'. 

# ,, 

# STATE OF 

# COLORADO

Bill Ritter, Jr

., Governor Martha E

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

. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www

.cdphe

.state
.co.us March 31,2010
Carol Rushin Acting Regional Administrator US EPA Region VIII 1595 Wynkoop St. Denver, CO 80202 Dear Ms_ Rushin: '


### ......"'

### .. Colorado Department ofPublicHealth andEnvironment RECEIVED U.S. EPA Region 8 RA'sOfllce 

## APR 012010

The following actions are submittedto EPA for final approval and incorporation into the Colorado State Implementation Planpursuant to 40 CFRPart 51 , Appendix V, 2J(a)_ Two copies ofthe materials needed for your review ofeach action are included with this letter.

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

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

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

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

• Common Provisions

- The Commission adopted a revision to the CommonProvisions Regulation to revise the definitions of"negligibly reactive volatile organic compound" and "volatile organic compound" (VOC) in Section I.G. to be consistent with the federal definitions for these terms.

# ..

Carol Rushin March 3 1, 201 0 Page 2

• Interstate Air Pollutant Transport State Implementation Plan

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

Martha E. Rudolph Executive Director Colorado Department ofPublic

Health and Environment

cc. Paul Tourangeau Doug Lempke MarkKomp

# Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS Copies ofthe following administrative materials are included in this submittal ofrevisions to Greeley CarbonMonoxide Maintenance Plan. Hearing held on December 17, 2009.

• HearingNotice as Published on the CommissionWebsite 40 CFR Part51 Appendix 

## v

2
.1(f) • Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred andNotice published in the Legal Ads ofthe DenverPost40 CFR Part51 Appendix V2.1(f) • Procedural Documents ofthe Commission (this includes the Agenda Item Control Sheet) • Parties Hearing Documents (this includes a list ofthe parties, the parties prehearing statements and rebuttal statements, and any orders bythe Commission

- - do not include all the attachments from the parties) • Proposed Language for State ImplementationPlan Element • Technical Support Document 40 CFR Part51 Appendix V2.2 • EPA Comments 40 CFR Part51 Appendix V2.1(h) • Public Comments 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V2.1(h) • State Implementation PlanElementAdopted by the Commission 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V2.1(d) • Colorado Air Quality Control CommissionMeeting Minutes 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2
.1(g)

# HearingNotice as Published onthe Commission Website 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1(f)

# STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr
., Governor James B
. Martm, Executive D1rector Dedicated to protecting and tmprowng the health andenwronment ofthepeople ofColorado COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http:// www.cdphe
.state
.co.us EDO-AQCC-A5 4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South Denver, Colorado 80246-I530 Phone (303) 692-3I00 Fax (303) 691-7702 TOO (303) 691-7700 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

### NOTICE OFPUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING BEFORETHE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION Regarding proposed revisions to: 

### Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan SUBJECT: The Air Quality Control Commission will hold a public rulemaking hearing to considerrevisions to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Greeley. This is the second oftwo 10-yearplans that are required by the Clean Air Act. 

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

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

### Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Room Denver, Colorado 80246 The hearingmay be contmuedatsuch places andllme as the Commzssion mayannounce. Interested

parties may contact the Commzssion Office at 303-692-3476 to confirm meetingdates andtzmes. 

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

Page I of3PARTY STATUS: In order to obtain party status at the hearing, compliance with several requirements as defined in the Commissions Procedural Rules is necessary. A petition for party status must be filed by electronic mail with the Office ofthe Air Quality Control Commission no later than close of business on 

### October 20,2009. The petitionmust: 1) identify the applicant,· 2)provide the name, address, telephone andfacsimile numbers, andemail address of the applicants representative, and3) brieflysummarize what, 

### if any, policy,factual, andlegal issues the applicant has with the proposal(s) as of the time of filing the application. Electronically mailed copies must also be received, by this same date, by the Division staffperson and the Assistant Attorneys General representing the Division and the Commission identified below. Any person may petition the Commission to file documents in paper copy format ifthey are unable for any reason to not comply with the requirements of 1.3.8(2) ofthe Commissions Procedural Rules. An original and a specified number ofpaper copies must be filed in the Office ofthe Air Quality Control Commission, Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246. Individuals may also obtain party status through the submittal ofan initial alternative rule to the proposed rule. The submittal ofan alternative proposal must be accompanied by an electronic copy ofthe initial alternative proposed rule and all other associated documents as required by the Commission's procedural rules and mustbe filed by electronic mail with the Office ofthe Commissionby the date specified for party status requests. Initial alternative rules must also be filed by electronic mail with the Division staffperson and with each ofthe Assistant Attorneys General. Air Quality Control Commission Theresa L. Martin EDO-AQCC-A5 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Theresa.Martin@state.co.us Jerry Goad Attorney for the Commission Attorney General's Office 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Jerrv.Goad@state.co.us Air Pollution Control Division Bob True APCD-Bl 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 Robert.True@state.co.us Thomas Roan Attorney for the Division Attorney General's Office 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Tom.Roan@state.co.us Requests received beyond the above stated deadline shall only be considered upon a written motion for good cause shown. The Commission reserves the right to deny party status to anyone that does not comply with the Commission'sprocedural rules. STATUS CONFERENCE: A status conference will be held 

### October 29,2009 at 1:00 p.m., at the Department ofPublic Health and Environment to ascertain and discuss the issues involved, and to ensure that parties are making all necessary efforts to discuss and resolve such issues prior to the submission of prehearing statements. Attendance at this status conference is mandatory for anyone who has requested party status. Page 2 of3PREHEARING CONFERENCE/PREHEARING STATEMENTS: Attendance at the prehearing conference is mandatory for all parties to this hearing. A preheaTing conference will be held November 

### 17,2009 at 

### 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Offices at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver. All parties must submit by electronic mail a preliminary prehearing statementto the Commission Office by close ofbusiness November 

### 10, 2009. In addition, electronically mailed copies ofthese documents must be delivered by that date to all persons who have requested party status. A copy ofthe preheaTing statement must also be electronically mailed to the Division point ofcontact and each ofthe Assistant Attorney's General identified above by close ofbusiness November 

### 10,2009. Any revisions to the preheaTing statement must be submitted to the Administrator ofthe Commission at the preheaTing conference and by electronic mail to the Commission Office on the day ofthe prehearing conference. Any exhibit included in the prehearing statements will be electronically mailed to individual Commissioners for review prior to the hearing, provided the party files electronic copies ofsuch exhibit. Rebuttals to the preheaTing statement may be submitted to the Commission Office and all otherparties by close ofbusiness November

### 24,2009. EXCEPTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: The Commission's Procedural Rules provide for an exception to file documents by electronic mail. Ifgranted an exception to electronic filing pursuantto the provisions of 1.3.8(3) ofthe Commissions Procedural Rules, the applicant for party status shall file an original and .fifteen copies ofthe prehearing statement in the Office ofthe Air Quality Control Commission, and shall also deliver copies to each otherparty, applicant for party status, the Assistant Attorneys General representing the Commission and Division, and the Division staffperson for the proceedings, by electronic mail or as otherwise provided by the exception granted under Subsection 1.3.8(3), by that same day. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS: The Commission proposes these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Sections 25- 7-106,25-7-107,25-7-109 and 25-7-302, C.R.S. The rulemaking hearing will be conducted in accordance with sections 24-4-103 and 25-7-110, C.R.S., as amended, the Procedural Rules of the Commission and as otherwise stated in this notice
. This list ofstatutory authority is not intended as an exhaustive list ofthe Commission's statutory authority to act in this matter. Dated this 5th day ofOctober 2009 at Denver, Colorado Colorado Air Quality Control Commission

Douglas A. Lempke, Administrator

Page 3 of3

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

# STATEOFCOLORAOO
Bill Ritter, Jr
., Governor Ned Calonge, M
.D
., Inten m Execut1ve Director COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROLCOMMISSION h ttp://www.cdphe.state
.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South OED-OLRA-A5 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303 ) 692-3 100 Fax (303) 69 1-7702 TDD (303) 69 1

-7700 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

# Notice ofMeeting andAgenda Air Quality ControlCommission I>ecember17,2009 Colorado DepartmentofPublic Health & Environment 4300 Cherry CreekDrive South, Sabin Room

Call to Order: Approval ofMinutes:
Public Comment:

Agenda Review: 

### Denver, Colorado 

## 9:00a.m.

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

### 18, 2010 

### 1. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 8. InterstateTransport SIP (20 minutes presentation, 30 minutes discussion) The Division will present a proposal to revise previously adopted provisions to address the Clean Air Act Section 110; interstate air pollutant transport requirements. The Division received adverse comment on the previously adopted provision in May 2009 and has worked to revise the interstate transport plan consistent with the comments ofEPA. 9. Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide MaintenancePlan Revision (10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) The Division will present to the Commission revisions to the carbon monoxide maintenance plan for Colorado Springs
. This is the second oftwo 1 0-years plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. 10. Greeley Carbon Monoxide MaintenancePlan Revision (10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) The Division will present to the Commission revisions to the carbon monoxide maintenance plan for Greeley. This is the second oftwo 10-years plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

### 11. CommissionerInformational Items Commissioners will discuss among themselves activities that they have participated in over the past month that they believe other Commissioners and/or members ofthe public may be interested in hearing about. 12. Division Director's Report- Paul Tourangeau Monthly activities report 13. Attorney General's Report- Jerry Goad Update ofany recent court actions on air quality issues 14. Administrator's Report- Doug Lempke • February meeting agenda items review • Review ofAction Items from Today's Commission Meeting • Status ofPending Action Items Adjourn



### 3,



### The Denver NewspaperAgency DENVER, CO PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT 

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

.

. . . ... . . Jean Birch

........ being oflawtul •11• and being first duly swom upon oath, deposes and says:
That he/she Is the Legal Advertising Reviewer of The Denver NewspaperAgency, publisher ofthe Denver Post, dally newspaper of general circulation published and printed In whole or In part In Denver, In the County of Denver and State of Colorado, and that said newspaper was priorto and during all the time hereinafter mentioned duly qualified for the publication of legal notices and advertisements within the Meaning of an Act ofthe General Assembly of the State of Colorado, approved April 7, 1121, as amended and approved March 30, 1123; and as amended and •pproved March 5, 1135, entitled •An Act Concemlng Legal Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the fees of printers and publishers thereof, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts In conflict with the provision ofthis Act• and amendments thereto:

That the notice, ofwhich the annexed Is • true copy, was published In th•

..ld**n~•P:~to ~t:**  (dates of publication)



## ..........**~.~f.-2,**

## ...**~:7**

## .............. 

# ·················9··············/J···r·················· 

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

# .............. Slgn•ture '
Subscribed and swom to before me this ••••• 12 ••••• day Of ••• October ••• A.D"/001. \ • fj • j)



# .......Qb;.i
..**~f .~** 

# ..........
, • • ••• ) Notary Public. My commission expires ••••• September 141 2013 •••••

# Procedural Documents ofthe Commission

- Agenda Item Control Sheet

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

### Item Title Meeting d Proposed Greeley CO Maintenance Plan revision ate December 17. 2009

NON·HEARIN 

### Administr



### - _Briefing _Policy GACTIONS 

### ative

Area Designatioris



## -
_Adoption


## X Required

General25-7-105 TYPES OF ACTION REQUE-STFOR HEARING



### _ Public Rulemaking Informational

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

## X Approval MOTION 

### Attached
STATUTORY AUTHORITY HEARING 

## X Public Rulemaking Informational

Denial

_ Not applicable

Specific 25-7-106, -107, -109 -302
EPA SUBMITTAL 

### Is this issue considered a SIP revision? Yes 

### X No Which SIP? Greeley CO Date of EPA submission deadline: May 10. 2007

December 1, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 

### 1

### ISSUE STATEMENT: The Division is requesting that the Commission hear a proposed revision for the Greeley Carbon Monoxide (CO) attainment/maintenance plan. Recommendations of approval have been obtained from Greeley and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. The APCD also recommends approval ofthe revision. The documentation shows that Greeley will continue to attain the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through 2019. No additional control measures are required for Greeley to-· continue attaining the standard. Since Greeley CO levels are significantly below the NAAQS, the APCD is using the limited maintenance plan option for areas that EPA assumes cannot reasonably be expected to experience enough growth to violate the standards. Greeley measures just 27 percent of exceedance levels for CO, which is below the 85 percent criteria for utilizing the limited maintenance plan option. The only changes to the attached attainment/maintenance plan since the September request for hearing are the inclusion of a section on Greeley's attainment history on pages 

### 1 and 

### 2, and inclusion of nonattainment new source review permitting requirements in the list of potential contingency measures on page 

### 8 at the request of EPA. This revision satisfies the federal requirement for showing attainment for the second ten-year period after redesignation to attainment/maintenance. No additional revisions ofthe Greeley maintenance plan are anticipated. Iffuture changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with maintaining the CO standard, the State will address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time

. Please note that this maintenance plan was to be submitted to EPA by May 10, 2007 (which is 8 years after EPA's approval ofthe initial redesignation request and maintenance plan, as required by the CAA). The Greeley area maintenance plan was amended in 2005 and maintenance ofthe CO NAAQS was demonstrated through 2015. Though the plan update is late, no adverse environmental or administrative impact has occurred.



### December 1, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 

### 2ATTACHMENTS:


### 1. Proposed Greeley Maintenance Plan revision

SIGNATURES: 

# Pr:p/7;/J/

# *if Date 

## )1-/

# I

# /0

# 4

# ~Mm Division Director Date

# Parties Hearing Documents (this includes a list ofthe parties, the parties prehearing statements and rebuttal statements, and any orders by the Commission)BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO
PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN
The Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division ("Division") confirms that it supports its original proposal. North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, the only party, supports this proposal. The Division is aware ofno issues
. The Division proposes no rule revision and, therefore, no economic impact analysis.

DATED this 9th day ofNovember, 2009.

JOHN W
. SUTHERS

Assistant Attorney General Environmental Quality Natural Resources and Environment Section Attorneys for AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

DIVISION 1525 Sherman Street, 5th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 866-5280 *Counsel ofRecord

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Icertify that Ihave duly served the foregoing Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Envi ronment, Atr Pollution Control Divtsion'sPreheating Statement upon the followmg parttes by electronic mail on November 9th,2009· Jerry Goad Attorney General's Office 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203 Je

rry.goad@.state
.co.us Suzette Mallette North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80521 smallette@.nfrmpo
.org Theresa L. Martm Au Quality Control Commisswn 4300 Cherry CreekDrive South Denver,CO 80246**Theresa martin** **(a'~ state.co** **us**

## RECEIVED 

## NOV 12 

## 2009 BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO AlROUAllTY 

### camo.CXJMSSION 

### -PRE_H_E_A_RIN

__ G_S_T_A_T-EM_E_N_T_O_F-:-N-O_R_T_H_F_R_O_N_T_RAN

__ G_E_T_RAN--S-PO_R_T_A_T_I=O=N AND AIR QUALITY PLANNINGCOUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN
The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (akaNFRMPO) hereby submits its Prehearing Statement in the above referenced matter. The NFRMPO as the Lead Planning Agency in the North Front Range supports the Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area. The Council appreciates the Limited Maintenance Plan approach and sees no issues.
DATED this lOth 

### day ofNovember, 2009.

CLIFF DAVIDSON Executive Director, NFRMPO

North Front Range MPO 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80521BEFORE THEAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO**RECE ~V** **O** 

## OCT 14**LUU~**

AIRQUALITY**camo.~** IN THE MATIER OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING REGARDING THE GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN, SECOND 10-YEAR PETITION FOR PARTY STATUS- NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NFRMPO) TheNFRMPO herebypetitions for party status inthe Public Rulemaking Hearing Regarding the Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Second 10 -yearbefore the Air Quality Control Commission onDecember 17, 2009. This petition is submitted viae-mail, with electronic copies being sent to the Air Pollution Control Division and Assistant Attorney General as instructed. Petition for Party Status 

## 1.:. Applicants NFRMPO is the Lead Planning Agency, as designated by the Governor, for mobile source air quality issues inthe North Front Range. The NFRMPO is also the Metropolitan Planning Organization that is responsible for longrange regional transportation planning and conformity determinations for theirregional transportation plans and transportation improvementprograms. NFRMPO represents 15 member governments that include thejurisdictions inthe geographic area covered by this Maintenance Plan. 2. Applicant's Representative Name: Suzette Mallette Organization: Address: Phone: 

### Fax: E-mail North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization 419 Canyon Ave Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-416-2257 970-416-2406 smallette@nfrrnpo.org
3. Summary oflssues The NFRMPO Council wishes to state full support for the Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Second 1 0

- years. The NFRMPO Council appreciates the Limited Maintenance Plan approach with less stringent requirements. The NFRMPO Council, at their October 2009 meeting unanimously passed a resolution supporting the adoption ofthe Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. Submitted October 141 \ 2009 Suzette Mallette North Front Range MPORegional Transportation Planning Director

# Proposed Language and State Implementation Plan Elements

# Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan GreeleyAttainment/Maintenance Area

Second 10-yearRevision: • December2, 2009 DRAFT First Revision: • Adoptedbythe Colorado A1r Quality Control Commission, December 19 , 2002 • Adoptedby The North Front Range Metropolitan Planmng Orgamzation, December 12, 2002 • Approvedby The U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAugust 19 , 2005 (effective September 19 , 2005) Origmal Redes1gnation Request and Mamtenance Plan: • Adoptedby The Colorado A1r Quality Control CommiSSIOn, September 19 , 1996 • Approvedby The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 10 , 1999

ColoradoDepartment ofPublicHealth andEnvironment 

### Revisions prepared by: The Air Pollution Control Division

· colorado Department of Public Health & 

### Environment 430,0 Cherry**Cr~k** 

### Drive

_ South ·. :Denver, CO 80246-1530 " (303) 692-3100Background 

### The purpose ofthis second revision to the Greeley carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan is to show continued attainment ofthe federal CO standard for a second ten-year term (through 20 19) as required by the federal CleanAirAct and the U
.S
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Greeley area was originally designated as nonattainment for CO under provisions ofthe 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA). This designation was reaffirmed by the 1990 CAA, and Greeley was designated as a "not classified" CO area. "Notclassified" areas are those areas that have historically been designated as nonattainment, but did not have violations ofthe CO NAAQS during the two years preceding the 1990 amendments to the CAA. The EPA first approved a CO redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Greeley area on March 10, 1999 (Federal RegisterNotice: 64 FR 11775). That plan established an attainment year of 1995 and provided for the continuation ofa motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program and an oxygenated gasoline program in the Greeley area. A revision ofthe plan occurred in 2002 to remove the inspection and maintenance program as well as the oxygenated fuels program. The 2002 revision showed an attainment year of 1992 and continued maintenance through 2015 with emissions for all future years less than the 1992 attainment year emissions. The two control measures were removed because they were no longer needed to show attainment ofthe CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
. Removal ofthe control programs complied with state requirements that maintenance plans be no more stringent than federal requirements. EPA approved the revision on August 19, 2005 (Federal Register Notice: 70 FR48650)
. Attainment History 

### 1977: Greeley designated nonattainment for CO underprovisions ofthe Clean Air Act 1982: First State Implementation Plan adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission to bring area into attainmentby 1987. 1987: Attainment would not be reached, so newplan was developed with additional control measures ofbasic liM. oxyfuels and woodburning stove standards. 1987 also was the last year ofa CO violation in Greeley. 1984-1988: Number ofCO yearly exceedances dropped from 10 in 1984 to 1in 1988
. It

### takes more than one exceedance in a calendar year to result in a violation. 1991 : Greeley designated "not classified" nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act revisions of 1990. "Not classified" is for areas well below the NAAQS. The area was attaining the standard, and no SIP revisions were necessary under the CAA. 1995: EPA published guidance for "not classified" CO areas to develop SIPS under the limited maintenance plan option. The APCD began a SIP revision under the limited maintenance plan option to request redesignation for Greeley as an attainment/maintenance area. 1996: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the SIP plan and request for redesignation
. The SIP was forwarded to the U.S. EPA. 1999
.: Greeley was officially redesignated as an attainment/maintenance area by the U.S. EPA. Maintenance was demonstrated for 10 years through 2009 as required by the CAA
. 

### 1 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision2002: The SIP was revised to remove I/M and oxyfuels because Greeley was far belowthe NAAQS. That revision was adopted by EPA in 2005
. 2009: The SIP is updated to show continued attainment oftheNAAQS for an additional10-year term, through 2019, as required by the CAA. Limited Maintenance Plan Option Colorado is using the Limited Maintenance Plan option inpreparing this second ten-year revision. This option was also used inthe initial Greeley CO maintenance plan and redesignation request that EPA approved onMarch 1 0, 1999. The option is explained in EPA guidance of October 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The guidance allows for a less rigorous approach than was previously required in developing maintenance plans for CO nonattainment areas that have design values at orbelow 7.65 ppm (85 percent ofthe CONAAQS). Greeley's design value in this plan revision isjust2.4 ppm (27 percent ofCO NAAQS), and was 5
.3 ppm in the first 1 0-year maintenance plan. The design values were determined by using the second-highestmaximum 8-hour value ofeight consecutive quarters, as required by EPA guidance. Greeley has shown a continued reduction in CO values throughout the maintenance period. The limited maintenance plan approach requires development ofan emissions inventory but does not require the inventory to be projected for future years. The maintenance demonstration is considered to be satisfied ifthe monitoring data showthat the area is meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (at orbelow 7.65 ppm or 85 percent ofthe CO NAAQS). Transportation conformity is demonstrated by showingthat transportation plans are consistent with the emissions budget. The guidance for limited maintenance plans state that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budgettest" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. Continued Attainment ofthe Carbon Monoxide Standard Attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is demonstrated when monitoring data for each site showno more than one exceedance per year ofthe 8-hour (9 ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) standards. Greeley has never exceeded the 1-hour standard, so this maintenance plan only addresses the 8-hour standard
. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded in Greeley since 1988. Monitoring data for 1999-2008 demonstrates that Greeley continues to attain/maintain the national standard for carbon monoxide as required by 40 CFR 50.8. Data from 1999 through 2008 are provided to demonstrate continual attainment/maintenance since the redesignation to attainment was promulgated in 1999. This demonstration is based on quality assured monitoring data representative ofthe location ofexpected maximum concentrations ofcarbon monoxide in
2 Draft December 2, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revisionthe area (downtown Greeley). Datapresented is the second highest maximum value recorded at the monitors. The second maximum value is used by EPA for determining compliance with the CONAAQS. The monitoring data presented in Table 1verifies that Greeley continues to attain the national 8- hour standard for carbon monoxide. Datarecovery rates for the monitor exceeded the 75 percent completeness requirements for all years. All State and Federal quality assurance procedures were complied with, further substantiating the validity ofthe measurements as indicators ofambient carbon monoxide levels in Greeley.

3 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance PlanRevision

### Table 1 1999-2008, 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Summaryfor Greeley Standard: 8-hour

### =9 ppm 

## * 8-Hour2°0 

### Maximum (ppm_} Site Name 1999 2000 2001 Greeley, 811 15m St. 3.4 3.8 3
.7 8-Hour2" 0 

### Maximum (ppm) Site Name 2003 2004 2005 2006 Greeley, 905 10m St. 3.3 3.7 2.8 3.3 2002 3.4

2007 2008 2.4 2.2 

## * Due to mathematical rounding, a value of9
.5 ppm orgreater IS necessary to exceed the standard
.



### Figure 

### 1. Greeley AttainmentArea

4 

### Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 

# I

### Emission Inventories This maintenance plan revision utilizes 2007 as an attainment year for emission inventories, which is the same year from which the 2.4 ppm design value was derived
. Emission inventories for a typical winter day are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 attainment year. Each inventory accounts for the emission control programs effective during that period. The modeling domain consists ofthe Greeley attainment area, which encompasses the City of Greeley and surrounding areas (see figure 1). The inventories were developed using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods, including the MOBILE6 emissions model, and the latest transportation data from the Colorado Department ofTransportation (CDOT) and demographic data from the State Demographers Office. 

### Table 2. Greeley AttainmentArea Emissions Inventory (Tons PerDay)
Source Category 

### 2007 Biogemc 0

.00 Commerc1al Cookmg 0

.05 Fuel Combustion 0

.55 Highway Vehicles 55

.36 Non O&G Pomt Sources 0

.58 Non-Road 17

.81 O&G area 0

.02 O&Gpomt 0

.03 Railroads 0.04 Structure Fires 0

.03 Woodburmng 6.75 

### TOTAL 81.23
Note: Results are reported With two decimal place preciSion to provide representation ofsmaller source categones
. This level ofprecision is not mtended to suggest a level ofaccuracy.



### Enforceable Control Measures for theMaintenance Period

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


### 5 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision

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

- Permits

• AQCC Regulation No.4, Wood Stove Standards

• AQCC Regulation Number 6, New Source Performance Standards

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

### This maintenance plan utilizes EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan option, as explained above. The Limited Maintenance Plan approach can be utilized when an area has a design value at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent ofthe CO NAAQS). The design value for the Greeley CO maintenance area is 2.4 ppm (27 percent ofCO NAAQS), which is the highest second maximum concentration for the 2007-2008 monitoring period
. Transportation Conformity Determination 

### Under the limited maintenance plan approach, transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that transportation plans are consistent with any existing emissions budgets. When any existing budgets expire, conformity is then presumed and regional analyses and emission budget tests for transportation conformity are no longer necessary. The guidance for limited maintenance plans states that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budgettest" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. For the Greeley maintenance area, the EPA-approved emission budgets are 63 tons ofCO per day (2005-2009), 62 tons per day (2010-2014), and 60 tons per day (2015 and beyond)
. According to the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, these budgets are to remain in place, and conformity with these budgets must be demonstrated, through the year 2015. Beginning in 2016, the budgets expire
. Once the Greeley CO attainment/maintenance area under the Limited Maintenance Plan option is not subject to the budget test, the area remains subject to other transportation conformity requirements.



### 6 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan RevisionMonitoring Network

### IVerification ofContinued Attainment The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) will continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify the continued attainment ofthe CO NAAQS. Ifmeasured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, fleet mix, etc.) change significantly overtime, the APCD will perform the appropriate studies to determine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. An annual review ofthe NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance system will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 to determine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary andto determine whether the system continues to meet the monitoring objectives presented in Appendix D of40 CFRPart 58. Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) ofthe CAArequires that the maintenance plan contain contingency provisions to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation ofthe CO NAAQS which occurs in the Greeley attainment/maintenance area. The contingency plan must ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once the need is triggered. The primary elements ofthe contingency plan involve the tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process for implementing appropriate control measures. Tracking The tracking plan for the Greeley area consists ofcontinuous carbon monoxide monitoring and analysis ofCO concentrations by the APCD. The APCD will notify the EPA, the AQCC, the NFRMPO and local governments ofany exceedance ofthe CO standard within 30 days of occurrence. The ongoing regional transportationplanningprocess carried outby the NFRMPO in coordination with the CDOT, the APCD, the AQCC, and the EPA, will serve as another means oftracking mobile source CO emissions into the future. Since revisions to the regions' transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years, which must go through a transportation conformity determination, a process is in place to periodically review the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and mobile source emissions ofCO presented in this maintenance plan. Triggering and Response Triggering ofthe contingency plan does not automatically require a revision ofthe SIP, nor is the area necessarily· redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead, the State will have an appropriate time-frame to correct a violationbyimplementing one ormore adopted contingency measures. In the eventthat violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are corrected. An exceedance ofthe CONAAQS (any value over 9.5 ppm) may trigger a voluntary, local process by the NFRMPO and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. However, the only federally enforceable trigger for mandatory implementation ofcontingency 7 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revisionmeasures shall be a violation ofthe CONAAQS. Specifically, this would be a second value of 9.5 ppm orhigher at the same monitor during any calendaryear. The State will move forward with mandatory implementation ofcontingency measures under the SIP ifa violation ofthe CO NAAQS occurs. No more than 60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation occurred, the NFRMPO, in conjunction with the APCD, the AQCC and local governments, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of notification, and the recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days ofnotification. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to considerthe recommended contingency measures, along with any other contingency measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one year after a violation occurs. List ofPotential Contingency Measures The NFRMPO and the APCD may choose one or more ofthe following measures to recommend to the AQCC for consideration. The measures will be designed to bring the area quickly back into compliance with the CO NAAQS.
• An enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (liM) program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 11, with the addition ofany on-board diagnostics components required by federal law. While an enhanced inspection and maintenance program is already required in Greeley through the Ozone Action Plan, the program is "state-only" and as such is not federally enforceable and could be eliminated inthe future withoutregard to the Greeley CO maintenance plan. By placing an enhanced liMprogram in this Greely CO maintenance plan, and making any adjustments to achieve maximum carbon monoxide benefits, the program would become a federally enforceable contingency measure.
• A 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 13 as of September 2009
.
• Re-establishing nonattainment new source review permitting requirements for stationary sources.
• In addition to these potential contingency measures, the State may evaluate other potential strategies, including but not limited to, transportation control measures and mandatory wood burning restrictions, in order to address any future violations in the most appropriate and effective mannerpossible.



### 8 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan RevisionSubsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions The Clean Air Act requires that a maintenance plan revision be submitted to EPA demonstrating that the CO standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period. The initial maintenance plan approved by EPA in 1999 was completed under the "LimitedMaintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas" and, as such, was notrequired to project emissions over a maintenance period as long as control measures were maintained. Since two control measures were removed from the maintenance plan in the state's 2002 revision (liM and oxygenated fuels), thatrevision projected emissions through a 2015 maintenance period
. This final revision demonstrates maintenance for a second 1 0-year period after the first 1 0-year period since redesignation (through 2019) utilizing the Limited Maintenance Plan option to demonstrate continued maintenance through the 2019 time period. No additional revisions ofthis maintenance plan are anticipated at this time
. Iffuture changes in mobile source models or otherunforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the conformity process, the State will address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time.

9 Draft December 2, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision

# Technical Support Document 40 CPRPart 51 Appendix V 2.2

# Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Greeley

Technical Support Document Emission Inventory

December 17, 2009 

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



# Table of Contents 1. EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
.................................................................................................. 1 2. 2007 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY
....................................................................................................2 3. REFERENCES
......................................................................................................................................................3

December 17 , 2009 ii CO Mamtenance Plan for Greeley- Techmcal SupportDocument- Em1sswn InventoryColorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division



## 1. Emission Inventory Methodology The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) developed the 2007 emission inventories in the "Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Greeley" using U.S: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and local VMT data for on-road mobile source emissions, EPA's non-road model, local demographic information for area and off-road sources, and reported actual emissions for point sources. The inventory represents average daily winter emissions. The MOBILE6 and non-road model inputs represent these average daily winter conditions. Heating and wood burning emissions were apportioned from annual emission estimates by heating degree day data from the Western Regional Climate Center. Other source categories were apportioned from annual to daily by dividing by 365. Highway mobile source emissions are from the EPA model MOBILE6, an emission factor model for predicting gram per mile emissions ofHydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Dioxide (C02), Particulate Matter (PM), and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions. Non-road source emissions are from the EPA Non-Road Model. This model includes the impact of future controls on non-road engines, which is used in equipment such as lawn and garden equipment and construction equipment. Area source emissions (including heating, construction, railroads, etc.) are from the 2002 EPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and grown to 2007 by population growth from data from the State. For more documentation for these categories, refer to the NEI documentation (EPA, 2008)
. Under Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No.3, the APCD requires any source that emits two tons per year or greater to submit an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) (APCD, 2008). This means that sources that emit less than two tons per year are not necessarily accounted for in an emissions inventory. The point source emissions for Greeley were obtained from this tracking system. The emission estimates are made using a variety ofmethodologies
. Data from source-specific emission tests, or continuous emission monitors are preferable, but not always available. The EPA has developed a variety ofemission factors to estimate emissions as well. Emission factors are frequently the best or only method available for estimating emissions. Oil and Gas Emissions (O&G area and O&G point) from oil and gas exploration and development sources are based on the 2006 and 2010 Independent Petroleum Association ofMountain States (IPAMS) Inventory and the Norwest Corporation Study ofoil and gas growth from 2010 to 2020 for the DJ Basin.

December 17, 2009 1 CO Mamtenance Planfor Greeley

- Techmca/Support Document- Em1ssron InventoryColorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division


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

### Table 1. 

### 2007 CARBON MONOXIDE Emission Inventory (tons perday).**~nventory** Summary**~O{Tons/Dayl** Biogenic 0.00 Commercial Cooking 0

.05 Fuel Combustion 0.55 Highway Vehicles 55

.36 Non O&G Pomt Sources 0

.58 Non-Road 17

.81 O&G area 0.02 O&Gpomt 0

.03 Railroads 0

.04 Structure Fires 0

.03 Woodburnmg 6

.75 TOTAl 81.23 INon O&G Point Sources site 

### :id**~** 

### facility Ji ·i· 

### ;."J'· I.,..·,. ·:.r ' 

## \i\ ,·y 

### ,. 

### ., kl018 SWIFT BEEF COMPANY 0

.05 kl055 NORTHERN CO MEDICAL CTR 0

.01 Kl086 NORTHERN CO CREMATORY INC 0

.00 kl126 THERMO POWER & ELEC INC 0

.04**~150** SCHULTE INVESTMENTS (WAS ELSRO INC) 0

.00 k>322 CITY OF GREELEY WATER POLLUT CONTROL FAC 0

.00 k>395 MEADOW GOLD DAIRY 0

.01 0412 THERMO GREELEY INC 0

.21 0426 LAFARGE WEST, INC

. -35TH AVE PLANT 0

.06 0494 UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO 0

.10 0556 HUMANE SOCIETY OF WELD COUNTY 0

.00 5153 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES- WCR, INC

. 0

.03 TOTAl 0.58

December 17, 2009 2 CO M amtenance Plan for Greeley- T echmcalSu p

portDocument- Em1ss1on InventoryColorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division



## 3. References APCD, 2008. Air Quality Control Commission RegulationNumber 3. Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements. 5 CCR 1001-5. 

### <http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/airregs/100103stationarysourcepermitting.pdf> U.S
. EPA, 2008. "2002 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation." < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html#documentation>

December 17, 2009 CO Mamtenance Planfor Greeley- Techmca/Support Document- Emzsszon Inventory 3

# Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Meeting Minutes

- Action ofthe Commission to SIP ElementRevision 

# 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1(g)

# STATEOFCOLORADO

Bill Ritter, Jr. , Governor James B

. Marttn, Execut1ve D1rector COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROLCOMMISSION http://www.cdphe
.state
.co.us 4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South OED-OLRA-A5 Denver, Colorado 80246

- 1530 Phone (303) 692-3100 Fax (303) 69 1-7702 TOO (303) 69 1-7700 Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

# Colorado Air Quality Control Commission December17,2009 MEETING MINUTES Location: Colorado Department ofPublic Health & Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Room
MembersPresent: Denver, CO 80246 Robert Amott Teresa Coons Barbara Roberts MembersAbsent: None Commission Staff: Division Staff: Doug Lempke Paul Tourangeau Dena Wojtach Attorney General's Office: Jerry Goad Radford Byerly John Loewy Jon Slutsky

Theresa Martin Ray Mohr Lisa Silva

CALLTO ORDERAND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM Ashley Campsie Dawn Meyers (depart 1:00) Jim Wilson (depart 1:00)

Lisa Clarke Bob True Chris Dann

Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM and determined that a quorum of Commissioners was nowpresent with nine Commissioners. APPROVALOFMEETING MINUTES FORNOVEMBER 19,2009 ChairRoberts asked the Commissionifthere were any modifications to the minutes. There were minorrevisions provided by CommissionerWilson. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the November 19,2009Meeting Minutes Commissioner Coons CommissionerMeyers none 9-0PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Roberts asked ifthere were any members ofthe public who wished to make a comment on any air pollution issue not on the agenda. David Wolfsey with Sonic Spark, LLC presented the Commission with documentation regarding his concerns regarding the HHO convertor. Wolfsey commented that he believed that the HHO produced major destructive ECO pollutants such as nitric acid, hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides and wishes the Commission to look into this matter and his findings ofthis product. Wolfsey provided the Commission with a copy ofthe web pages advertising the HHO systems noting that there was no mention inthe literature ofthe environmental effects.
AGENDA REVIEW Chair Roberts asked Lempke to reviewthe meeting agenda noting any items that mayhave changed, been added ordeleted. Lempke commentedthat Item #8 Interstate Transport SIP had some issues that were raised byEPA and the Commission agreed to continue this item to January 13, 2010 in order to allow EPAto provide further recommendations how the Division can produce a document that would be acceptable by EPA. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 18,2010 

### Contingency Provisions for the Rocky Mountain National ParkNitrogen Deposition Reduction Contingency Plan At 9:29AM Lisa Clarke ofthe Divisionprovidedthe Commission with background surrounding the RMNP Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan and that a draft Contingency Plan was required by the end of2009. Clarke reviewed the Contingency Plantimeline and the measurement developmentprocess. Clarke requested that the Commission set a public hearing to consider and endorse the Contingency Plan. Roberts commented that the Commissiontypically does not take public commenthowever; there was a request by a citizen to be heard regarding the timeliness of this hearing. Evelyn King representing citizens that had submitted 140 plus letters to the NFRMPO and Lempke. King noted her oppositionto the Contingency Planbecause ofthe inclusion ofand reliance on liM information. The Commission discussed this issue. Coons asked to conduct the hearing after the RegulationNumber 11 hearing that occurs inMarch. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the motionfor hearing on Aprill5, 2010 Commissioner Wilson · Commissioner Amott none 9-0 REQUEST FORRULEMAKING HEARINGS NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

### AmbientAir Quality Standards Regulation At 9:44AMDena Wojtach ofthe Divisionprovidedthe Commission with an overview ofthe Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation andthe reasons surrounding the proposed revisions. Wojtach noted that the removal ofthe Ambient Air Standards Table in Section II was necessary, as it was a duplication ofthe standards setbyEPA and nationally applied without any action by the State.

2Wojtach also noted thatthe removal ofS02 increments in Section LB. was necessary as they were artifacts from the 1970'srulemaking, could notbe applied per currentrules, and were not applicable to any area ofColorado. Wojtachnoted that while this proposal removes the stateonly S02 increment standards, it does notundermine existingprotection for Colorado Federal Class I and II areas, orthe national monuments and forest service primitive areas granted under RegulationNumber 3. Wojtachrequested thatthe Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider the revisions to the regulation. Coons asked ifa linkto what could be added and Wojtach noted that there is a possibilitythatthe link changes and then itbecomes inaccurate information. Tourangeau commentedthatthe Division would discuss ifthere were a way to include a link, but also noted where it could be found in case the link was changed or otherwise disconnected. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the motion for hearing onMarch 18, 2010 CommissionerWilson Commissioner Slutsky none 9-0 Regulation Number 8, Part C At 9:53AMDenaWojtach ofthe Divisionprovided the Commissionwith an overview ofwhy the Divisionbelieves the lead emission standard and associated compliance demonstrations requirement should be removed from RegulationNumber 8, Part C. Wojtach noted that the proposal to remove the existing lead emission standard and its associated compliance demonstration requirements was due to the recent promulgation ofa new Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Wojtachrequested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to considerthe revisions to the regulation. Motion: Moved: Second: Discussion: Carried: To approve the motion for hearing onMarch 18,2010 Commissioner Byerly Commissioner Loewy none 9-0 Regulation Number 11 At 9:57AM Garry Kaufman ofthe Division provided an overview ofthe revisions proposed which included: proposed program areaboundaries in Larimer and Weld Counties, phase-in of the IM240 emissions pass/fail cutpoints, technical specifications for fleet-only emissions testing equipment, and the modification ofthe start-up date consistent with statutory directives. Kaufman commentedthat subsequentto the Commission's action in December2008, the General Assemblypassed Senate Bill 09-003 that revised the North Front Range program area boundaries to more accurately reflect the current ozone nonattainment area boundary and redefined the boundaries to incorporate a greater land area and affected population. Kaufman noted thatthe boundaries for the program would be set in accordance with the boundaries set forth in statute as a result ofSB09-003.

3Kaufman commented that in orderto provide anease oftransition inthe North Front Range a less stringent set ofIM240 emissions pass/fail cutpoints was being proposed as well as limited flexibility to the state date ofthe enhanced inspectionprogram. Kaufman also noted that the technical proposal included a set ofdetailed specifications for an exhaust TestAnalyzer System that would be used by owners ofgasoline vehicle fleets that choose to do their own inspections. Kaufman requested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to considerthe proposed changes. Roberts commentedthat there were a number ofpublic who wished to comment. State Representative Glenn Vaad ofWeld County noted his support to delay the hearing. Senator Scott Renfroe urged the Commissionto listen to the citizens ofWeld and Larimer Counties and noted that he was bringing this issue to Legislation as an act to repeal SB09-003. Barbara Kirkmeyer Weld County Commissionernoted her oppositionto program areaboundaries. Kirkmeyer stated that local monitors continued to showfalling levels ofozone and that the proposed program would be burdensome for the county clerk and citizens. Bruce Barker Weld County Attorney referenced Section42 in SB09-003, doesn'tneed to implementrequirement until end of2011. Sean Conway Weld County Commissionerexpressed his agreement with the others and presentedNFRMPO Resolution 2009-7 and asked for postponement ofthis hearing. Carol Kirkstadt ofLarimer County expressed her support ofpostponement. Evelyn King noted her support ofthe request to delay this hearing and noted that she believed that there was lack of compliance. King commented that ifthe Commissionchose to go forward with the hearing in March, that they request thatthe hearing occur inthe evening and at a location in the North Front Range to accommodate the citizens ofLarimer and Weld counties. King also noted that several ofthe letters had been sent directly to the Division and asked thatthe Divisiontumthose letters over to the Commission for the record. King also commentedthat the program would create more emissions as it would force citizens to drive long distances to test centers. Campsie and Wilson asked howthis might impact the Ozone SIP adopted from December 2008 and what the fallout may be such as does the timing impact what has already been done. Silverstein responded that the expansion to the North Front Range is a state-onlyprovision so it'snot in the SIP that was submitted to EPA. Pierre De Milt Mayor oftheTown ofSeverance expressed his support in postponement ofthe RegulationNumber 11 hearing. Roberts noted that there was a statute before us that changes some ofthe decisions made to the Ozone Plan from December 2008. Roberts commentedthat the statute would indicate that a hearing must be conducted to hear the statutory authority as well as to hear from both sides on this. Roberts questioned ifthere was a delay could it still get up and running by July and Tourangeau responded that a postponement would delay everything. Kaufman noted that it could impact implementation ofstations, hiring ofcontractors and otherprocesses and believes thatthe sooner the hearing occurs the better. Roberts noted that one ofthe questions that the Commissionwill have to answer is the interpretation ofthe statute and determine whether it is self-implementing; does the statute say that the Commissionhas the authority ofpostponing the program and this mustbe discussed within a public hearing. Amottexpressed concern ifthe changing standard would impact the boundaries and implementation. Slutsky commentedthat it sounds like the Division is planning to move forward with implementation ofa full I/M program and ifthere is going to be a delay, that decision shouldbe made sooner rather than later to avoid the Division doing all the work for nothing. Roberts noted to the Commission that there were two decisions to be made: 1) postponement ofthe hearing ornot and 2) location ofthe hearing.

4

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

### Common Provisions Regulation At 11 :04 AM Lempke noted that there would not be an official presentation as this was a written comment only rulemaking hearing regarding proposed revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation, Section I.G., specific to the definition of"negligiblyreactive volatile organic compound" and "volatile organic compound" to be consistent with the federal definitions. Lempke commentedthat the Commissionhad not received any comments. Motion: To adopt Common Provisions Regulation revisions as proposedby the Division Moved: Commissioner Slutsky Second: Commissioner Campsie Discussion: none Carried: 9-0
COMMISSION ACTION ONLY 

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

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

5Silva commentedthat the NFRMPO was also in concurrence. Silvanoted that neitherthe NFRMPO northe Upper Front Range TransportationPlanning Region had amended theirplans but because they were part ofthe 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment area, transportation conformity must be assured for those areas as well as the Denverregion until the emissionbudgets for the individual areas were approved. Emily Chen ofthe DRCOGreviewed the Cycle 2 Amendments to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the 2008/2013 TIP. Chen noted that the amendments included a newtoll facility to the regional system and three partial interchanges associated with the Jefferson Parkway, widening to the roadway system onFederal Blvd and also on 144th Avenue, and a RTD station location change inthe NorthMetro corridor. Chen reviewed with the Commissionthe conformity tests conducted and what the results indicated. Chen commented that DRCOG believed they had made a positive conformity finding for its amended 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Silvareviewed with the Commissionthe Division's transportation modeling inputs and noted that they had ranthe air quality model, finding that future emissions were below allowable mobile source emissionbudgets for carbon monoxide, PMlO, and NOx and VOC for the 1-HourOzone Maintenance Area. Silva also commented that future VOC andNOx emissions in the 8-Hour OzoneNonattainment Area were lowerthan base case (year 2002), and lower than 1-Hour Ozone emissionbudgets i.e., the interim conformity tests passed and asked that the Commission concurwith the positive conformity findings. Slutsky asked about the $204 million and ifit isjustfrom tolls and private entities and Chen responded that it was construction costs onthe project. Slutsky questioned whether or not this was really considered fiscally constrained." Byerly expressed concernregarding the Commission's commitmentto this Plan commenting that there is about a 2-mile gap between the roadways. Cookcommentedthatthe project was proposed by the Jefferson Parkway Authority and they had provided information inthe proposal such as traffic, economic development inthe area. Cook noted that DRCOG had run it through the conformity modeling and found thatthe region still was passing the required tests. Byerly commented that ifthe roads are connectedup, there will be a lot more traffic. Amott asked if there was an obligationto relook at the impact ofthe other segments that had been approved for adding a segment. Cook replied that there isn't a legal obligation and the DRCOGBoard of Directors had not directed them to do a larger scale analysis, butthe Public Highway Authority is required to conduct a smaller analysis for the southern corridorto Highway 93. Roberts asked if a project was proposed and the initial analysis indicated it would not conform would DRCOG then work with the Divisionto work out an offsetting program. Cookreplied that the amendments would notbe passed and DRCOGwould have to change the amendment package or look at alternatives withthe Division and the RAQC. Coons asked ifrecent projections that were implemented in the Plan were reflective ofthe recent economic downturn. Cookresponded that those had notbeen incorporated; that DRCOGrevises the assumptions every three to four years and isn't scheduled to do that for another couple ofyears, buthave done modifications to the transportation model to reflect the downturn. Wilson asked when the segment is modeled; does it have an impact onthe modeled factors ofpopulation growth? Cookreplied that there was a cyclical process ofland use inthe transportation model; and that the more accessible an area was, the more developmentthat the land use model would plug into that area and those zones. Cook noted that DRCOG didn't do a thorough analysis though.



### 6

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

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

### Greeley CarbonMonoxide MaintenancePlan Revision At 1:17 PM Bob True ofthe Division and Suzette Mallette ofNFRMPO presented to the Commission revisions to the CO maintenance plan for Greeley
. True noted that this was the second oftwo 10-yearplans that were required by the Clean Air Act. True commented that the data shows that Greeley would continue to attain the NAAQS through 2020 and that no additional control measures were required for Greeley to continue attaining the standard. True did note that iffuture changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the maintenance ofthe standard that the State would address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time. Motion: To adopt Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan revisions as proposed by the Division Moved: Commissioner Slutsky Second: Commissioner Coons Discussion: none Carried: 7-0

7BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

### CommissionerInformationalItems Byerly noted that Silverstein had some information for the Commission about his discussions with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Silverstein commented on a meeting that occurred a few months ago. Silverstein noted that Arnott and Byerly were responsible for this meeting and it was with scientists and researchers to evaluate the science for ozone. Silverstein noted that there was excellent dialogue onphotochemistry, the research on air shed modeling, and ozone balloons. Silverstein commentedthat he would provide a matrix to the Commission at the February meeting. Amottcommented that the matrix was very helpful. Byerly commented that it was an excellent meeting and the scientists felt it was beneficial to develop a relationship with the Division. Arnott thanked the Division stafffor the ozone datathat had beenrequested by himselfand Wilson. Coons discussed the PM10 issues related to Mesa County. Slutsky asked aboutthe HHO documentation provided by David Wolfsey and ifa letter should be written. Lempke noted that it was something that needed to be addressed and that he would contact Wolfsey after investigation ofthe product. Slutsky commentedthat he and one ofthe Water Commissioner's visited the sugar plant in FortMorgan. Slutsky notedthat they did admit that things weren't working and thatthey were not sure howto make things work. Roberts noted that it would be beneficial to have a briefing regarding odorregulations. Tourangeau noted that Lind had been invited to tourthe facility and had a discussion withthe plant manager. Tourangeau commented that the Division would send Lind a letter. 

### Division Director's Report Tourangeau discussed: • Greenhouse gas affects and the Clean Air Act Tailoring Rule. Tourangeau noted that the rule would bring C02 into the permitting world • EPA 8-hour ozone NAAQS proposal should be outbefore Christmas • Powerplants (Lamar and Comanche 3)- EPA's rule under CAMRwas vacated which triggered Section 112. Lamar and Comanche 3 fall under Section 112.g. and there is currently litigation occurring to ensure the plants were in compliance. 

### Attorney General's Report Goad discussed: • Valmont- Roy Young appeal to the Commission: Lempke provided an overview ofwhat had occurred with the Valmonthearing and the letter received from Roy Young requesting an appeal. Goad provided input aboutthe Commission's obligationregarding the appeal and what the Commission's options are inresponding to the petition. Goad noted there were three options: 1) to do further or more detailed investigation into the allegations, 2) to deny the appeal on grounds oflack ofsubstantial factual basis or pending an investigation, and 3) to provide an opportunity to gather more information such as a request for submittals orto conduct a hearing. Roberts commented she felt that the Division should readdress Young's initial letter and provide a more complete response to Young. Will Allison provided informationregarding the permitprocess relating to Young's letter. Coons noted that ifa letter were done that it should be noted that even ifthere is an investigation that it doesn't mean there would be a different response.

8

### Arnott asked what would occur ifthrough an investigation Young was found to be correct. Allison responded that it could cause the plantto cease operation or operation with coal. Tourangeau agreed with Roberts that the Division could produce a letter however the letter cannot address the initial letter from Young as it had already gone to EPA, but should address his appeal orpetition letter. Lempke noted that the Division should respond to the Commission onthe petition and the Commission would then respond to Young. Goad asked that this discussion be put into a motion as it is part ofa statutory requirement. Motion: Move to respond Mr. Young's petition ofDecember2, 2009 and ask the Divisionprovidethe Commission with additional information. Moved: Commissioner Slutsky Second: Commissioner Coons Discussion: none Carried: 7-0 

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

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



### 9

# Public Comments 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1(h)

# NFRMPO NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION NO. 2009- 17 OFTHE NORTHFRONTRANGETRANSPORTATIONAND AIR QUALITY PLANNINGCOUNCIL RECOMMENDINGAPPROVAL OFTHE GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN SECOND 10 YEARREVISION WHEREAS, the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council ("the Council") is the Lead Planning Agency (LPA)
.for air quality planning in Colorado's North Front Range; and WHEREAS, the Council's role as the LPA necessitates involvement in the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve federal and state air quality standards; and WHEREAS, the Council has is considering the second I0 year Maintenance Plan for the Greeley area; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division is recommending a Limited Maintenance Plan for this area; WHEREAS, this Limited Maintenance Plan will allow for the tennination of a confonnity detennination for this pollutant after 20IS; NOW, THEREFORE, BE 

### IT RESOLVED BY THE NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION & AIR QUALITY PLANNING COUNCIL, that: The Council supports the Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Second I0 Year Revision, 2009 and recommends to the Air Quality Control Commission adoption ofthis Plan. Passed and adopted at the regular meeting ofthe North Front Range Traqsportation & Air Quality Planning Council this I"

### day ofOctober, A.D., 2009. •

# #

Larry Hec@t. Chair
Cliff

# State Implementation PlanElement Adoptedbythe Commission 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V 2.1(d)

## Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan GreeleyAttainment/Maintenance Area

Second 10-yearRev1s1on: • Submitted to EPA-- TBD • Adopted by the Colorado A1r Quality Control Commission, December 17, 2009 First Revision: • Adoptedby the Colorado A1r Quality Control Comm1ss1on, December 19, 2002 • Adoptedby The North Front Range Metropolitan Plannmg Orgamzation, December 12, 2002 • Approvedby The U.S. EnVIronmental Protection AgencyAugust 19 , 2005 (effective September 19 , 2005) Onqmal Redes1qnation Request and Mamtenance Plan: • Adoptedby The Colorado A1r Quality Control Commission, September 19, 1996 • Approvedby The U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency , March 10 , 1999

ColoradoDepartment ofPublicHealth andEnvironment 'RevisiOns prepared by: · The Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Deparbnent of Public Health & Environment 4300Cherry

. Creek
- Drive South
- ·· Denver, CO 80246-1530
. (303) 692-3100Background The purpose ofthis second revision to the Greeley carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan is to show continued attainment ofthe federal CO standard for a second ten-yearterm (through 20I9) as required by the federal Clean Air Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Greeley area was originally designated as nonattainment for CO under provisions ofthe I977 Clean Air Act (CAA). This designation was reaffirmed by the 1990 CAA, and Greeley was designated as a "notclassified" CO area. "Notclassified" areas are those areas that have historically been designated as nonattainment, but did not have violations ofthe CO NAAQS during the two years preceding the 1990 amendments to the CAA
. The EPA first approved a CO redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Greeley area on March I0, 1999 (Federal RegisterNotice: 64 FR 11775). That plan established an attainment year of 1995 and provided for the continuation ofa motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program and an oxygenated gasoline program in the Greeley area. A revision ofthe plan occurred in 2002 to remove the inspection and maintenance program as well as the oxygenated fuels program. The 2002 revision showed an attainment year of I992 and continued maintenance through 20I5 with emissions for all future years less than the I992 attainment year emissions. The two control measures were removed because they were no longer needed to show attainment ofthe CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Removal ofthe control programs complied with state requirements that maintenance plans be no more stringent than federal requirements
. EPA approved the revision on August I9, 2005 (Federal Register Notice: 70 FR 48650). Attainment History I977: Greeley designated nonattainment for CO under provisions ofthe Clean Air Act 1982: First State Implementation Plan adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission to bring area into attainment by 1987. I987: Attainment would not be reached, so new plan was developed with additional control measures ofbasic liM, oxyfuels and woodbuming stove standards. 1987 also was the last year ofa CO violation in Greeley. I984-I988: Number ofCO yearly exceedances dropped from 10 in 1984 to I in I988. It takes more than one exceedance in a calendar year to result in a violation. I99I: Greeley designated "not classified" nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act revisions of I990. "Not classified" is for areas well below the NAAQS. The area was attaining the standard, and no SIP revisions were necessary under the CAA. I995: EPA published guidance for "not classified" CO areas to develop SIPS under the limited maintenance plan option. The APCD began a SIP revision under the limited maintenance plan option to request redesignation for Greeley as an attainment/maintenance area. 1996: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the SIP plan and request for redesignation. The SIP was forwarded to the U.S. EPA. 1999: Greeley was officially redesignated as an attainment/maintenance area by the U.S. EPA. Maintenance was demonstrated for 10 years through 2009 as required by the CAA.

December I7, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision2002: The SIP was revised to remove liM and oxyfuels because Greeley was far below the NAAQS. That revision was adopted by EPA in 2005. 2009: The SIP is updated to show continued attainment oftheNAAQS for an additional10-year term, through 2019, as required by the CAA. Limited Maintenance Plan Option Colorado is using the Limited Maintenance Plan option in preparing this second ten-year revision. This option was also used in the initial Greeley CO maintenance plan and redesignation request that EPA approved on March 10, 1999. The option is explained in EPA guidance of October 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The guidance allows for a less rigorous approach than was previously required in developing maintenance plans for CO nonattainment areas that have design values at orbelow 7.65 ppm (85 percent ofthe CO NAAQS). Greeley's design value in this plan revision isjust 2.4 ppm (27 percent ofCO NAAQS), and was 5.3 ppm in the first 10-year maintenance plan. The design values were determined by using the second-highest maximum 8-hour value ofeight consecutive quarters, as required by EPA guidance. Greeley has shown a continued reduction in CO values throughout the maintenance period. The limited maintenance plan approach requires development ofan emissions inventory but does not require the inventory to be projected for future years. The maintenance demonstration is considered to be satisfied ifthe monitoring data showthat the area is meeting the air quality criteria for limited maintenance areas (at orbelow 7.65 ppm or 85 percent ofthe CO NAAQS). Transportation conformity is demonstrated by showingthattransportation plans are consistent with the emissions budget. The guidance for limited maintenance plans state that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expectthat such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CONAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budgettest" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. Continued Attainment ofthe Carbon Monoxide Standard Attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is demonstrated when monitoring data for each site show no more than one exceedance per year ofthe 8-hour (9 ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) standards. Greeley has never exceeded the 1-hour standard, so this maintenance plan only addresses the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded in Greeley since 1988. Monitoring data for 1999-2008 demonstrates that Greeley continues to attain/maintain the national standard for carbon monoxide as required by40 CFR 50.8. Data from 1999 through 2008 are provided to demonstrate continual attainment/maintenance since the redesignation to attainment was promulgated in 1999. This demonstration is based on quality assured monitoring data representative ofthe location ofexpected maximum concentrations ofcarbon monoxide in
2 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revisionthe area (downtown Greeley). Data presented is the second highest maximum value recorded at the monitors. The second maximum value is used by EPA for determining compliance with the CONAAQS. The monitoring data presented in Table 1verifies that Greeley continues to attain the national 8- hour standard for carbon monoxide. Data recovery rates for the monitorexceeded the 75 percent completeness requirements for all years. All State and Federal quality assurance procedures were complied with, further substantiating the validity ofthe measurements as indicators ofambient carbon monoxide levels in Greeley.

3 December 17, 2009

- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision

### Table 1 1999-2008, 8-HourCarbon Monoxide Summary for Greeley Standard: 8-hour

### =9 ppm* 8-Hour2° 1999 St. 3.4

St. 2002 3.4
2008 2.2 

## * Due to mathematical rounding, a value of9
.5 ppm orgreater ts necessary to exceed the standard
.

Figure l. Greeley Attainment Area

4 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan RevisionEmission Inventories This maintenance plan revision utilizes 2007 as an attainment year for emission inventories, which is the same year from which the 2.4 ppm design value was derived. Emission inventories for a typical winter day are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 attainment year. Each inventory accounts for the emission control programs effective during that period. The modeling domain consists ofthe Greeley attainment area, which encompasses the City of Greeley and surrounding areas (see figure 1). The inventories were developed using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods, including the MOBILE6 emissions model, and the latest transportation data from the Colorado Department ofTransportation (COOT) and demographic data from the State Demographers Office. 

### Table 2. Greeley Attainment Area Emissions Inventory (Tons PerDay)
Source Category 2007 Biogemc 0
.00 Commercial Cookmg 0
.05 Fuel Combustion 0.55 Highway Vehicles 55
.36 Non O&G Pomt Sources 0.58 Non-Road 17
.81 O&G area 0
.02 O&Gpomt 0
.03 Railroads 0
.04 Structure Fires 0
.03 Woodburmng 6
.75 TOTAL 81.23
Note: Results are reported w1th two dec1mal place prec1s1on to prov1de representation ofsmaller source categones
. This level ofprecis1on IS not intended to suggest a level ofaccuracy.

Enforceable Control Measures for the Maintenance Period

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


### 5 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision• Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 3, Air Pollution Emission Notices- Permits

• AQCC Regulation No.4, Wood Stove Standards

• AQCC Regulation Number 6, New Source Performance Standards

• AQCC Common Provisions Rule The Common Provisions and Regulation No. 6 delineate industrial source control programs. The Common Provisions, and Parts A and B ofRegulation No. 3, are already included in the approved Colorado SIP. Regulation No.6 and Part C ofRegulation No.3 implementthe federal standards ofperformance for new stationary sources and the federal operating permit program. The revised Greeley maintenance plan makes no changes to these regulations. Maintenance Demonstration This maintenance plan utilizes EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan option, as explained above. The Limited Maintenance Plan approach can be utilized when an area has a design value at orbelow 7.65 ppm (85 percent ofthe CO NAAQS). The design value for the Greeley CO maintenance area is 2.4 ppm (27 percent ofCO NAAQS), which is the highest second maximum concentration for the 2007-2008 monitoring period. Transportation Conformity Determination Under the limited maintenance plan approach, transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that transportation plans are consistentwith any existing emissions budgets. When any existing budgets expire, conformity is then presumed and regional analyses and emission budget tests for transportation conformity are no longer necessary. The guidance for limited maintenance plans states that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation ofthe CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budgettest" ofthe transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance
. Forthe Greeley maintenance area, the EPA-approved emission budgets are 63 tons ofCO per day (2005-2009), 62 tons per day (2010-2014), and 60 tons per day (2015 and beyond). According to the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, these budgets are to remain in place, and conformity with these budgets must be demonstrated, through the year 2015. Beginning in 2016, the budgets expire. Once the Greeley CO attainment/maintenance area underthe Limited Maintenance Plan option is not subject to the budget test, the area remains subject to othertransportation conformity requirements.

6 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan RevisionMonitoring Network IVerification ofContinued Attainment The AirPollution Control Division (APCD) will continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify the continued attainment ofthe CO NAAQS. Ifmeasured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, fleet mix, etc.) change significantly over time, the APCD will perfonn the appropriate studies to detennine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. An annual review ofthe NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance system will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10 to detennine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary and to detennine whether the system continues to meetthe monitoring objectives presented in Appendix D of40 CFR Part 58. Contingency Plan Section 175A(d) ofthe CAA requires that the maintenance plan contain contingency provisions to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation ofthe CO NAAQS which occurs in the Greeley attainment/maintenance area. The contingency plan mustensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once the need is triggered. The primary elements ofthe contingency plan involve the tracking and triggering mechanisms to detennine when contingency measures are needed and a process for implementing appropriate control measures. Tracking The tracking plan for the Greeley area consists ofcontinuous carbon monoxide monitoring and analysis ofCO concentrations by the APCD. The APCD will notify the EPA, the AQCC, the NFRMPO and local governments ofany exceedance ofthe CO standard within 30 days of occurrence. The ongoing regional transportation planning process carried out by the NFRMPO in coordination with the COOT, the APCD, the AQCC, and the EPA, will serve as another means oftracking mobile source CO emissions into the future. Since revisions to the regions' transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years, which must go through a transportation confonnity detennination, a process is in place to periodically review the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and mobile source emissions ofCO presented in this maintenance plan. Triggering and Response Triggering ofthe contingency plan does not automatically require a revision ofthe SIP, nor is the area necessarily redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead, the State will have an appropriate time-frame to correct a violation by implementing one or more adopted contingency measures. In the event that violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are corrected. An exceedance ofthe CO NAAQS (any value over 9.5 ppm) may trigger a voluntary, local process by the NFRMPO and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. However, the only federally enforceable trigger for mandatory implementation ofcontingency 7 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revisionmeasures shall be a violation ofthe CO NAAQS. Specifically, this would be a second value of 9.5 ppm or higher atthe same monitor during any calendar year. The State will move forward with mandatory implementation ofcontingency measures under the SIP ifa violation ofthe CONAAQS occurs. No more than 60 days after being notified by the APCD that a violation occurred, the NFRMPO, in conjunction with the APCD, the AQCC and local governments, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential contingency measures. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of notification, and the recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 180 days ofnoti"fication. The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, along with any other contingency measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively address the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented within one year after a violation occurs. List ofPotential Contingency Measures The NFRMPO and the APCD may choose one or more ofthe following measures to recommend to the AQCC for consideration. The measures will be designed to bring the area quickly back into compliance with the CO NAAQS.

• An enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (liM) program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 11, with the addition ofany on-board diagnostics components required by federal law. While an enhanced inspection and maintenance program is already required in Greeley through the Ozone Action Plan, the program is "state-only" and as such is not federally enforceable and could be eliminated in the future without regard to the Greeley CO maintenance plan. By placing an enhanced 11M program in this Greely CO maintenance plan, and making any adjustments to achieve maximum carbon monoxide benefits, the program would become a federally enforceable contingency measure.
• A 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 13 as of September 2009.

• Re-establishing nonattainment new source review permitting requirements for stationary sources.
• In addition to these potential contingency measures, the State may evaluate other potential strategies, including but not limited to, transportation control measures and mandatory wood burning restrictions, in orderto address any future violations in the most appropriate and effective manner possible.

8 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan RevisionSubsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions The Clean Air Act requires that a maintenance plan revision be submitted to EPA demonstrating that the CO standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period. The initial maintenance plan approved by EPA in 1999 was completed under the "Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas" and, as such, was not required to project emissions over a maintenance period as long as control measures were maintained. Since two control measures were removed from the maintenance plan in the state's 2002 revision (1/M and oxygenated fuels), that revision projected emissions through a 2015 maintenance period. This final revision demonstrates maintenance for a second 1 0-year period after the first 1 0-year period since redesignation (through 2019) utilizing the Limited Maintenance Plan option to demonstrate continued maintenance through the 2019 time period. No additional revisions ofthis maintenance plan are anticipated at this time. Iffuture changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the conformity process, the State will address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time.

9 December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision