, 2003) 

and incomplete information regarding 

the technical viability of alternatives. 

Since the publication of that final rule, 

EPA received information from outside 

parties through letters, meetings, and 

the HCFC–141b Exemption Allowance 

Petition process (68 FR 2819) that 

addresses the use of HCFC–141b in 

foam blowing applications. On March 

10, 2004, EPA issued a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) which contained 

the new information mentioned above 

and sought comment on its 

completeness and accuracy. Today, 

based on the information contained in 

the NODA and the comments received 

on the NODA, EPA is making its final 

decision to change the listing for use of 

HCFC–141b as a foam blowing agent 

from acceptable to unacceptable.

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0228 

(continuation of Docket A–2000–18). All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the EDOCKET index at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not publically available. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is also listed in the index but not placed 

on the Internet. This material will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically in 

EDOCKET. The official public docket is 

the collection of materials that is 

available for public viewing at the Air 

and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1742, and 

the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzie Kocchi, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (6205J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9387; fax 

number: (202) 343–2363; e-mail address: 

kocchi.suzanne@epa.gov. The published 

versions of notices and rulemakings 

under the SNAP program are available 

on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents: This action is divided 

into seven sections: 

I. Regulated Entities 

II. Section 612 Program 

A. Statutory Requirements 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Listing Decisions 

III. Listing Decision on HCFC–141b in the 

Foam Sector 

A. Background 

B. Decision 

IV. Response to Comments 

V. Summary 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

VII. Additional Information

I. Regulated Entities 

Today’s rule regulates the use of 

HCFC–141b as a foam blowing agent 

used in the manufacture of rigid 

polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam 

products. Businesses that currently 

might be using HCFC–141b, or might 

want to use it in the future, include:

—Businesses that manufacture 

polyurethane/polyisocyanurate foam 

systems. 

—Businesses that use polyurethane/

polyisocyanurate systems to apply 

insulation to buildings, roofs, pipes, 

etc.