[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61563-61567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21262]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[CO-001-0076a; FRL-7983-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
CO; PM10 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Lamar
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado on July 31,
2002, for the purpose of redesignating the Lamar, Colorado area from
nonattainment to attainment for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10) under the 1987 standards. The Governor's submittal,
among other things, documents that the Lamar area has attained the
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
requests redesignation to attainment and includes a maintenance plan
for the area demonstrating maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS for
ten years. EPA is approving this redesignation request and maintenance
plan because Colorado has met the applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), as amended. Upon the effective date of this approval,
the Lamar area will be designated attainment for the PM10
NAAQS. This action is being taken under sections 107, 110, and 175A of
the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this under Docket ID No.
CO-001-0076a. Some information in the docket is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket
materials are available in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite
200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the docket. You may view the docket Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Copies of
the Incorporation by Reference material are also available at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room B-108 (Mail Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Faulk, Air and Radiation
Program, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Ste. 200 (8P-AR),
Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466. Telephone: (303) 312-6083. E-mail
Address: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 5, 2004, EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) (69 FR 47339) and a direct final rule (DFR)
(69 FR 47366) approving the redesignation of the Lamar PM10
nonattainment area to attainment. During the public comment period, EPA
received adverse comments and therefore withdrew the DFR on September
20, 2004 (69 FR 56163). EPA is addressing the comments received during
the comment period in this final rule action. For the purpose of this
document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as
follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words State mean the State of Colorado, unless the context
indicates otherwise.
Table of Contents
I. EPA's Final Action
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing in this Rule?
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Response
III. Consideration of CAA section 110(l)
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. EPA's Final Action
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing in This Rule?
We are approving the Governor's submittal of July 31, 2002, that
requests redesignation for the Lamar nonattainment area to attainment
for the 1987 PM10 standards. Included in Colorado's
submittal are changes to the ``State Implementation Plan--Specific
Regulations for Nonattainment--Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local
Areas)'' which we are approving, under
[[Page 61564]]
section 110 of the CAA, into Colorado's SIP. We are also approving the
maintenance plan for the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area,
which was submitted with Colorado's July 31, 2002 redesignation
request. We are approving this request and maintenance plan because
Colorado has adequately addressed all of the requirements of the CAA
for redesignation to attainment applicable to the Lamar PM10
nonattainment areas. Upon the effective date of this action, the Lamar
area designation status under 40 CFR part 81 will be revised to
attainment. Please refer to our proposed and direct final rule actions
published on August 5, 2004 (69 FR47339; 69 FR 47366) for a more
detailed explanation of the redesignation requirements and analysis of
how the Lamar area has met EPA's requirements.
II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA's Response
(1) Comment: A comment received expressed concern regarding Lamar's
recent proposal to convert its natural gas power plant to coal. The
commenter believes that the conversion will produce a significant
increase in PM10 emissions, both from the stack, the coal
handling equipment, and the train traffic to bring in the coal. The
commenter expressed concern as to whether the coal plant was considered
in the redesignations process and is unsure as to whether the coal
plant would go through the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting process. The commenter pointed out that in 2001, the
air monitor at the power plant had a high value of 152, in 2002, a high
value of 141 and a 4th high value of 125, and in 2003, it had a high
value of 132. The commenter believes that it would be impossible for
the new coal fired power plant using pulverized coal technology and
unloading coal from a train in the windy eastern plains of Colorado to
not push the PM monitor at the power plant over the NAAQS.
Response: Lamar Light and Power (part of The Arkansas River Power
Authority) submitted an air permit application that was received by the
Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) on December 30,
2004. The application requests approval to construct a new coal-fired
boiler (using natural gas for startup fuel), turbine, and auxiliaries
(i.e., coal-handling, ash handling, lime handling, etc.) at the
existing Lamar Power Plant. The new unit will replace the existing
boiler currently fired on either natural gas or fuel oil. On January
13, 2005, EPA received a copy of the application from CDPHE. As part of
their permit application, Lamar Light and Power conducted a significant
impact modeling analysis. For the increase in PM10 emissions
that has been requested by Lamar Light and Power, a significant impact
modeling analysis for PM10 was required regardless of
whether the applicant was subject to PSD permitting for PM10
or not. Lamar Light and Power's analysis shows impacts less than the
threshold that would require a cumulative impact modeling analysis for
PM10. As such, this project's emissions are considered not
to cause or contribute to a violation of the PM10 NAAQS.
The significant impact modeling analysis submitted by Lamar Light
and Power went through CDPHE review prior to issuance of the draft
permit, which was published for public review on August 15, 2005. The
draft permit issued by CDPHE was subject to a 30-day public comment
period, which ended September 15, 2005. EPA did not submit adverse
comments on the modeling analysis to CDPHE during the public comment
period.
Since PM10 is currently a nonattainment pollutant, the
PSD program is not applicable for PM10. The major New Source
Review (NSR) program would apply if this project were to exceed major
source thresholds. Based on the information in the permit application
submitted to the State, this project is minor for PM10
nonattainment NSR review. That said, the area has been designated as
attainment/unclassifiable for PM2.5. Based on current EPA
guidance (April 5, 2005), PM10 is used as a surrogate for
regulating PM2.5 under the NSR program. As such,
PM10 was subject to PSD review for this project as a
surrogate for the attainment/unclassifiable pollutant,
PM2.5.
As an additional note, the proposed boiler is not utilizing
traditional ``pulverized coal'' technology. Lamar Light and Power is
proposing to construct a circulating fluidized bed unit.
Currently, there are four monitoring stations in the Lamar area,
two of which have been monitoring PM10 since the mid-1970s
and the other two started monitoring this year for a special study that
was at the request of the Prowers Local Health Department to monitor
potential impacts from nearby feed lots. The two special purpose
monitors (SPM) operated for 6 months (March to September, 2004) on an
every 6th day schedule. Both monitors recorded lower values than the
permanent PM10 monitors that run on an every day schedule.
The highest 24-hour value recorded was 69 [mu]g/m3 at the Red Barn
station, well below the 24-hour 150 [mu]g/m\3\ PM10
standard. A data summary of the two SPM monitors can be found on EPA's
Air Data Web site: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/.
There have been some PM10 concentrations for a 24-hour
period at the permanent PM10 monitors that have exceeded the
NAAQS during high wind events. However, the high concentration
PM10 data exceeding the NAAQS were due to high wind events
and as a result these data have been excused by EPA from the NAAQS
calculation. Additionally, the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment was required to create and implement a Natural Event Action
Plan (NEAP) to control sources during future high wind events. (See
response to comment 4 for more details on Lamar's NEAP.)
PM10 levels otherwise are well below the NAAQS. According to
40 CFR 50.6(a), ``the standards are attained when the expected number
of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above
150 [mu]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with appendix K to this
part, is equal to or less than one.'' Under 40 CFR part 50 Appendix
K(1)(b), it defines exceedances as ``a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard after rounding to the nearest 10 [mu]g/
m\3\ (i.e., values ending in 50 or greater are to be rounded up).''
Therefore, a concentration of 152 [mu]g/m\3\ is not a NAAQS exceedance
per the NAAQS calculation procedures detailed in 40 CFR 50 (Section
50.6 and Appendix K). Rounding of the measured concentrations and the
expected exceedance calculations are further explained in the CFR and
in EPA's ``Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM NAAQS''
which show the Lamar area below the PM10 NAAQS.
(2) Comment: Another comment expressed was in regards to Xcel's
proposal for a new coal fired unit in Pueblo, Colorado that the
commenter believes will represent a significant increase in
PM10 emission, especially in condensable PM10
that, according to the commenter, will leave the plant's stack as
SO2 and thus will not be analyzed as PM10 under
the PSD permitting process, if there is a PSD process, but will be
condensable PM10 (mainly SO4 and
H2SO4) by the time it gets to Lamar.
Response: EPA has indicated that condensable PM emissions need to
be considered as part of the PSD permitting process. This position is
articulated in the March 31, 1994 letter from EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to the State of Iowa.
[[Page 61565]]
The letter says that when evaluating compliance tests for determining
ambient PM10 levels in PSD permits, States are required to
compute PM10 as the sum of in-stack and condensable
PM10. This letter also requires that condensable
PM10 emissions be included in the modeling analysis. Please
refer to EPA's OAQPS letter to the State of Iowa, dated March 31, 1994,
that is included under additional materials in the docket for this
action. EPA, Region 8 has recently commented to the State of Montana
and Utah on PSD permits that did not include limits on condensable
PM10 or incorporate these limits in the modeling analysis.
The letter from EPA to the State of Montana is dated December 8, 2004,
and the letter from EPA to the State of Utah is dated April 6, 2004,
both of which are contained under additional materials in the docket
for this notice. Xcel's permit application includes PSD review for
increases in condensable PM10 emissions.
(3) Comment: A comment received expressed concern regarding the
Federal Register notice stating that the PM10 emissions are
mainly wind blown. The commenter believes that this statement ignores
the fact that there is a major combined animal feeding operation (CAFO)
in Lamar that is a significant source of PM10 emissions and
that the PM10 and precursor emissions from the source were
not properly considered in determining attainment.
Response: At this time, the CAA does not provide EPA with the
authority to regulate air emissions from CAFOs, therefore, EPA is
unable to require the State to include emissions from CAFO sources in
their PM10 redesignation request for the Lamar area.
(4) Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the statement
that the 1996-2000 violations were caused because of ``high winds.''
The commenter stated that it is common for there to be high winds in
Lamar, so much so that a large wind farm (over 100 MW) has been
installed. The commenter stated that if Lamar had a reasonable action
plan for high winds, it would have to actually be in effect the vast
majority of the time, and that it should not be an action plan but
rather a permanent part of the SIP which is always in effect.
Response: On May 30, 1996, EPA issued the Natural Events Policy
(NEP) in a memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The NEP is the policy EPA established for addressing
PM10 NAAQS violations that are due to natural events. The
policy was applied in Lamar, and the State has submitted documentation
to EPA in both the NEAP and the supporting documentation packages for
each high-wind exceedance that establishes a clear, causal relationship
between the PM10 exceedances in Lamar and the unusually
high-wind natural events. The State submitted to EPA in February of
1998 a NEAP for Lamar to address exceedances that were associated with
unusually high winds and to address the question of what should be done
to protect public health. EPA determined the 1998 Lamar NEAP met the
1996 NEP. Per the 1996 NEP, the Lamar NEAP remains in effect to address
future exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS caused by natural
events.
The NEAP for Lamar includes best available control measures (BACM)
to control sources of wind-blown dust and many of these measures,
including vegetative covers and wind breaks, are always in effect. BACM
for PM10 are techniques that achieve a maximum degree of
emissions reduction from a source as determined on a case-by-case basis
considering technological and economic feasibility (59 FR 42010, August
16, 1994). The NEAP for Lamar also includes a continuing public
education program and a blowing dust health advisory and notification
program, that the NEAP for Lamar was developed by the State in
conjunction with the City of Lamar's Public Works Department, Parks and
Recreation, Prowers County Commissioners, the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Services, and numerous other stakeholders. The State made
the draft NEAP available for public review and comment by public notice
in February 1997, a media advisory and public meeting at a January 1998
Lamar City Council Meeting, a briefing for the Prowers County
Commissioners, and a briefing of the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission in February 1998. The NEAP was submitted to EPA in October
1997. After the public presentations to the Lamar City Council and the
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, the State made revisions and
submitted the final version of the NEAP to EPA on April 9, 1998 for
review and comment. Since EPA provided comments and worked with the
State during the development of the NEAP, EPA reviewed the final
version and found no need to comment. EPA sent a letter to the State on
June 5, 1998, indicating that they had no comments on the final version
of the NEAP. As stated above, the Lamar NEAP remains in effect to
address future exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS caused by
natural events.
(5) Comment: Commenter stated that there does not appear to be a
PM2.5 monitor in Lamar which, according to the commenter,
would not make sense from a public health point of view. The commenter
went on to state that considering that much of the PM probably comes
from the CAFO and the existing coal fired power plant in Pueblo, it is
highly likely that Lamar is exceeding the PM2.5 standard and
even more likely that Lamar is exceeding the level that the EPA staff
has recommended for a revised PM2.5 standard.
Response: In order to protect the public, air monitoring network
design and siting are generally guided by citizen complaints and areas
suspected of high concentrations, high populations, source emissions,
etc. The full procedures for site selection can be found in a document
called ``Guidance for Network Design and Optimum Site Exposure for
PM2.5 and PM10''. However, since this action
pertains to PM10 and not to PM2.5, the issues
raised by the commenter are not relevant to the submission made by the
State and thus do not affect our approval of it.
III. Consideration of CAA Section 110(l)
Section 110(1) of the CAA states that a SIP revision cannot be
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. As stated above, the Lamar area has shown continuous
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and has met the applicable
Federal requirements for redesignation to attainment. The maintenance
plan and associated SIP revision will not interfere with attainment,
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic
[[Page 61566]]
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-
existing requirements under State law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 27, 2005. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: September 30, 2005.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 are amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * * *
(106) On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted a
maintenance plan for the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area and
requested that this area be redesignated to attainment for the
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
redesignation request and maintenance plan satisfy all applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, ``State Implementation
Plan--Specific Regulations for Nonattainment--Attainment/Maintenance
Areas (Local Elements),'' 5 CCR 1001-20, revisions adopted November 15,
2001, effective December 30, 2001 as follows: Section IV, titled
``Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area,'' and which supersedes and
replaces all prior versions of Section IV.
(ii) Additional Material.
(A) Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, ``Natural
Events Action Plan for High Wind Events, Lamar, Colorado,'' submitted
to EPA on February 9, 1998 and subsequently approved by EPA, June 5,
1998 and Lamar's revised 2003 ``Natural Events Action Plan for High
Wind Events, Lamar, Colorado,'' submitted to EPA on April 16, 2003 and
subsequently approved by EPA, February 9, 2004.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate matter.
* * * * *
(o) On July 31, 2002, the State of Colorado submitted a maintenance
plan for the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area and requested
that this area be redesignated to attainment for the PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The redesignation request and
maintenance plan satisfy all applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In section 81.306, the table entitled ``Colorado--PM-10'' is amended
by revising the entries under Prowers County for ``Lamar'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 81.306 Colorado.
* * * * *
[[Page 61567]]
Colorado--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area date Type date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Prowers County Lamar..................... 12/27/05 ........................... Attainment
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-21262 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P