[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 
(PM<INF>10</INF>) under the 1987 standards. The Governor's submittal, 
among other things, documents that the Lamar area has attained the 
PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 
requests redesignation to attainment and includes a maintenance plan 
for the area demonstrating maintenance of the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#accacdd9c0c782c0c5ceced5ecc9dccd82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4828591888fca888d86869da4819485ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>

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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> emissions 
that has been requested by Lamar Light and Power, a significant impact 
modeling analysis for PM<INF>10</INF> was required regardless of 
whether the applicant was subject to PSD permitting for PM<INF>10</INF> 
or not. Lamar Light and Power's analysis shows impacts less than the 
threshold that would require a cumulative impact modeling analysis for 
PM<INF>10</INF>. As such, this project's emissions are considered not 
to cause or contribute to a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> is currently a nonattainment pollutant, the 
PSD program is not applicable for PM<INF>10</INF>. 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment NSR review. That said, the area has been designated as 
attainment/unclassifiable for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Based on current EPA 
guidance (April 5, 2005), PM<INF>10</INF> is used as a surrogate for 
regulating PM<INF>2.5</INF> under the NSR program. As such, 
PM<INF>10</INF> was subject to PSD review for this project as a 
surrogate for the attainment/unclassifiable pollutant, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
    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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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\ PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations for a 24-hour 
period at the permanent PM<INF>10</INF> monitors that have exceeded the 
NAAQS during high wind events. However, the high concentration 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 <greek-i>4 for more details on Lamar's NEAP.) 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> emission, especially in condensable PM<INF>10</INF> 
that, according to the commenter, will leave the plant's stack as 
SO<INF>2</INF> and thus will not be analyzed as PM<INF>10</INF> under 
the PSD permitting process, if there is a PSD process, but will be 
condensable PM<INF>10</INF> (mainly SO<INF>4</INF> and 
H<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>4</INF>) 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 PM<INF>10</INF> levels in PSD permits, States are required to 
compute PM<INF>10</INF> as the sum of in-stack and condensable 
PM<INF>10</INF>. This letter also requires that condensable 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> emissions.
    (3) Comment: A comment received expressed concern regarding the 
Federal Register notice stating that the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> emissions and 
that the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS caused by 
natural events.
    (5) Comment: Commenter stated that there does not appear to be a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard and 
even more likely that Lamar is exceeding the level that the EPA staff 
has recommended for a revised PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF>''. However, since this action 
pertains to PM<INF>10</INF> and not to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area and 
requested that this area be redesignated to attainment for the 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area and requested 
that this area be redesignated to attainment for the PM<INF>10</INF> 
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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>