53370 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent 

with the Clean Air Act; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 28, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18869 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0016; FRL–9950–37– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Motor Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance, Clean Screen 

Program and the Low Emitter Index, 

On-Board Diagnostics, and Associated 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

three State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Colorado. The revisions involve 

amendments to Colorado’s Regulation 

Number 11 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection Program.’’ The revisions 

address the implementation of the Low 

Emitter Index component of Regulation 

No. 11’s Clean Screen Program, the 

implementation of the On-Board 

Diagnostics component of Regulation 

No. 11, and several other associated 

revisions. The EPA is proposing 

approval of these SIP revisions in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 12, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2016–0016 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–6479, russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. What was the State’s process? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2007 

Revisions to the Low Emitter Index, Part 

A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2012 

Revisions to the On-Board Diagnostics 

Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions 

Test Exemption, the Gas Cap Retest, Part 

A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and Part G 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2013 

Revisions to Part A, Part C, Appendix A, 

and Appendix B 

VII. Conclusion 

VIII. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act 

IX. Proposed Action 

X. Incorporation by Reference 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

the EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date, and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

• Suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes; 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 53371 

1See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete 

description of EPA’s IM240 test. The IM240 test is 

essentially an enhanced motor vehicle emissions 

test to measure mass tailpipe emissions while the 

vehicle follows a computer generated driving cycle 

trace for 240 seconds and while the vehicle is on 

a dynamometer. 

2See 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for a complete 

description of EPA’s two-speed idle test. The twospeed idle test essentially measures the mass 

tailpipe emissions of a stationary vehicle; one 

reading is at a normal idle of approximately 700 to 

800 engine revolutions per minute (RPM) and one 

reading at 2,500 RPM. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used; 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be 

reproduced; 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives; 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

In this action, the EPA is proposing 

approval of SIP revisions to Regulation 

No. 11 contained in three submittals 

from Colorado. The State’s submittals 

were dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 

2013, and March 3, 2014. Much of the 

content of the revisions involved minor 

updates to several sections of Regulation 

No. 11 and deletion of obsolete 

language. The following background 

discussion involves those revisions of 

greater significance: 

a.) Colorado’s 2007 Revisions to 

Regulation No. 11 for the 

Implementation of the Low Emitter 

Index (LEI) Portion of the Clean Screen 

Program Contained in Regulation No. 11 

Colorado’s Regulation No. 11 

(hereafter ‘‘Reg. No. 11’’) addresses the 

implementation of the State’s motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/ 

M) program. The I/M program consists 

of an ‘‘enhanced’’ component that 

utilizes a dynamometer-based EPA 

IM240 test for 1982 and newer lightduty gasoline vehicles 1 and a two-speed 

idle test (TSI) 2 for 1981 and older lightduty gasoline vehicles. To improve 

motorist convenience and reduce 

program implementation costs, the State 

also administers a remote sensing-based 

‘‘Clean Screen’’ program component of 

the I/M program. Remote sensing is a 

method for measuring vehicle 

emissions, while simultaneously 

photographing the license plate, when a 

vehicle passes through infrared or 

ultraviolet beams of light. Owners of 

vehicles meeting the Clean Screen 

criteria are notified by the County Clerk 

that their vehicles have passed the 

motor vehicle inspection process and 

are exempt from their next regularly 

scheduled IM240 test. 

The Clean Screen program component 

of Colorado’s Reg. No. 11 was originally 

approved, for implementation in the 

Metro-Denver area, with the EPA’s 

approval of the original Denver carbon 

monoxide (CO) redesignation to 

attainment and the maintenance plan 

(see: 66 FR 64751, December 14, 2001). 

The Clean Screen criteria that was 

approved in 2001 by the EPA (see: 66 

FR 64751, December 14, 2001) required 

two valid passing remote sensing 

readings on different days or from 

different sensors, that met the 

applicable emissions reading 

requirements in Part F of Reg. No. 11, 

within a twelve-month period in order 

to clean-screen a vehicle. 

Colorado revised Reg. No. 11 to 

expand the definition and requirements 

for a ‘‘clean-screened vehicle’’ to also 

include vehicles identified as low 

emitting vehicles in the statedetermined Low Emitting Index (LEI) 

which have one passing remote sensing 

reading, prior to the vehicle’s 

registration renewal date. As part of the 

LEI process, the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE), Air Pollution Control Division 

(hereinafter, the ‘‘Division’’) develops 

an LEI on or before July 1st of each year. 

The LEI is based on a tabulation of the 

previous calendar year’s IM240 

inspection program results for specific 

make, model, and model year vehicles 

that passed IM240 vehicle inspections 

the previous year at a minimum rate of 

a 98%. 

By a letter dated June 11, 2008, the 

Governor of Colorado submitted the 

above 2007 Reg. No. 11 LEI revisions 

and other minor revisions involving 

changes/additions to the definitions in 

Reg. No. 11and the addition of 

Attachment 1 to the Technical 

Specifications in Appendix A. These 

SIP revisions are discussed in further 

detail below in section IV. 

b.) Colorado’s 2012 Revisions to 

Regulation No. 11 for the 

Implementation of the On-Board 

Diagnostics Test Requirements 

Contained in Regulation No. 11 and the 

Seven Model Year I/M Test Exemption 

As noted above, Colorado’s Reg. No. 

11 addresses the implementation of a 

motor vehicle I/M program that consists 

of a an ‘‘enhanced’’ component IM240 

test for 1982 and newer light-duty 

vehicles and a TSI test for 1981 and 

older light-duty gas vehicles. In 

addition, and beginning in January 

2015, Colorado also began 

implementing an On-Board Diagnostics 

(OBD) test for certain model year 

vehicles. An OBD I/M test essentially 

means the electronic retrieval, by 

connecting to the computer port data 

link connector (DLC) in the vehicle with 

an OBD test analyzer, of information 

from a vehicle’s computer system. The 

electronic information retrieved 

addresses items such as stored readiness 

status, diagnostic trouble codes (DTC), 

malfunction indicator light (MIL) 

illumination and other data from a 

vehicle’s OBD system. Electronically 

interrogating a vehicle’s OBD system 

allows for the determination of whether 

any emission related DTCs are present 

and if the MIL is commanded on. 

Should these aspects of an OBD test be 

present, that would indicate the 

existence of an emissions related 

malfunction with the vehicle being 

tested. 

In addition, Colorado also extended 

the Reg. No. 11 exemption from I/M 

testing for new vehicles from four years 

to seven years. This revision was based 

on Colorado’s gathering of emissions 

testing information over a period of 

several years which demonstrated that 

historically new and newer vehicles 

typically did not fail the IM240 or OBD 

emissions test within the first seven 

years of the vehicle’s life. 

By a letter dated March 15, 2013, the 

Governor of Colorado submitted the 

above 2012 Reg. No. 11 OBD test 

requirements, the seven year test 

exemption, and other minor revisions. 

These SIP revisions are discussed in 

further detail below in section V. 

c.) Colorado’s 2013 Revisions to 

Regulation No. 11, Appendix A, 

Incorporation by Reference of Technical 

Materials, the Addition of New 

Technical Information/Requirements, 

and Minor Revisions to Appendix B 

Colorado further revised Reg. No. 11 

by updating Appendix A and Appendix 

B to remove text and incorporate by 

reference certain Attachments to 

Appendix A, to add new language to 

Appendix A, and to add new language 

and remove obsolete language in 

Appendix B. 

Appendix A was revised to remove 

the text of three technical document 

attachments and to note that the 

documents are available at CDPHE’s 

Emissions Technical Center Procedures 

Manual. The technical documents are 

incorporated by reference into Reg. No. 

11. Appendix A. The technical 

documents that are incorporated by 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53372 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3 ‘‘User Guide and Description For Interim 

Remote Sensing Program Utility,’’ EPA/AA/AMD/ 

EIG/96–01, dated September, 1996. 

4 ‘‘Program User Guide for Interim Vehicle Clean 

Screening Credit Utility,’’ Draft Report, EPA420–P– 

98–007, dated May, 1998. 

5 ‘‘Revised Final Economic Impact Analysis for 

Inspection and Maintenance per C.R.S. 25–7– 

110.5(4)(I), Cost Effectiveness Economic Impact 

Analysis, 2/1/99.’’ 

reference into Reg. No. 11 are: 

Attachment I ‘‘PDF 1000 Scanner,’’ 

Attachment II ‘‘Thermal Transfer 

Printer,’’ and Attachment III ‘‘Colorado 

Automobile Dealers Transient Mode 

Test Analyzer System.’’ Appendix A 

was also revised by adding Attachment 

V ‘‘Specifications for Colorado OnBoard Diagnostic (OBD) Stand-Alone 

Analyzer.’’ 

Appendix B, which is entitled 

‘‘Standards and Specifications for 

Calibration/Span Gas Suppliers,’’ was 

revised with updated language in 

Section 1 ‘‘Definitions,’’ Section 2 

‘‘Basic & Enhanced Idle Air Program/ 

Technical Requirements,’’ Section 3, 

‘‘Calibration/Span Gas Approval & 

Labeling,’’ Section 4 ‘‘Cylinder Tracking 

& Recall,’’ Section 5 ‘‘Enhanced IM & IG 

240 Air Program/Technical 

Requirements,’’ Section 6 ‘‘Colorado 

Approval Process,’’ and Section 7 

‘‘Blender Facility Requirements & 

Documentation.’’ Obsolete language was 

also removed from Appendix B. 

By a letter dated March 3, 2014, the 

Governor of Colorado submitted the 

above 2013 Reg. No. 11 revisions to 

Appendix A and Appendix B. These SIP 

revisions are discussed in further detail 

below in section VI. 

III. What was the State’s process? 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires 

that a state provide reasonable notice 

and public hearing before adopting a 

SIP revision and submitting it to us. 

a.) The State’s June 11, 2008 SIP 

Submittal 

On June 21, 2007 the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission (AQCC) 

conducted a public hearing to consider 

the adoption of revisions and additions 

to the Colorado SIP. The revisions 

affecting the SIP involved Reg. No. 11, 

the Clean Screen sections of Reg. No. 11, 

the LEI portion of the Clean Screen 

program, and associated revisions. After 

reviewing written comments, dated 

April 17, 2007, received from Rocky 

Mountain Clean Air Action and after 

conducting a public hearing, the AQCC 

adopted the proposed revisions to Reg. 

No. 11 on June 21, 2007. The SIP 

revisions became State effective on 

August 30, 2007. 

We evaluated the State’s June 11, 

2008 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of the SIP 

and determined that the State met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. By a letter dated October 

14, 2008, we advised James B. Martin, 

Executive Director of the CDPHE, that 

the SIP revisions submittal was deemed 

to have met the minimum 

‘‘completeness’’ criteria found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

b.) The State’s March 15, 2013 SIP 

Submittal 

On December 20, 2012, the AQCC 

conducted a public hearing to consider 

the adoption of revisions and additions 

to the Colorado SIP. The revisions 

affecting the SIP involved Reg. No. 11, 

the OBD program, the seven model year 

exemption from I/M testing, and 

associated revisions. After reviewing 

one supportive email written comment, 

dated December 16, 2012, received from 

Bob Armott and after conducting a 

public hearing, the AQCC adopted the 

proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on 

December 20, 2012. The SIP revisions 

became State effective on February 15, 

2013. 

We evaluated the State’s March 15, 

2013 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of the SIP 

and determined that the State met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. By operation of law under 

section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the 

State’s March 15, 2013 submittal was 

deemed complete on September 15, 

2013. 

c.) The State’s March 3, 2014 SIP 

Submittal 

On November 21, 2013, the AQCC 

conducted a public hearing to consider 

the adoption of revisions and additions 

to the Colorado SIP. The revisions 

affecting the SIP included updating 

Appendix A and Appendix B to Reg. 

No. 11 to remove text, incorporate by 

reference certain Attachments to 

Appendix A, to add new language to 

Appendix A, and to add new language 

and remove obsolete language in 

Appendix B. After conducting a public 

hearing, which did not have any public 

comments, the AQCC adopted the 

proposed revisions to Reg. No. 11 on 

November 21, 2013. The SIP revisions 

became State effective on December 30, 

2013. 

We evaluated the State’s March 3, 

2014 submittal for Reg. No. 11 of the SIP 

and determined that the State met the 

requirements for reasonable notice and 

public hearing under section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA. By operation of law under 

section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, the 

State’s March 3, 2014 submittal was 

deemed complete on September 3, 2014. 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2007 

Revisions to the Low Emitter Index, 

Part A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A 

a.) Evaluation of the Clean Screen 

Program and LEI Component 

We approved the Clean Screen 

program component of Colorado’s Reg. 

No. 11, for implementation in the 

Metro-Denver area with our approval of 

the original Denver carbon monoxide 

(CO) redesignation to attainment and 

the associated maintenance plan (see: 66 

FR 64751, December 14, 2001). 

Additional discussion of the Clean 

Screen program was provided in our 

August 22, 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 

44097). In evaluating the Clean Screen 

program for the maintenance plan, the 

State used EPA’s MOBILE5b motor 

vehicle emissions calculation model 

and the MOBILE model’s remote 

sensing program credit utility dated 

1996 3 and revised in 1998.4 Further 

discussion is also provided in the 

State’s Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for the 2001 CO redesignation to 

attainment, which is part of the EPA’s 

final rule hard copy docket, and is also 

available from the State on-line at: 

http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/ 

tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=

open&file=codenfnl.pdf). 

For the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we 

approved on December 14, 2001, the 

State used the above tools and other 

data to evaluate the Clean Screen 

program for its implementation in the 

Metro-Denver area. Based on this 

evaluation and the review of 

information for the additional 

implementation of a Clean Screen 

program in Fort Collins (located in 

Larimer County, Colorado) and Greeley 

(located in Weld County, Colorado), the 

state concluded there would be an 

approximate 4% disbenefit for CO 

emissions and a 7% disbenefit for 

hydrocarbon (HC) emissions if it was 

assumed that 35% of the eligible 

vehicles were clean-screened.5

We note that the version of Reg. No. 

11 that the EPA approved on December 

14, 2001 included the Clean Screen 

criteria which required an eligible 

vehicle for inspection to have at least 

two consecutive passing remote sensing 

emissions readings performed on 

different days, or at different approved 

Clean Screen inspection sites, prior to 

its registration renewal date. 

With the 2007 Reg. No. 11 revisions, 

the AQCC adopted modifications as 

proposed by the Division that expanded 

the Clean Screen criteria to also include 

vehicles with one passing remote 

sensing reading prior to its registration 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 53373 

6 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program 

January–December, 2009,’’ Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, July, 2010. 

7 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program 

January–December, 2011,’’ Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, November, 2012. 

8 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program 

January–December, 2012,’’ Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, December, 2013. 

9 ‘‘The Colorado Remote Sensing Program 

January–December, 2013,’’ Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment, September, 2014. 

date and that the vehicle is identified as 

a low emitter on the LEI. To address the 

LEI criteria of this revised Clean Screen 

process, the Division develops a low 

emitting vehicle index on or before July 

1st of each year based on a tabulation 

of the previous calendar year’s IM240 

inspection program results for specified 

make, model and model year vehicles. 

This LEI is comprised of specific make, 

model and model year vehicles that 

passed IM240 vehicle inspections the 

previous year at a minimum of a 98% 

rate. However, in developing the LEI, 

the Division may use passing criteria 

greater than 98% if necessary to ensure 

that the use of the LEI is equivalent or 

better than the use of a second remote 

sensing measurement in terms of air 

quality benefits. This process is more 

fully detailed in the CPDHE May, 2007 

document entitled ‘‘Development and 

Evaluation of Colorado’s Low Emitter 

Index.’’ 

To assess the State’s Clean Screen 

program and its LEI component, the 

EPA reviewed the available CDPHE 

Clean Screen annual reports for 2009,6

2011,7 2012,8 and 2013.9 The annual 

reports detailed the overall effectiveness 

of the Clean Screen program and also 

contained the results of the random 2% 

sampling for the LEI component. This 

sampling procedure involved retaining 

2% of the vehicles which had been 

shown to pass one measurement with 

RSD equipment and been on the LEI 

index, and then requiring them to take 

an IM240 test for comparison. The data, 

including fleet coverage and emissions 

reduction retention, are presented below 

in Tables 1 and 2: 

TABLE 1—TOTAL VEHICLES INSPECTED AND VEHICLES CLEAN-SCREENED

Year of clean screen report Total vehicles 

inspected 

Vehicles that 

were cleanscreened 

Percent of 

total vehicles 

that were 

cleanscreened 

(%) 

2009 ............................................................................................................................................. 899,646 199,344 22.0 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,156,949 246,768 21.3 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,150,562 248,224 21.6 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,184,875 233,760 19.7 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED CLEAN SCREEN DISBENEFIT—BASED ON RETAINED EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Year of clean screen report 

Retained HC 

emission 

reductions 

(%) 

Retained CO 

emission 

reductions 

(%) 

Retained 

NOX* emission 

reductions 

(%) 

2009 ............................................................................................................................................. 94.6 98.1 92.9 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 96.1 98.1 97.3 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 94.8 97.1 93.9 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 97.3 96.7 97.6 

Average Clean Screen Disbenefit ............................................................................................... 4.3 2.5 4.6 

* Nitrogen Oxides. 

The data from the State’s Clean 

Screen reports, as excerpted and 

presented in the above tables, 

demonstrate that the disbenefit from the 

Clean Screen program and its LEI 

component continue to be within the 

original estimates from the Reg. No. 11 

revisions that we approved on 

December 14, 2001. Although those 

original 2001 disbenefit estimates (4% 

for CO, 7% for HC, and assuming 35% 

clean-screened vehicles) were prepared 

with then current tools, the Clean 

Screen program and LEI component 

continue to perform within those 

estimates. Also, from the above four 

years of Clean Screen annual reports 

that we evaluated, the State’s Reg. No. 

11 revisions original estimate of 35% of 

the fleet being clean-screened has not 

been achieved. Based on the four 

referenced Clean Screen reports, we 

note that 22% or less of the eligible 

vehicles have been clean-screened. 

Therefore, the actual emission reduction 

disbenefit has been less than predicted, 

as more vehicles have then been 

required to go through the IM240 test. 

b.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That 

Were Revised With the State’s June 11, 

2008 Submittal Were as Follows: 

1.) Part A, section II: Modify 

definition number 15 ‘‘Clean Screened 

Vehicle’’ to reflect the addition of the 

LEI; modify definition number 17 

‘‘Colorado ’4’’ to clarify the use of the 

BAR 90 test analyzer systems for use 

after 1994; and add a new definition 

‘‘Low Emitting Vehicle Index.’’ 

Renumber definitions number 18 and 

higher. 

2.) Part C, section XII: Modify section 

XIIA.3 regarding the requirements and 

procedures to clean screen an eligible 

vehicle and add section XIIE.4 regarding 

low emitting vehicles and the LEI. 

3.) Part F, section VI: Renumber 

section VI.B as VI.C; add new section 

VI.B.1 which requires the development 

of the LEI each year; add new section 

VI.B.2 which establishes the 98% 

minimum passing criteria for the LEI; 

and add new section VI.B.3 which 

allows the Division to use a greater than 

98% passing criteria if needed to equate 

to a second RSD reading. 

4.) Appendix A, Technical 

Specifications, Attachment 1: Sections 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53374 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

10 ‘‘Performing Onboard Diagnostic System 

Checks as Part of a Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Program,’’ EPA–420–R–01–015, dated 

June, 2001. 

11 ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Revised 

Denver and Longmont Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plans, and Approval of Related 

Revisions,’’ 72 FR 46148, dated August 17, 2007. 

of Attachment 1 of the Technical 

Specifications contain the specifications 

for the PDF 1000 Scanner; some sections 

were unreadable and a full, retyped PDF 

1000 Scanner section was provided. 

5.) Appendix A, Technical 

Specifications, Attachment 2: Sections 

of Attachment 2 of the Technical 

Specifications contain the specifications 

for the Thermal Transfer Printer; some 

sections were unreadable and a full, 

retyped Thermal Transfer Printer 

section was provided. 

The EPA notes that Part F, section 

III.A.2 of Reg. No. 11 was also provided 

with the State’s June 11, 2008 submittal. 

This section contains IM240 test light 

duty vehicle emissions cutpoints for 

1996 and newer vehicles (all in grams 

per mile). The CO, HC, and NOX entries 

for calendar year 2006 are incorrect as 

the State had previously provided an 

August 8, 2006 SIP revision submittal to 

remove these 2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 

0.6, CO 10.0, and NOX 1.5). The EPA 

approved the removal of these 2006 

cutpoints on December 20, 2012 (77 FR 

75388). 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2012 

Revisions to the On-Board Diagnostics 

Test, the Seven Model Year Emissions 

Test Exemption, the Gas Cap Retest, 

Part A, Part B, Part C, Part F, and 

Part G 

a.) Evaluation of the OBD Test 

Provisions 

As we noted above, beginning in 

January 2015, Colorado began 

implementing an OBD test for certain 

model year vehicles. An OBD I/M test 

essentially means the electronic 

retrieval, by connecting to the computer 

port DLC in the vehicle with an OBD 

test analyzer, of information from a 

vehicle’s computer system addressing 

items such as stored readiness status, 

DTCs, MIL illumination and other 

information from a vehicle’s OBD 

system. Electronically interrogating a 

vehicle’s OBD system allows for the 

determination if any emission related 

DTCs are present and if the MIL is 

commanded on. Should these aspects of 

an OBD test be present, that would 

indicate the existence of an emissions 

related malfunction with the vehicle 

being tested. More detailed information 

on OBD I/M testing is found in 40 CFR 

85, Subpart W and at the EPA’s Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality 

(OTAQ) Web site at: http:// 

www3.epa.gov/obd/regtech/inspection.

htm. In addition, further information is 

provided in the EPA’s OBD rulemaking 

actions of April 5, 2001 (66 FR 18156), 

December 20, 2005 (70 FR 75403), and 

the EPA’s document addressing 

performing OBD system checks as part 

of an I/M program.10

The EPA has reviewed the OBD 

information in the State’s 

Administrative documentation with its 

March 15, 2013 submittal, the OBD I/M 

test procedures contained in the Reg. 

No. 11 revisions to Part A, Part B, Part 

C, and Part F, all as detailed further 

below, and has concluded these 

revisions meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 85, Subpart W for OBD I/M testing 

and the above cited EPA final rules. 

We note the Colorado OBD test 

provisions that were adopted in 2012 

are applicable to a portion of the 

vehicles that are subject to an I/M test. 

The Reg. No. 11 revisions of 2012 also 

increased the new vehicle model year 

exemption from four to seven years, 

required OBD testing for the next four 

years (two inspection cycles for the 8th 

through 11th years), and required I/M 

240 testing to commence with the third 

inspection cycle. In addition, the Reg. 

No. 11 revisions of 2012 allowed OBD 

testing for OBD equipped vehicles that 

were otherwise hard to test with the 

IM240 procedures (for example, too 

short of a wheelbase for the 

dynamometer treadmills, vehicles with 

very large or small wheel/tire 

combinations, and certain all-wheeldrive vehicles with very sensitive 

traction control systems), eliminated the 

visual inspection for 1996 and newer 

vehicles (because of OBD testing), and 

required a full emissions retest for 

vehicles initially failing the gas cap test. 

The 2012 Reg. No. 11 revisions retained 

other aspects of the I/M program 

including the use of Clean Screen 

technology to clean screen vehicles and 

annual TSI testing for 1981 and older 

vehicles. 

In consideration of the OBD testing 

component of the I/M program and the 

extension from four years to seven years 

to exempt new vehicles from I/M testing 

(discussed further below), the State 

prepared an estimated emissions benefit 

for the implementation of both the OBD 

testing and extended test exemption for 

seven years. This estimated emissions 

benefit information is contained in the 

Administrative Documentation, that is 

part of the State’s March 15, 2013 SIP 

submittal, and is provided in the section 

entitled ‘‘SIP Emission Reduction 

Equivalency Demonstration.’’ The 

information notes that the Division 

conducted modeling of the 2012 

revisions using the then current I/M 

program, as implemented in the seven 

Metro-Denver counties area, and the 

new program (OBD plus the seven-year 

testing exemption) as fully implemented 

in 2017. The year 2017 was selected as 

that would reflect the full completion of 

a two-year OBD inspection cycle on 

applicable vehicles. The Division’s 

results are provided below in Table 3: 

TABLE 3—SEVEN COUNTY METRO-DENVER AREA I/M PROGRAM ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN 2017 

TGH * NOX CO 

Current I/M Program ................................................................................................................... 6.008 tpd ** .... 4.849 tpd ........ 68.843 tpd. 

Revised I/M Program .................................................................................................................. 6.052 .............. 5.004 .............. 64.916. 

*Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons. 

**tons per day (tpd). 

As shown in Table 3 above, 

implementation of the Reg. No. 11 

provisions of the OBD component and 

the seven-year exemption from I/M 

testing were estimated to result in a 

small increase in CO emissions and a 

slight reduction in ozone precursor 

emissions (NOX and TGH). 

The EPA has evaluated this negligible 

increase in estimated CO emissions and 

has concluded it will not have a 

detrimental effect on the most recentlyapproved revised Metro-Denver CO 

maintenance plan (72 FR 46148, August 

17, 2007).11 Our evaluation considered 

the negligible increase in CO emissions 

of four tpd to the CO mobile sources 

emission inventory data in the MetroVerDate Sep<11>2014 14:23 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM 12AUP1

ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 53375 

12 ‘‘Determinations of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment 

Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas 

Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 80 FR 51992, 

dated August 27, 2015. 

13 ‘‘Determinations of Attainment by the 

Attainment Date, Extensions of the Attainment 

Date, and Reclassification of Several Areas 

Classified as Marginal for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 81 FR 26697, 

dated May 4, 2016. 

Denver maintenance plan for the 

projected 2015 mobile source CO 

emissions of 1,416 tpd and the 

maintenance plan’s final maintenance 

year of 2021 projected mobile source CO 

emissions of 1,372.10 tpd. The four tpd 

emissions would be 0.28% of the 2015 

CO mobile source emissions and 0.29% 

of the 2021 CO mobile source emissions. 

In addition, we also reviewed statecertified and EPA-reviewed ambient CO 

air quality monitoring data that are 

located in the EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. We reviewed data from 

2007 through 2015. We did not find any 

exceedances or violations of the CO 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Therefore, the Metro-Denver 

CO maintenance area continues to 

demonstrate maintenance of the CO 

NAAQS. 

We do note that the slight reduction 

in ozone precursor emissions of NOX

and TGH will be beneficial as the MetroDenver/North Front Range (NFR) 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment 

area continues to work towards 

attainment of that NAAQS. Additional 

information regarding the Metro 

Denver/NFR ozone nonattainment area 

and its status can be found in the EPA’s 

2008 ozone NAAQS proposed SIP 

Requirements rule (80 FR 51992, August 

27, 2015) 12 and final rule (81 FR 26697, 

May 4, 2016).13

b.) Evaluation of the Extension of the 

I/M Test Exemption From Four to Seven 

Years 

Included with the March 15, 2013 

Reg. No. 11 SIP revision submittal were 

revised provisions to increase the I/M 

test exemption for newer vehicles from 

the EPA-approved four-year exemption 

to seven years. Additional information 

and rationale were provided by the 

Division in the ‘‘Air Quality Control 

Commission Regulation Number 11 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Detailed Issue 

Statement’’ which was part of the SIP 

submittal’s Administrative 

Documentation. 

The Division’s AQCC issue statement 

noted that the revision to Reg. No. 11, 

to increase new vehicle model year 

exemptions from four years to seven 

years, was allowed by Colorado law 

which authorizes the AQCC to extend 

the duration for which new vehicles are 

exempt from I/M testing; 42–4– 

310(1)(a)(II)(C) and 42–4–306(8)(b), 

Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) 

The Division noted that the revision 

to extend the new vehicle model year 

exemption results in an overall cost 

savings and increased convenience to 

the public for tests not performed. In 

addition, the Division stated that the 

population of vehicles in this age group, 

and their vehicle miles traveled, are 

relatively high; however, since they are 

relatively new vehicles, their emissions 

are lower than those of older vehicles. 

The Division concluded that 

increasing the duration of the new 

vehicle exemption increases emissions 

from the entire fleet. However, the EPA 

notes that with this particular revision 

to Reg. No. 11, the State simultaneously 

included revisions to Reg. No. 11 to 

initiate OBD testing requirements for 

applicable vehicles. As discussed above 

and as presented in Table 3 above, the 

net result of the implementation of both 

the seven-year extended exemption for 

I/M test and OBD testing showed a 

negligible increase of CO emissions and 

a slight decrease in NOX and TGH 

emissions. Based on our above analysis 

of the Metro-Denver CO maintenance 

plan and relevant ambient CO air 

quality monitoring data, the EPA finds 

that the increase in the new vehicle 

seven-year I/M test exemption will not 

have an adverse effect on the approved 

revised Metro-Denver CO maintenance 

plan (72 FR 46148, August 17, 2007). 

We also find that the emissions from the 

revised seven-year I/M test exemption 

are offset by the additional reduction in 

ozone precursor emissions of NOX and 

TGH realized through the State’s 

implementation of OBD testing that 

covers the Metro-Denver/NFR 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area. 

c.) Gas Cap Full Retest Clarification and 

Other Minor Non-Substantive Revisions 

There was a clarification to the gas 

cap test requirements and several other 

minor revisions included with the 

March 15, 2013 Reg. No. 11 SIP revision 

submittal. 

The state revised Reg. No. 11 to clarify 

that, in accordance with federal law, a 

full I/M retest is required after a test 

failure due to the lack of a gas cap or 

a faulty gas cap. The EPA notes that 

missing or malfunctioning gas caps 

automatically cause a test failure and 

require replacement of the cap and then 

a full emissions retest. The full retest is 

necessary because the gas cap seals and 

pressurizes the entire fuel evaporative 

emissions control system. If other 

components of the evaporative system 

are functional, there will be no effect on 

tailpipe emissions; however, if other 

elements of the evaporative system are 

faulty replacing a faulty or missing gas 

cap can trigger a tailpipe emissions 

failure. In addition, the inclusion or 

replacement of a malfunctioning gas cap 

will reduce emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) from a vehicle’s fuel 

tank. This is a beneficial as VOCs are a 

precursor emission to the formation of 

ground level ozone. 

The Reg. No. 11 revisions also include 

several ‘housekeeping’ items including: 

Correcting typographical and 

grammatical errors; deleting obsolete 

language and implementation dates; 

removing titles and text that were 

inadvertently left unchanged from prior 

Reg. No. 11 changes; and renumbering 

and recodifications according to 

adopted language additions and 

deletions. 

d.) The Sections of Reg. No. 11 That 

Were Revised With the State’s March 15, 

2013 Submittal Were as Follows: 

1.) Part A, section I: Minor wording 

changes to add new language and 

remove obsolete language in sections 

I.B, I.C.3, I.C.3.a, I.C.3.b, I.C.3.c, I.C.4, 

I.C.7, I.C.7.c, I.C.8, and I.C.9.b. 

Part A, section II: A new definition 

number 20 was added entitled 

‘‘Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) 

Test Analyzer System;’’ a new definition 

number 22 was added entitled 

‘‘Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC);’’ and, 

definitions number 23 to 43 were 

renumbered. A new definition number 

44 was added and entitled ‘‘On-Board 

Diagnostics II (OBD or OBDII) Test’’ and 

definitions numbered 45 to 52 were 

renumbered. 

Part A, section IV: Section IV. D was 

removed which involved obsolete 

language and section IV.E was 

renumbered IV.D and also had obsolete 

language removed. 

2.) Part B, section IX: Section IX was 

added and is entitled ‘‘Approval of the 

Colorado On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) 

Test Analyzer System. Also, Part B, 

section X was added and is entitled 

‘‘The Colorado On-Board Diagnostic 

(OBD) Test Analyzer System.’’ 

3.) Part C, title: The title was modified 

by adding ‘‘On-Board Diagnostics 

(OBD).’’ 

Part C, section I.C.3: This involved 

minor language changes to clarify data 

transmission and analyzer requirements. 

Part C, section II.A: This section was 

renumbered from II.A through II.F to 

instead become II.A.1 through II.A.11. 

Minor clarification language was added 

along with revised references to sections 

in Part C. 

Part C, section II.G: This section was 

renumbered to II.B and clarifying 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53376 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

language was added regarding OBD 

testing. Sections II.G.1 through II.G.6 

were renumbered II.B.1 through II.B.6. 

Section II.B.4 had clarifying language 

added regarding applicable vehicles that 

were unable to be tested with the IM240 

test would then be OBD tested. 

Part C, section II.C: A new section II.C 

(II.C 1 through II.C.9) was added which 

specifies which vehicles are to be OBD 

tested and the requirements and testing 

procedures for an OBD test. 

Part C, section III.A: This section had 

clarifying language added and sections 

III.B and III.C were removed as they 

addressed the model year 1996 and 

newer visual inspection procedures. 

The remaining applicable portions of 

section III.C were then renumbered III.B. 

Sections III.D and III.E were renumbered 

to III.C and III.D. 

Part C, section IV: A new section IV 

was added which addressed the 

requirements for applicable vehicles 

(1996 through those vehicles that had 

reached their 11th model year of age) to 

be evaluated with and OBD test. 

Part C, prior section IV: The existing 

section IV was renumbered section V 

and also modified with clarifying 

language regarding the requirement for 

a full retest of vehicles which 

previously had a missing or 

malfunctioning gas cap. 

Part C, section VIII.A.2: A new section 

VIII.A.2 was added which states that 

vehicles in their model years seven 

through 10 need to meet the OBD 

passing criteria in Part F, section VII. 

Sections VIII.A.2 through VIII.A.4 were 

renumbered VIII.A.3 through VIII.A.5. 

Part C, sections VIII.B.1, VIII.B.2, and 

VIII.B.3: These sections had minor 

wording changes and deletion of 

obsolete language. 

Part C, sections VIII.D.A through 

VIII.D.E: These sections were 

renumbered VIII.D.1 through VIII.D.5. 

Part C, sections IX.G and X.A: These 

sections had minor clarifying language 

added. 

4.) Part F, section V: This section was 

entitled ‘‘Visible Smoke.’’ 

Part F, section VII: A new section VII 

was added (sections VII.A through 

VII.F) which stated the required OBD 

diagnostic inspection test passing 

criteria. 

5.) Part G: This part had previously 

contained obsolete high-emitting 

vehicle identification pilot project 

language which was removed and Part 

G was retitled ‘‘Reserved.’’ 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s 2013 

Revisions to Part A, Part C, Appendix 

A, and Appendix B 

In 2013, the AQCC adopted several 

minor changes to Reg. No. 11. These 

revisions were subsequently submitted 

to the EPA on March 3, 2014. The 

sections of Reg. No. 11 that were revised 

with the State’s March 3, 2014 submittal 

were as follows: 

a.) Part A, section I.C.3.c: This section 

was revised to clarify that the seven year 

new vehicle exemption, which excused 

vehicles from an I/M test for seven years 

and was previously adopted by the 

AQCC in December 2012, would take 

effect on January 1, 2015. Also, this 

exemption would apply retroactively to 

existing vehicles in their fourth, fifth, 

and sixth years of service. 

b.) Part A, sections I.C.8, I.C.9, and 

I.C.10: These sections were revised to 

clarify ambiguous, contradictory and 

obsolete Reg. No. 11 language 

concerning the issuance of and duration 

periods for ‘‘Verification of Emissions 

Test’’ exemption windshield stickers 

issued by motor vehicle dealers. Part A, 

section I.C.8 was further clarified to 

note that vehicles in their fourth, fifth, 

and sixth years of service would have 

the seven year exemption applied 

retroactively. 

c.) Part A, section I.C.3 and Part C, 

sections III and IV: These sections were 

revised to clarify that the seven-year 

new vehicle exemption from I/M 

testing, OBD testing requirements and 

procedures, and other changes made to 

Reg. No. 11 by the AQCC in December 

2012, would go into effect January 1, 

2015. In addition, the I/M visual 

inspection procedures for 1996 and 

newer vehicles would be retained 

through December 2014. 

d.) Part C, section C VIII.B.3: This 

section was revised to codify in Reg. No. 

11 the vehicle emissions repair cost 

waiver amount of $715. The AQCC has 

previously directed the Division to 

change the amount from $450 to $715 in 

November 2002, which was done. 

However, at that time, the AQCC had 

declined to note the changed repair 

amount in the text of Reg. No. 11. 

e.) Part C, section VIII.D.4: This 

section was revised regarding the 

qualifying criteria for an economic 

hardship waiver for a vehicle failing its 

emissions test. Section VIII.D.4 was 

further revised to allow the economic 

hardship waiver to apply to households 

owning two vehicles rather than 

restricting hardship waivers to 

households owning only one vehicle. 

f.) Appendix A of Reg. No. 11 was 

revised as follows: 

1.) Appendix A was revised to remove 

the text of three technical document 

attachments and to note that the 

documents are available at CDPHE’s 

Emissions Technical Center Procedures 

Manual. The technical documents are 

incorporated by reference into Reg. No. 

11. Appendix A. The technical 

documents that are incorporated by 

reference into Reg. No. 11 are: 

Attachment I ‘‘PDF 1000 Scanner,’’ 

Attachment II ‘‘Thermal Transfer 

Printer,’’ and Attachment III ‘‘Colorado 

Automobile Dealers Transient Mode 

Test Analyzer System.’’ 

2.) Updated Attachment IV, entitled 

‘‘Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment Specification for 

Colorado 97 Analyzer,’’ to reflect 

technological changes to data 

specifications, communications 

protocols, and forms generation. 

3.) Included a new Attachment V 

‘‘Test Analyzer Specification for Onboard Diagnostics’’ for licensed fleets 

who self-inspect their own vehicles. 

Note: Part B section X required this Test 

Analyzer Specification to be in place by 

December 31, 2013. 

g.) Appendix B of Reg. No. 11 was 

revised as follows: 

1.) Attachment II; the ‘‘Calibration 

Span Gas’’ labels were updated to reflect 

the current version of the State-official 

labels. 

h.) Overall revised formatting and 

other non-substantive changes were 

made throughout Reg. No. 11. 

VII. Conclusion 

Our review of the State’s Reg. No. 11 

revisions, as presented above in sections 

IV, V, and VI, involved: 1.) The Low 

Emitter Index (LEI) and Clean Screen 

program components, 2.) The On-Board 

Diagnostics (OBD) I/M testing program 

component, 3.) The seven model-year 

exemption from I/M testing provisions, 

4.) The requirement for a full I/M retest 

after the replacement of a missing or 

malfunctioning gas cap, 5.) New 

definitions, clarification language, and 

removal of obsolete language, 6.) 

Numerous revisions to Reg. No. 11 Parts 

A, B, C, F, G, Appendix A, and 

Appendix B, and 7.) Overall formatting, 

correction of typographic errors and 

other non-substantive changes. Based on 

our review and evaluation discussion 

presented above, we have determined 

that the Reg. No. 11 SIP revisions, 

submitted by the State in letters dated 

June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013 and 

March 3, 2014 sufficiently address 

applicable provisions in 40 CFR 51, 

Subpart S, 40 CFR 85, Subpart W, and 

applicable EPA guidance for I/M 

programs and that our approval is 

warranted. 

VIII. Consideration of Section 110(1) of 

the Clean Air Act 

Section 110(1) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 53377 

14 1-hour NO2 NAAQS: 75 FR 6474, February 9, 

2010. 

15PM2.5 NAAQS: Annual NAAQS (78 FR 3086, 

January 15, 2013); 2006 24-hour NAAQS (71 FR 

61144, October 17, 2006). 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The only 

portions of the Reg. No. 11 revisions 

that we described above which we 

believe require further consideration 

with regard to section 110(l) of the CAA 

are the revisions to the Clean Screen 

program to add the LEI component and 

the seven-year I/M test exemption. 

For the LEI component of the Clean 

Screen program, we noted above that 

with our December 14, 2001 approval 

the Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan 

and implementation of the Clean Screen 

program as adopted at that time, the 

State concluded there would be an 

approximate 4% disbenefit for CO 

emissions and a 7% disbenefit for HC 

emissions if it was assumed that 35% of 

the eligible vehicles were cleanscreened. Our further evaluation of the 

LEI component of the Clean Screen 

program, as discussed above in section 

IV, involved the review of the State’s 

Clean Screen annual reports for 2009, 

2011, 2012 and 2013. The annual 

reports detailed the overall effectiveness 

of the Clean Screen program and also 

contained the results of the random 2% 

sampling for the LEI component. The 

data from the State’s Clean Screen 

reports demonstrate that the disbenefit 

from the Clean Screen program, 

including its LEI component, continue 

to be within the original estimates from 

the Reg. No. 11 revisions that we 

approved on December 14, 2001. 

Although those original 2001 disbenefit 

estimates (4% for CO, 7% for HC, and 

35% vehicles being clean-screened) 

were prepared with then current tools, 

the Clean Screen program and LEI 

component continue to perform within 

those estimates. Also, from the above 

four years of Clean Screen annual 

reports that we evaluated, the State’s 

Reg. No. 11 revisions original estimate 

of 35% of the fleet being clean-screened 

has not be been achieved. Based on the 

four referenced Clean Screen reports, we 

note that 22% or less of the eligible 

vehicles have been clean-screened. 

Therefore, the actual emissions 

reduction disbenefit has been less than 

predicted as more vehicles have then 

been required to go through the IM240 

test. 

With regard to the seven-year new 

vehicle exemption from I/M testing, as 

explained above in section V, we noted 

that with the implementation of the Reg. 

No. 11 provisions of the combination of 

the OBD testing component and the 

seven-year exemption from I/M testing 

there was estimated to be a small 

increase in CO emissions and a minor 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

(NOX and TGH). As noted above, the 

EPA evaluated this small increase in 

estimated CO emissions and has 

concluded it will not have a detrimental 

effect on the approved revised MetroDenver CO maintenance plan (72 FR 

46148, August 17, 2007). Our evaluation 

considered the negligible increase in CO 

emissions of approximately four tons 

per day as compared to the CO mobile 

sources emission inventory data in the 

Metro-Denver CO maintenance plan. As 

we noted above, the maintenance plan’s 

estimated 2015 mobile source CO 

emissions are 1,416 tpd and the 

estimated 2021 (last year of the 

maintenance plan) mobile source CO 

emissions are 1,372.10 tpd. Therefore, 

the four tpd increase would be 0.28% of 

the 2015 mobile source CO emissions 

and the 0.29% of the 2021 mobile 

source CO emissions. We also reviewed 

available state-certified and EPAreviewed ambient CO air quality 

monitoring data from the EPA’s AQS 

database from 2007 through 2015. These 

data show no exceedance or violation of 

the CO NAAQS. We further noted that 

the minor increase in reductions of 

ozone precursor emissions of NOX and 

TGH will be beneficial as the MetroDenver/NFR 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

nonattainment area continues to work 

towards attainment of that NAAQS. 

With respect to other NAAQS that 

have the potential to be affected by our 

proposed approval of the above Reg. No. 

11 revisions, we note that the MetroDenver area is designated 

‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for the 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS 14 and the annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 15 (see: 40 CFR 

81.306). We reviewed available statecertified and EPA-reviewed ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS, and the annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Our review 

involved EPA’s AQS database and 

relevant data from 2007 through 2015. 

The data demonstrate continued 

attainment of the 1-hour NO2 and PM2.5

annual and 24-hour NAAQS in the 

Metro-Denver area. 

In addition to the above, we have 

determined the revisions to Reg. No. 11 

contained in all three SIP revision 

submittals involving the language 

changes necessary to implement the LEI 

and Clean Screen program components, 

the OBD I/M testing program 

component, the seven model-year 

exemption from I/M testing provisions, 

the requirement for a full I/M retest after 

the replacement of a missing or 

malfunctioning gas cap, new 

definitions, clarification language, 

removal of obsolete language, numerous 

minor revisions to Parts A, B, C, F, G, 

Appendix A and Appendix B of Reg. 

No. 11, overall formatting, correction of 

typographic errors and other nonsubstantive changes do not affect 

emissions and therefore do not have 

CAA section 110(l) implications. 

In view of the above, the EPA 

proposes to find that the revisions to 

Colorado’s Reg. No. 11 that are 

contained in the State’s SIP submittals 

dated June 11, 2008, March 15, 2013 

and March 3, 2014 will not interfere 

with attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

IX. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing approval of the 

June 11, 2008 submitted SIP revisions to 

Colorado’s Regulation Number 11, Part 

A, Part C, Part F, and Appendix A. The 

EPA notes that Part F, section III.A.2 

was also provided with the State’s June 

11, 2008 submittal. This section 

contains IM240 test light duty vehicle 

emissions cutpoints for 1996 and newer 

vehicles (all in grams per mile). The CO, 

HC, and NOX entries for calendar year 

2006 are incorrect as the State had 

previously provided an August 8, 2006 

SIP revision submittal to remove these 

2006 cutpoints (i.e., HC 0.6, CO 10.0, 

and NOX 1.5). EPA approved the 

removal of these 2006 cutpoints on 

December 20, 2012 (77 FR 75388). 

In addition, the EPA is proposing 

approval of the March 15, 2013 

submitted SIP revisions to Regulation 

Number 11, Part A, Part B, Part C, Part 

F, and Part G. Finally, the EPA is 

proposing approval of the March 3, 2014 

submitted SIP revisions to Regulation 

Number 11, Part A, Part C, Appendix A, 

and Appendix B. 

X. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission, Regulation Number 11 as 

discussed in section IX of this preamble. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 8 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53378 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

[42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)]. 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

Country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 26, 2016. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2016–18878 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0724; FRL–9950–51– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa 

Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner’s 

Order 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) on 

October 16, 2015. The submittal consists 

of an order issued by the Commissioner 

of IDEM (Commissioner’s Order No. 

2015–01) approving alternative control 

technology requirements for Abengoa 

Bioenergy of Indiana (Abengoa). These 

requirements include the use of a 

carbon adsorption/absorption 

hydrocarbon vapor recovery system 

with a minimum overall control 

efficiency of 98% to control volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from the ethanol loading racks at 

Abengoa. A continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) must be used 

to monitor the carbon adsorption/

absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery 

system for breakthrough of VOC 

emissions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0724, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832, 

Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should 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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS