[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8228]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[CO32-1-5982; FRL-4855-7]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of PM-10 Implementation
Plan for Colorado
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA proposes approval of the State
implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Colorado for the
purpose of bringing about the attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The
SIP was submitted by the State on May 27, 1993 to satisfy certain
federal Clean Air Act requirements for an approvable moderate
nonattainment area PM-10 SIP for Lamar, Colorado.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
May 6, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Vicki Stamper,
8ART-AP, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,
suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
Copies of the State's submittal and other information are available
for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999
18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405.
Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, 4300
Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80222-1530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Stamper, 8ART-AP, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 293-1765.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Lamar, Colorado was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and
classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the
Clean Air Act (Act) upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.\1\ (See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991 and 40 CFR 81.306.) The air
quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of part D of title I of the Act. The
EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary
views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted
under title I of the Act, including those State submittals containing
moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA
is describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader
should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of
the interpretations of title I advanced in this proposal and the
supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action on the Colorado
moderate PM-10 SIP for the Lamar PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA is
proposing to apply its interpretations taking into consideration the
specific factual issues presented. Thus, EPA will consider any timely
submitted comments before taking final action on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions
by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act.
Some provisions are due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such
States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 which
become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13510-13512, 13543-13544.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA
is proposing to grant approval of the Lamar plan revision which was due
to EPA on November 15, 1991 and submitted by the State on May 27, 1993.
EPA believes the attainment plan for Lamar meets all of the applicable
requirements of the Act.
Since the Lamar PM-10 SIP was not submitted by November 15, 1991 as
required by section 189(a)(2)(A) of the Act, EPA made a finding
pursuant to section 179 of the Act that the State failed to submit the
SIP and notified the Governor in a letter dated December 16, 1991. See
57 FR 19906 (May 8, 1992). After the Lamar PM-10 SIP was submitted on
May 27, 1993, EPA found the submittal to be complete pursuant to
section 110(k)(1) of the Act and notified the Governor accordingly in a
letter dated June 14, 1993. This completeness determination corrected
the State's deficiency and, therefore, terminated the 18-month
sanctions clock under section 179 of the Act.
A. Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.\2\ Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 100(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals
are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1992). The EPA attempts to
make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a
submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law
if a completeness determination is not made by EPA 6 months after
receipt of the submission.
After providing more than 30 days of prior public notice, the State
of Colorado held a public hearing on April 15, 1993 to entertain public
comment on the implementation plan for Lamar. The plan for Lamar was
subsequently adopted by the State and submitted by the Governor by
letter dated May 27, 1993 as a proposed revision to the SIP. EPA
received the submittal on June 3, 1993.
The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The submittal was found
to be complete, and a letter dated June 14, 1993 was forwarded to the
Governor indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next
steps to be taken in the review process. In this action, EPA proposes
to approve the State of Colorado's PM-10 SIP submittal for Lamar
relative to those moderate area PM-10 SIP requirements due on November
15, 1991 and invites public comment on the action.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions
in the area. Because the submission of such inventories is a necessary
adjunct to an area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that
the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions inventories must be
received with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).
The State of Colorado submitted a winter/spring season emissions
inventory for the base year of 1992. A winter/spring season emissions
inventory was calculated because the highest PM- 10 concentrations
generally occur in the winter/spring season in Lamar. The base year
inventory identified area sources as the primary cause of high PM-10
concentrations, which contributed 99 percent of the total emissions,
with wind erosion from agriculture lands contributing 49 percent, re-
entrained road dust from paved and unpaved roads contributing 24
percent, cattle feedlots contributing 15 percent, residential wood
burning contributing 8 percent, and point sources contributing 1
percent. The remaining 3 percent of PM-10 emissions was due to
emissions from tailpipes, agricultural tilling, and storage piles. The
emission inventory demonstrates that wind erosion from agricultural
land is the principal contributor to PM-10 emissions in the Lamar
nonattainment area. However, the State and EPA believe that during the
conditions when the PM-10 exceedances have been known to occur (high
wind days preceded by warm, dry weather), PM-10 from wind erosion may
be coming into the area from land much farther away than the area
modeled by the State in developing the Lamar PM-10 emissions inventory.
Thus, on the high wind days, agricultural emissions not in the
immediate area surrounding Lamar may represent a much greater
contribution to total PM-10 emissions in the area. However, emissions
from such sources not in the immediate area surrounding Lamar were
difficult to estimate.
The EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it
generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a
sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment
demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of
sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act.\3\ For further details
see the Technical Support Document (TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the revised Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C) of the Act). The General Preamble contains a detailed
discussion of EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT)
requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561). In Lamar, wind
erosion from agricultural farmland in the area was identified as the
principal contributor to the PM-10 nonattainment problem, and these
emissions will be controlled through reliance on the soil conservation
measures of the Food Security Act (FSA). See e.g., 16 U.S.C. 3801,
3811-3813.
The FSA, which was enacted in 1985, applies to any farmer
participating in a federal farm subsidies program. One of the main
provisions of the FSA requires farmers who cultivate highly erodible
land (which includes the majority of the farmland surrounding Lamar) to
develop and implement soil conservation plans. The conservation plan is
to document the decisions of an affected farmer with respect to
location, land use, tillage systems, and conservation treatment
measures and schedules. The plan is to be based on the local Soil
Conservation Service technical guide, and it is to be approved by the
local soil conservation district. See 16 U.S.C. 3812(a)(2). The law
provides that if such a conservation plan is actively applied by
January 1, 1990 or 2 years after the Soil Conservation Service has
completed a soil survey for the farm, whichever is later, affected
farmers shall have until January 1, 1995 to comply with the plan
without being subject to ineligibility for certain program loans,
payments, and benefits.
In the area surrounding Lamar, approximately 75-80 percent of the
agricultural lands are subject to the soil conservation requirements.
According to the Southeast Regional Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
office, all of the farmers subject to the FSA in the Lamar area have
developed conservation plans, and most of the farmers in the Lamar area
have already begun at least partial implementation of these plans.\4\
The local SCS office has estimated that the implementation of these
plans will result in a 70 percent reduction in wind erosion emissions
from the non-irrigated farmland surrounding Lamar (which represents 85
percent of the farmland subject to the FSA in the Lamar area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Per December 4, 1992 telephone coversation between Vicki
Stamper, U.S. EPA Region VIII, and Lorenz Sutherland, Southeast
Colorado Regional SCS office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the State is relying on these provisions to reduce the PM-10
emissions from wind erosion in the Lamar area, the State did not adopt
these measures into the SIP or take credit for these control measures.
Since these measures are federally mandated and will be implemented by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it is not necessary for the State
to adopt these measures into the SIP. No credit was taken for these
measures because of the difficulty in estimating the effectiveness of
these measures and, moreover, because no credit was needed to
demonstrate attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS in Lamar (see
section II.A.4. of this document). Nevertheless, EPA does believe that
the provisions of the FSA will have a significant impact on the
emissions from wind erosion from agricultural land in the Lamar area.
RACT does not require controls on stationary sources in the Lamar
nonattainment area because the point source emissions in the Lamar area
are de minimis, and control of such sources would not expedite
attainment and maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS. See 57 FR 13540, 13543.
There are also Statewide control measures that apply in the Lamar
area. Colorado Regulation No. 4 requires new wood stoves to meet the
emission requirements of EPA's Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters in 40 CFR 60.532(b). Colorado Regulation No. 3
regulates the construction and modification of new stationary sources
of PM-10.\5\ These measures will help to reduce emissions from new
stationary source growth and residential wood combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The State is required by the amended Clean Air Act to adopt a
revised new source review permit program for the construction and
operation of new and modified stationary sources. See Section
189(a)(1)(A). This SIP revision, which was submitted by the State on
January 15, 1993, was due independent of the November 15, 1991
moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements addressed in this
action and will be addressed in a separate notice. See section
189(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed discussion of the individual source contributions,
the associated control measures, and an explanation as to why certain
available control measures were not adopted, can be found in the TSD.
EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated documentation
and concluded that it adequately justifies the control measures to be
implemented. The Lamar PM-10 SIP demonstrates that the area will attain
the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. By this notice, EPA is proposing
to approve Colorado's SIP submittal for Lamar as meeting the RACM
(including RACT) requirement. However, EPA is not proposing action on
Regulations No. 3 and 4 because EPA has previously approved these
regulations in separate actions (see the TSD for further information).
4. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994 (see section 189(a)(1)(B) of the
Act). Alternatively, the State must show that attainment by December
31, 1994 is impracticable.
EPA regulations provide that the adequacy of a control strategy to
provide for timely attainment must be demonstrated by means of a
proportional model or dispersion model or other procedure which is
shown to be adequate and appropriate (see 40 CFR 51.112(a)). EPA policy
specifies that the preferred approach for estimating the air quality
impacts of emissions of PM-10 is to use receptor modeling in
combination with dispersion modeling. However, on July 5, 1990, EPA
issued guidance providing that, in certain situations, it may be more
appropriate to rely on a receptor model demonstration alone as the
basis for the attainment demonstration (see July 5, 1990 memo to
Regional Air Branch Chiefs from Robert D. Bauman, Chief of SO2/
Particulate Matter Programs Branch and Joseph Tikvart, Chief of Source
Receptor Analysis Branch). Lamar met the criteria discussed in the July
5, 1990 memo to justify using receptor modeling alone and had
originally planned to use this approach in its attainment
demonstration. However, after further review, the State determined that
the chemical mass balance (CMB) analysis (i.e., analysis of source
contributions from PM-10 monitoring filters) to be used in the receptor
model was inadequate and decided to base the attainment and maintenance
demonstration on simple emissions rollback modeling, which involves
using the ratio of the design day ambient concentration of 101
g/m\3\ to the design day emissions and projecting future
concentrations.
Because the Lamar attainment and maintenance demonstrations did not
follow EPA general guidance, the State included a commitment in the
Lamar PM-10 SIP to conduct revised CMB analyses on all filters greater
than 100 g/m\3\ and to use this information to assess the
adequacy of the SIP. On September 20, 1993, the State submitted the
revised CMB analysis but did not utilize the results in calculating a
revised attainment and maintenance demonstration. The State determined
that the receptor modeling performed for Lamar did not provide the
conclusive source contribution information that would be necessary in
order to adequately revise the Lamar PM-10 attainment and maintenance
demonstrations. EPA has reviewed the State's analysis and concurs with
the State's justification for using emissions rollback modeling in its
attainment demonstration. In addition, because the emissions rollback
modeling demonstration accounted for growth in source categories that
were not even identified in the CMB analysis, EPA believes that the use
of emissions rollback modeling provides for a more conservative
prediction of future concentrations. Thus, EPA believes that the
State's attainment demonstration adequately demonstrates that the Lamar
PM-10 nonattainment area will remain in attainment and maintain the 24-
hour PM-10 NAAQS. (See the TSD for further information.)
The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 g/m\3\, and the standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-
hour average concentration above 150 g/m\3\ is equal to or
less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50
g/m\3\, and the standard is attained when the expected annual
arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50 g/
m\3\ (id.). The demonstration predicted that the 24-hour design
concentration in the attainment year of 1994 will be 115 g/
m\3\, thus demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. The
demonstration also showed that the PM-10 NAAQS will be maintained in
future years by predicting a 24-hour design concentration in 1997 of
116 g/m\3\.
Since no violations of the annual PM-10 NAAQS have been monitored
in the Lamar area and since the attainment demonstration in the Lamar
PM-10 SIP clearly shows attainment and maintenance of the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS, it is reasonable and adequate to assume that protection of the
24-hour standard will be sufficient to protect the annual standard as
well. For a more detailed description of the attainment demonstration,
see the TSD accompanying this document.
5. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act).
The analysis of the air quality and emissions data for the Lamar
nonattainment area indicates that the PM-10 exceedances in the Lamar
area are generally attributable to particulate matter emissions from
area sources, mainly windblown emissions from agricultural lands, re-
entrained road dust, cattle feed lots, and residential wood combustion.
In addition, the emissions inventory for this area did not reveal any
major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to find that major stationary sources of precursors of PM-10
do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS.
If finalized, this finding would exclude major stationary sources of
PM-10 precursors from the applicability of PM-10 nonattainment area
control requirements. Further discussion of the analyses and supporting
rationale for EPA's proposed finding are contained in the TSD
accompanying this document. Note that while EPA is making a general
finding for this area, this finding is based on the current character
of the area including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the
area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the
significance of precursors in the area. The EPA intends to issue future
guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance of
precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and
which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment
by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). RFP is defined in
section 171(1) as such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by part D or may reasonably
be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment
of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.
In implementing the quantitative milestone and RFP provisions for
this initial moderate area, EPA has reviewed the attainment
demonstration for the area to determine the nature of any milestones
necessary to ensure timely attainment and whether annual incremental
reductions should be required in order to ensure attainment of the PM-
10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). Because the Lamar
area can demonstrate expeditious attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS without
taking credit for the reliance on the soil conservation plans, no
further reductions are necessary. Therefore, EPA believes the Lamar PM-
10 SIP satisfies the quantitative milestone and RFP requirement.
However, there will be emissions reductions that occur as a result of
the federally mandated soil conservation plans, which will help to
ensure that the area attains and maintains the PM-10 NAAQS.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act and
57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs
and SIP revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section
110(a)(2)(C)).
The specific control measures contained in the SIP are addressed
above under section 3 entitled ``RACM (including RACT).'' The State,
while relying on the soil conservation measures of the FSA, has not
adopted these measures into the SIP or taken any credit for these
measures. Since these measures are federally mandated and will be
implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, they are considered
to be federally enforceable. Thus, it is not necessary for the State to
adopt these measures into the SIP.
As discussed in section 3 above, there are State-wide regulations
that will also impact the emissions of PM-10 in the Lamar nonattainment
area. These regulations include Colorado Regulation No. 4, which
requires all wood stoves sold after July 1, 1991 to meet the emission
requirements of EPA's Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood
Heaters in 40 CFR 60.532(b), and Colorado Regulation No. 3, which
requires construction permits for new or modified stationary sources.
EPA previously reviewed Colorado Regulations No. 3 and 4 at the time
these regulations were approved by EPA as part of the SIP, and it was
determined that these regulations met the enforceability criteria of
the September 23, 1987 Potter Memorandum (see the TSD for information
on EPA approvals of these regulations).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Note that the current version of Colorado Regulation No. 3
approved by EPA does not meet all of the applicable requirements of
the amended Act. As discussed in footnote number 4, the State
submitted revisions to Regulation No. 3 in January of 1993 which are
being evaluated by EPA. EPA will act on that submittal in a separate
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Colorado has a program that will ensure that the
measures contained in the SIP are adequately enforced. The Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD) has the authority to implement and
enforce all emission limitations and control measures adopted by the
State, including the requirements of any emission control regulations,
the SIP, and any permit. The APCD has the authority to impose civil
penalties of up to $15,000 per day per violation, as well as criminal
penalties. Thus, EPA believes the State has adequate enforcement
capabilities to ensure compliance with the Lamar PM-10 SIP and the
State-wide regulations. The TSD contains further information on the
State-wide regulations, enforceability requirements, and a discussion
of the personnel and funding intended to support effective
implementation of the control measures.
8. Contingency Measures.
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544.
These measures were to be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the
initial moderate nonattainment areas. Thus, the measures were due
separate from the requirements addressed in this notice. Contingency
measures should consist of other available measures that are not part
of the area's control strategy. These measures must take effect without
further action by the State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that
the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable statutory deadline. The Lamar SIP submittal addressed in
this notice did not include any contingency measures. The State
submitted the contingency measures for Lamar as a revision to the SIP
on December 9, 1993. EPA will act on the December 1993 submittal in a
separate notice.
III. Implications of This Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the plan revision submitted by
Colorado for the Lamar nonattainment area on May 27, 1993 to satisfy
those moderate area PM-10 SIP requirements due on November 15, 1991.
Among other things, the State of Colorado has adequately demonstrated
that the Lamar moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the PM-10
NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas are due at later dates. The EPA will determine the
adequacy of any such submittal as appropriate.
IV. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As
indicated at the outset of this document, EPA will consider any
comments received by May 6, 1994.
V. Executive Order (EO) 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future notice will inform the general public of
these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of two
years. The U.S. EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for
Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the
temporary waiver until such time as it rules on EPA's request. This
request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866 which
superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 18, 1994.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-8228 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
