[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34935-34940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12804]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0042; FRL-9947-09-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for Lamar
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Colorado. On May 13, 2013, the Governor of Colorado's designee
submitted to the EPA a revised maintenance plan for the Lamar area for
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10). EPA is proposing to approve the revised maintenance
plan with the exception of one aspect of the plan's contingency
measures.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0042 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6210, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. What was the State's process?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Lamar PM10
Maintenance Plan
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
Follow directions and organize your comments;
Explain why you agree or disagree;
Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and,
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
The Lamar area was designated nonattainment for PM10 and
classified as moderate by operation of law upon enactment of the CAA
Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, 56705, 56736 (November 6, 1991).
EPA approved Colorado's nonattainment area SIP for the Lamar
PM10 nonattainment area on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29732).
On July 31, 2002, the Governor of Colorado submitted a request to
EPA to redesignate the Lamar moderate PM10 nonattainment
area to attainment for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS. Along with this
request, the State submitted a maintenance plan, which demonstrated
that the area was expected to remain in attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS through 2015. EPA approved the Lamar maintenance
plan and redesignation to attainment on October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61563).
Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, the CAA
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-
year maintenance plan must demonstrate continued maintenance of the
applicable NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this
requirement of the Act, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted
the second 10-year update of the PM10 maintenance plan to
the EPA on May 13, 2013 (hereafter, ``revised Lamar PM10
Maintenance Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period described in
CAA section 175A(a) was required to extend for at least 10 years
after the redesignation to attainment, which was effective on
November 25, 2005. See 70 FR 61563. Therefore, the first maintenance
plan was required to show maintenance through 2015. CAA section
175A(b) requires that the second 10-year maintenance plan maintain
the NAAQS for ``10 years after the expiration of the 10-year period
referred to in [section 175A(a)].'' Thus, for the Lamar area, the
second 10-year period ends in 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level of the national primary and
secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for PM10 is
150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). An area attains the 24-
hour PM10 standard when the expected number of days per
calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess of the standard
(referred to herein as
[[Page 34936]]
``exceedance''), as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K, is equal to or less than one, averaged over a three-year
period.\2\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard, 150 [mu]g/m\3\, after rounding to the
nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in five or greater are to
be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\ would not
be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 [mu]g/m\3\;
whereas, a recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an exceedance
since it would be rounded to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 below shows the maximum monitored 24-hour PM10
values for the Lamar PM10 maintenance area for 2001 through
2015, excluding 34 values the State flagged as being caused by
exceptional events. The table reflects that most of the values for the
Lamar area were below the PM10 NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\. In
2008 the area experienced an exceedance measured at 367 [mu]g/m\3\; in
2009 exceedances measured at 233 [mu]g/m\3\ and 171 [mu]g/m\3\; and in
2015 an exceedance measured at 423[mu]g/m\3\. Notably, the 2015
exceedance was flagged as an exceptional event due to natural high
winds, but concurrence was not requested by Colorado at the time of
this proposal. This exceedance did not cause a violation of the
PM10 NAAQS.
Table 1--Lamar PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Values
[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08-099-0001 and 08-099-
0002]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum 2nd maximum
Year concentration concentration Monitoring site
([mu]g/m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................ 133 111 Power Plant.
2002........................................ 141 125 Power Plant.
2003........................................ 132 120 Power Plant.
2004........................................ 93 82 Municipal Complex.
2005........................................ 116 110 Power Plant.
2006........................................ 136 127 Power Plant
2007........................................ 93 82 Power Plant.
2008........................................ 367 123 Power Plant.
2009........................................ 233 171 Power Plant.
2010........................................ 136 131 Power Plant.
2011........................................ 122 115 Municipal Complex.
2012........................................ 147 133 Power Plant.
2013........................................ 147 141 Municipal Complex.
2014........................................ 129 102 Municipal Complex.
2015........................................ 423 94 Municipal Complex.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 50.1(j) defines an exceptional event as an event which
affects air quality, is not reasonably controllable or preventable, is
an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a
particular location or a natural event, and is determined by the
Administrator in accordance with 40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional
event. Exceptional events do not include stagnation of air masses or
meteorological inversions, meteorological events involving high
temperatures or lack of precipitation, or air pollution relating to
source noncompliance. 40 CFR 50.14(b) states that the EPA shall exclude
data from use in determinations of exceedances and NAAQS violations
where a state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that an
exceptional event caused a specific air pollution concentration in
excess of one or more NAAQS at a particular air quality monitoring
location and otherwise satisfies the requirements of section 50.14.
Throughout the years 2001 to 2014, the Lamar area monitors have
recorded several exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS that have
resulted from natural high wind exceptional events. The Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD) flagged a total of 55 exceedances as
exceptional events in the EPA's Air Quality System, which is the EPA's
repository for ambient air quality data. Of these 55 flagged
exceedances, the EPA has concurred on 34. Table 2 summarizes the
exceptional events exceedances that the EPA has concurred on, due to
the State's successful demonstrations that the exceedances were caused
by natural high wind exceptional events. Thus, we are proposing to
exclude 34 flagged exceedances from use in determining that Lamar
continues to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. See 40 CFR
50.14(b) and (c)(2)(ii).
Table 2--Lamar PM10 EPA Approved Exceptional Events
[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08-099-0001 and 08-099-
0002]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hr PM10 Value
Event date Monitoring site ([mu]g/m\3\) Data flag
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02/09/02............................ Power Plant........... 246 High Wind.
03/07/02............................ Power Plant........... 246 High Wind.
05/21/02............................ Power Plant........... 196 High Wind.
05/21/02............................ Municipal............. 183 High Wind.
06/20/02............................ Power Plant........... 181 High Wind.
06/20/02............................ Municipal............. 162 High Wind.
04/05/05............................ Power Plant........... 203 High Wind.
04/05/05............................ Municipal............. 164 High Wind.
[[Page 34937]]
05/22/08............................ Power Plant........... 227 High Wind.
01/19/09............................ Power Plant........... 174 High Wind.
01/19/09............................ Municipal............. 173 High Wind.
04/03/11............................ Power Plant........... 169 High Wind.
11/05/11............................ Power Plant........... 192 High Wind.
03/18/12............................ Municipal............. 242 High Wind.
04/2/12............................. Municipal............. 163 High Wind.
02/08/13............................ Municipal............. 159 High Wind.
04/09/13............................ Municipal............. 1220 High Wind.
05/01/13............................ Municipal............. 207 High Wind.
05/24/13............................ Municipal............. 406 High Wind.
05/25/13............................ Municipal............. 168 High Wind.
05/28/13............................ Municipal............. 201 High Wind.
12/24/13............................ Municipal............. 168 High Wind.
02/16/14............................ Municipal............. 153 High Wind.
03/11/14............................ Municipal............. 387 High Wind.
03/15/14............................ Municipal............. 173 High Wind.
03/18/14............................ Municipal............. 299 High Wind.
03/29/14............................ Municipal............. 263 High Wind.
03/30/14............................ Municipal............. 264 High Wind.
03/31/14............................ Municipal............. 223 High Wind.
04/23/14............................ Municipal............. 350 High Wind.
04/29/14............................ Municipal............. 321 High Wind.
11/10/14............................ Municipal............. 298 High Wind.
04/01/15............................ Municipal............. 253 High Wind.
04/02/15............................ Municipal............. 419 High Wind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 below shows the estimated number of exceedances for the
Lamar PM10 maintenance area for the three-year periods of
2001 through 2003, 2002 through 2004, 2003 through 2005, 2004 through
2006, 2005 through 2007, 2006 through 2008, 2007 through 2009, 2008
through 2010, 2009 through 2011, 2010 through 2012, 2010 through 2013,
2012 through 2014, and 2013 through 2015. To attain the standard, the
three-year average number of expected exceedances (values greater than
150 [mu]g/m\3\) must be less than or equal to one. The table reflects
continuous attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.
Table 3--Lamar PM10 Estimated Exceedances
[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS
identification number 08-099-0001 and 08-099-0002]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Year estimated 3-Year estimated
number of number of
Design value period exceedances at exceedances at
power plant municipal complex
monitor monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-2003....................... 0 0
2002-2004....................... 0 0
2003-2005....................... 0 0
2004-2006....................... 0 0
2005-2007....................... 0 0
2006-2008....................... 0.3 0
2007-2009....................... 1 0
2008-2010....................... 1 0
2009-2011....................... 0.7 0
2010-2012....................... 0 0
2011-2013 \3\................... NA 0
2012-2014 \3\................... NA 0
2013-2015 \3\................... NA 0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What was the State's process?
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that a state provide
reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and
submitting it to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On November 21, 2011, the State of Colorado requested the
removal of the Power Plant monitor due to poor citing conditions, as
well as serving as a redundant monitor to the Lamar Municipal
PM10 monitoring site, which is located 0.5 miles to the
southeast. On August 28, 2012 the EPA concurred with the request for
removal of the Lamar Power Plant PM10 SLAMS site/sampler
AQS ID:08-099-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan on
December 20, 2012. The AQCC approved and adopted
[[Page 34938]]
the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan during this hearing.
The Governor's designee submitted the revised plan to the EPA on May
13, 2013.
We have evaluated the revised maintenance plan and have determined
that the State met the requirements for reasonable public notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. On November 13,
2013, by operation of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the revised
maintenance plan was deemed to have met the minimum ``completeness''
criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance
Plan
The following are the key elements of a maintenance plan for
PM10: Emission Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration,
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency
Plan, and Transportation Conformity Requirements/Motor Vehicle Emission
Budget for PM10. Below, we describe our evaluation of these
elements as they pertain to the revised Lamar PM10
Maintenance Plan.
A. Emission Inventory
The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan includes three
inventories of daily PM10 emissions for the Lamar area, one
for 2010 as the base year, one interim inventory for 2020, and one
inventory for 2025 as the maintenance year. The APCD developed these
emission inventories using the EPA-approved emissions modeling methods
and updated transportation and demographics data. Each emission
inventory lists estimated PM10 emissions for individual
source categories within the Lamar PM10 maintenance area. A
more detailed description of the 2010, 2020 and 2025 inventories and
information on model assumptions and parameters for each source
category are contained in the State's PM10 maintenance plan
Technical Support Document (TSD). The inventories include the following
source categories: Helicopters, construction, fuel combustion,
railroads, structure fires, wood burning, paved road dust, unpaved road
dust, non-road commercial equipment, non-road construction and mining
equipment, non-road industrial equipment, non-road lawn and garden
equipment (commercial), non-road lawn and garden equipment
(residential), non-road railroad equipment, and highway vehicles. We
find that Colorado has prepared adequate emission inventories for the
area.
B. Maintenance Demonstration
The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan uses emissions
roll-forward modeling to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS through 2025. Using assumptions about the
inventory source categories, the State applied the percent change in
emissions for the relevant inventory source categories between 2010 and
2025 to ``roll-forward'' the baseline PM10 concentration.
For example, the State determined that the projected growth of the
emissions inventory from 2010 to 2025 is 4.8%. The growth factor was
applied to the baseline design day PM10 concentration, less
the background PM10 concentration, to obtain a projected
PM10 concentration for the maintenance year. Using 2009 to
2011 data from the Power Plant Monitor and the Municipal Complex
Monitor, the calculated PM10 maintenance concentration in
the year 2025 are 140.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and 125.6 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively.
To account for new data acquired since the submission of the
State's Plan, we evaluated the 2012-2014 data in AQS to determine
whether maintenance would be demonstrated using a more recent design
value as a starting point. Excluding the exceedances in 2012, 2013 and
2014 that were caused by high wind exceptional events, the EPA employed
an upper tail data distribution curve fit method \4\ and determined the
2012-2014 design value to be 137.7 [mu]g/m\3\. As noted, the State's
emissions inventories contain emissions estimates for 2010, 2020, and
2025. An examination of these inventories reveals that total emissions
in 2020 represent a point on a line of near linear growth from 2015 to
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The PM10 SIP Development Guideline indicates that
the table look-up method only provides an estimation of the
PM10 design value, and that more accurate design values
can be obtained through the upper tail data distribution curve fit
method. Further information regarding the determination of the 2012-
2014 design value can be found in the March 25, 2016 memo from
Richard M. Payton to the Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan
Approval Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging that the State's analysis is complete, we used a
roll-forward analysis in order to estimate emissions growth from 2014
to 2025 and ensure that growth in emissions would result in
PM10 remaining below the NAAQS. We did this to evaluate
future maintenance in light of the somewhat higher 2012-2014 design
value, compared to the 2009-2011 design value Colorado evaluated.
Following the same approach as Colorado, we first removed the 21 [mu]g/
m\3\ background concentration from the 137.7 [mu]g/m\3\ design value,
which left 116.7 [mu]g/m\3\. Next, relying on the linear growth in
emissions, we estimated 2014 emissions would grow 3.5 percent by
2025.\5\ Using this factor, we projected the 116.7 [mu]g/m\3\ from 2014
forward to 2025 to arrive at a concentration of 120.8 [mu]g/m\3\. We
then added the 21 [mu]g/m\3\ of background to this value to predict a
total concentration in 2025 of 141.8 [mu]g/m\3\. This value is below
the PM10 NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and, thus, is consistent
with maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Total emissions in 2010 were 248.0 tons/year, while total
emissions were projected to be 253.7 tons/year in 2020 and 259.9
tons/year in 2025; these values are nearly collinear. Updating the
roll forward for growth from a 2014 monitored value to 2025 requires
a projection of the growth in emissions from 2014 to 2025. Linear
emissions growth from 2010 to 2014 is (259.9 tons/year-248.0 tons/
year)*(2014-2010)/(2025-2010), or 3.2 tons/year, bringing 2014
emissions to (248.0 + 3.2) = 251.2 tons/year. Growth from 2014 to
2025, therefore, is (259.9 tons/year-251.2 tons/year)/251.2 tons/
year * 100% = 3.5%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment
In the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan, the State
commits to continue to operate an air quality monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and the EPA-approved Colorado Monitoring
SIP Element to verify continued attainment of the PM10
NAAQS. This includes the continued operation of a PM10
monitor in the Lamar area, which the State will rely on to track
PM10 emissions in the maintenance area. At the time of the
State's submittal, the EPA had not approved the November 21, 2011
request for removal of the Lamar Power Plant monitoring site. On August
28, 2012, EPA approved this request, and the Lamar Power Plant
monitoring site ceased operations on December 31, 2012. We are
proposing to approve the State's commitment as satisfying the relevant
requirements.
D. Contingency Plan
Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement
the State has identified contingency measures along with a schedule for
the development and implementation of such measures. The revised Lamar
PM10 Maintenance Plan indicates that, upon notification of
an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS, the APCD and local
government staff in the Lamar area will develop appropriate contingency
measures intended to prevent or correct a violation of the
PM10 standard. Upon a violation, a public hearing process at
the State and
[[Page 34939]]
local level will begin. The AQCC may endorse or approve local measures,
or it may adopt State enforceable measures. The revised Lamar
PM10 Maintenance Plan states that contingency measures will
be adopted and fully implemented within one year of a violation.
The State identifies the following as potential contingency
measures in the revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan: (1)
Increased street sweeping requirements; (2) additional road paving
requirements; (3) more stringent street sand specifications; (4) wood
burning restrictions; (5) expanded use of alternative de-icers; (6) re-
establishing new source review permitting requirements for stationary
sources; (7) controls at existing stationary sources; (8)
transportation control measures designed to reduce vehicle miles
traveled; and (9) other emission control measures appropriate for the
area based on the following considerations: Cost effectiveness,
PM10 emission reduction potential, economic and social
concerns, and/or other factors.
We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised Lamar
PM10 Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the
requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
E. Transportation Conformity Requirements: Motor Vehicle Emission
Budget for PM10
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the
criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. To effectuate its purpose, the
conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget(s)
(MVEB(s)) contained in a control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as the
level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the
attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations regarding
MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan contains a
single MVEB of 764 lbs/day of PM10 for the year 2025, the
maintenance year. Once the State submitted the revised plan with the
2025 MVEB to the EPA for approval, 40 CFR 93.118 required that the EPA
determine whether the MVEB was adequate.
Our criteria for determining whether a SIP's MVEB is adequate for
conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was
promulgated August 15, 1997 (see 62 FR 43780). Our process for
determining adequacy is described in our July 1, 2004 Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments (see 69 FR 40004) and in relevant
guidance.\6\ We used these resources in making our adequacy
determination described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004 Final
Transportation Conformity Rule, Conformity Implementation in Multi-
Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and
New Air Quality Standards'' (EPA420-B-04-012 July, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2013 EPA announced the availability of the revised
Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan, and the PM10 MVEB,
on the EPA's transportation conformity adequacy Web site. The EPA
solicited public comment on the MVEB, and the public comment period
closed on December 16, 2013. We did not receive any comments. This
information is available at the EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#lamar-co.
By letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment dated January 23, 2014, the EPA found that the revised
Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan and the 2025 PM10
MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity purposes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In a Federal Register notice dated October 3, 2014, we
notified the public of our finding (see 79 FR 59767). This adequacy
determination became effective on October 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the EPA-approved 2015
PM10 MVEB must continue to be used for analysis years 2015
through 2024 (as long as such years are within the timeframe of the
transportation plan), unless the State elects to submit a SIP revision
to revise the 2015 PM10 MVEB and the EPA approves the SIP
revision. The revised Lamar PM10 Maintenance Plan did not
revise the previously-approved 2015 PM10 MVEB nor establish
a new MVEB for 2015. Accordingly, the MVEB ``. . . for the most recent
prior year . . .'' (i.e., 2015) from the original maintenance plan must
continue to be used (see 40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(iv)).
We note that there is a considerable difference between the 2025
and 2015 budgets--764 lbs/day versus 7,534 lbs/day. This is largely an
artifact of changes in the methods, models, and emission factors used
to estimate mobile source emissions. The 2025 MVEB is consistent with
the State's 2025 emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust and road dust,
and, thus, is consistent with the State's maintenance demonstration for
2025.
The discrepancy between the 2015 and 2025 MVEBs is not a
significant issue for several reasons. As a practical matter, the 2025
MVEB of 764 lbs/day of PM10 would be controlling for any
conformity determination involving the relevant years because
conformity would have to be shown to both the 2015 MVEB and the 2025
MVEB. Also, for any maintenance plan like the revised Lamar
PM10 Maintenance Plan that only establishes a MVEB for the
last year of the maintenance plan, 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i) requires that
the demonstration of consistency with the budget be accompanied by a
qualitative finding that there are no factors that would cause or
contribute to a new violation or exacerbate an existing violation in
the years before the last year of the maintenance plan. Therefore, when
a conformity determination is prepared which assesses conformity for
the years before 2025, the 2025 MVEB and the underlying assumptions
supporting it would have to be considered. Finally, 40 CFR 93.110
requires the use of the latest planning assumptions in conformity
determinations. Thus, the most current motor vehicle and road dust
emission factors would need to be used, and we expect the analysis
would show greatly reduced PM10 motor vehicle and road dust
emissions from those calculated in the first maintenance plan. In view
of the above, the EPA is proposing to approve the 2025 PM10
MVEB of 764 lbs/day.
V. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the revised Lamar PM10
Maintenance Plan that was submitted to us on May 13, 2013, with one
exception. We are not acting on the submitted update to the Natural
Events Action Plan (NEAP), as the NEAP is not part of the SIP. We are
proposing to approve the remainder of the revised maintenance plan
because it demonstrates maintenance through 2025 as required by CAA
section 175A(b), retains the control measures from the initial
PM10 maintenance plan that EPA approved on October 25, 2005,
and meets other CAA requirements for a section 175A maintenance plan.
We are
[[Page 34940]]
proposing to exclude from use in determining that Lamar continues to
attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of the PM10
NAAQS that were recorded at the Lamar Power Plant PM10
monitor on February 9, 2002; March 7, 2002; May 21, 2002; June 20,
2002; April 5, 2002; May 22, 2008; Jan 19, 2009; April 3, 2011; and
November 5, 2011 because the exceedances meet the criteria for
exceptional events caused by high wind natural events. Additionally,
the EPA is proposing to exclude from use in determining that Lamar
continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS, exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS that were recorded at the Municipal Complex
PM10 monitor on May 21, 2002; June 20, 2002; April 5, 2005;
January 19, 2009; February 8, 2013; March 18, 2012; April 2, 2012;
April 9, 2013; May 1, 2013; May 24, 2013; May 25, 2013; May 28, 2013;
December 24, 2013; February 16, 2014; March 11, 2014; March 15, 2014;
March 18, 2014; March 29, 2014; March 30, 2014; March 31, 2014; April
23, 2014; April 29, 2014; November 10, 2014; April 1, 2015; and April
2, 2015 because the exceedances meet the criteria for exceptional
events caused by high wind natural events. We are also proposing to
approve the revised maintenance plan's 2025 transportation conformity
MVEB for PM10 of 764 lbs/day.
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements
and does not propose to impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose s ubstantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 19, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-12804 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P