Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61563 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 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. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 31, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(336)(i)(B) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(336) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rules 74.6, 74.6.1, 74.12, 74.13, 

74.19, 74.19.1, 74.24, and 74.30, 

adopted on November 11, 2003. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21264 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CO–001–0076a; FRL–7983–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; CO; 

PM10 Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes, Lamar 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Colorado on July 31, 2002, for the 

purpose of redesignating the Lamar, 

Colorado area from nonattainment to 

attainment for particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 

(PM10) under the 1987 standards. The 

Governor’s submittal, among other 

things, documents that the Lamar area 

has attained the PM10 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

requests redesignation to attainment and 

includes a maintenance plan for the area 

demonstrating maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for ten years. EPA is approving 

this redesignation request and 

maintenance plan because Colorado has 

met the applicable requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. Upon 

the effective date of this approval, the 

Lamar area will be designated 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. This 

action is being taken under sections 107, 

110, and 175A of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 25, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this under Docket ID No. CO–

001–0076a. Some information in the 

docket is not publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available in hard 

copy at the Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the docket. You may view the 

docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Copies of the Incorporation by 

Reference material are also available at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Room B–108 (Mail 

Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Libby Faulk, Air and Radiation Program, 

U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, 

Ste. 200 (8P–AR), Denver, Colorado, 

80202–2466. Telephone: (303) 312–

6083. E-mail Address: 

faulk.libby@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

5, 2004, EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) (69 FR 

47339) and a direct final rule (DFR) (69 

FR 47366) approving the redesignation 

of the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area 

to attainment. During the public 

comment period, EPA received adverse 

comments and therefore withdrew the 

DFR on September 20, 2004 (69 FR 

56163). EPA is addressing the comments 

received during the comment period in 

this final rule action. For the purpose of 

this document, we are giving meaning to 

certain words or initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State mean the State 

of Colorado, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Final Action 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing in this 

Rule? 

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA’s 

Response 

III. Consideration of CAA section 110(l) 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Final Action 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing in 

This Rule? 

We are approving the Governor’s 

submittal of July 31, 2002, that requests 

redesignation for the Lamar 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1987 PM10 standards. Included in 

Colorado’s submittal are changes to the 

‘‘State Implementation Plan—Specific 

Regulations for Nonattainment—

Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local 

Areas)’’ which we are approving, under 

61564 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

section 110 of the CAA, into Colorado’s 

SIP. We are also approving the 

maintenance plan for the Lamar PM10

nonattainment area, which was 

submitted with Colorado’s July 31, 2002 

redesignation request. We are approving 

this request and maintenance plan 

because Colorado has adequately 

addressed all of the requirements of the 

CAA for redesignation to attainment 

applicable to the Lamar PM10

nonattainment areas. Upon the effective 

date of this action, the Lamar area 

designation status under 40 CFR part 81 

will be revised to attainment. Please 

refer to our proposed and direct final 

rule actions published on August 5, 

2004 (69 FR47339; 69 FR 47366) for a 

more detailed explanation of the 

redesignation requirements and analysis 

of how the Lamar area has met EPA’s 

requirements. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA’s Response 

(1) Comment: A comment received 

expressed concern regarding Lamar’s 

recent proposal to convert its natural gas 

power plant to coal. The commenter 

believes that the conversion will 

produce a significant increase in PM10

emissions, both from the stack, the coal 

handling equipment, and the train 

traffic to bring in the coal. The 

commenter expressed concern as to 

whether the coal plant was considered 

in the redesignations process and is 

unsure as to whether the coal plant 

would go through the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting process. The commenter 

pointed out that in 2001, the air monitor 

at the power plant had a high value of 

152, in 2002, a high value of 141 and a 

4th high value of 125, and in 2003, it 

had a high value of 132. The commenter 

believes that it would be impossible for 

the new coal fired power plant using 

pulverized coal technology and 

unloading coal from a train in the windy 

eastern plains of Colorado to not push 

the PM monitor at the power plant over 

the NAAQS. 

Response: Lamar Light and Power 

(part of The Arkansas River Power 

Authority) submitted an air permit 

application that was received by the 

Colorado Department of Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) on December 30, 

2004. The application requests approval 

to construct a new coal-fired boiler 

(using natural gas for startup fuel), 

turbine, and auxiliaries (i.e., coalhandling, ash handling, lime handling, 

etc.) at the existing Lamar Power Plant. 

The new unit will replace the existing 

boiler currently fired on either natural 

gas or fuel oil. On January 13, 2005, EPA 

received a copy of the application from 

CDPHE. As part of their permit 

application, Lamar Light and Power 

conducted a significant impact 

modeling analysis. For the increase in 

PM10 emissions that has been requested 

by Lamar Light and Power, a significant 

impact modeling analysis for PM10 was 

required regardless of whether the 

applicant was subject to PSD permitting 

for PM10 or not. Lamar Light and 

Power’s analysis shows impacts less 

than the threshold that would require a 

cumulative impact modeling analysis 

for PM10. As such, this project’s 

emissions are considered not to cause or 

contribute to a violation of the PM10

NAAQS. 

The significant impact modeling 

analysis submitted by Lamar Light and 

Power went through CDPHE review 

prior to issuance of the draft permit, 

which was published for public review 

on August 15, 2005. The draft permit 

issued by CDPHE was subject to a 30- 

day public comment period, which 

ended September 15, 2005. EPA did not 

submit adverse comments on the 

modeling analysis to CDPHE during the 

public comment period. 

Since PM10 is currently a 

nonattainment pollutant, the PSD 

program is not applicable for PM10. The 

major New Source Review (NSR) 

program would apply if this project 

were to exceed major source thresholds. 

Based on the information in the permit 

application submitted to the State, this 

project is minor for PM10 nonattainment 

NSR review. That said, the area has 

been designated as attainment/ 

unclassifiable for PM2.5. Based on 

current EPA guidance (April 5, 2005), 

PM10 is used as a surrogate for 

regulating PM2.5 under the NSR 

program. As such, PM10 was subject to 

PSD review for this project as a 

surrogate for the attainment/ 

unclassifiable pollutant, PM2.5. 

As an additional note, the proposed 

boiler is not utilizing traditional 

‘‘pulverized coal’’ technology. Lamar 

Light and Power is proposing to 

construct a circulating fluidized bed 

unit. 

Currently, there are four monitoring 

stations in the Lamar area, two of which 

have been monitoring PM10 since the 

mid-1970s and the other two started 

monitoring this year for a special study 

that was at the request of the Prowers 

Local Health Department to monitor 

potential impacts from nearby feed lots. 

The two special purpose monitors 

(SPM) operated for 6 months (March to 

September, 2004) on an every 6th day 

schedule. Both monitors recorded lower 

values than the permanent PM10

monitors that run on an every day 

schedule. The highest 24-hour value 

recorded was 69 μg/m3 at the Red Barn 

station, well below the 24-hour 150 μg/ 

m3 PM10 standard. A data summary of 

the two SPM monitors can be found on 

EPA’s Air Data Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/data/. 

There have been some PM10

concentrations for a 24-hour period at 

the permanent PM10 monitors that have 

exceeded the NAAQS during high wind 

events. However, the high concentration 

PM10 data exceeding the NAAQS were 

due to high wind events and as a result 

these data have been excused by EPA 

from the NAAQS calculation. 

Additionally, the Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment was 

required to create and implement a 

Natural Event Action Plan (NEAP) to 

control sources during future high wind 

events. (See response to comment #4 for 

more details on Lamar’s NEAP.) PM10

levels otherwise are well below the 

NAAQS. According to 40 CFR 50.6(a), 

‘‘the standards are attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour average 

concentration above 150 μg/m3, 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 μg/m3

(i.e., values ending in 50 or greater are 

to be rounded up).’’ Therefore, a 

concentration of 152 μg/m3 is not a 

NAAQS exceedance per the NAAQS 

calculation procedures detailed in 40 

CFR 50 (Section 50.6 and Appendix K). 

Rounding of the measured 

concentrations and the expected 

exceedance calculations are further 

explained in the CFR and in EPA’s 

‘‘Guideline on Data Handling 

Conventions for the PM NAAQS’’ which 

show the Lamar area below the PM10

NAAQS. 

(2) Comment: Another comment 

expressed was in regards to Xcel’s 

proposal for a new coal fired unit in 

Pueblo, Colorado that the commenter 

believes will represent a significant 

increase in PM10 emission, especially in 

condensable PM10 that, according to the 

commenter, will leave the plant’s stack 

as SO2 and thus will not be analyzed as 

PM10 under the PSD permitting process, 

if there is a PSD process, but will be 

condensable PM10 (mainly SO4 and 

H2SO4) by the time it gets to Lamar. 

Response: EPA has indicated that 

condensable PM emissions need to be 

considered as part of the PSD permitting 

process. This position is articulated in 

the March 31, 1994 letter from EPA’s 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) to the State of Iowa. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61565 

The letter says that when evaluating 

compliance tests for determining 

ambient PM10 levels in PSD permits, 

States are required to compute PM10 as 

the sum of in-stack and condensable 

PM10. This letter also requires that 

condensable PM10 emissions be 

included in the modeling analysis. 

Please refer to EPA’s OAQPS letter to 

the State of Iowa, dated March 31, 1994, 

that is included under additional 

materials in the docket for this action. 

EPA, Region 8 has recently commented 

to the State of Montana and Utah on 

PSD permits that did not include limits 

on condensable PM10 or incorporate 

these limits in the modeling analysis. 

The letter from EPA to the State of 

Montana is dated December 8, 2004, and 

the letter from EPA to the State of Utah 

is dated April 6, 2004, both of which are 

contained under additional materials in 

the docket for this notice. Xcel’s permit 

application includes PSD review for 

increases in condensable PM10

emissions. 

(3) Comment: A comment received 

expressed concern regarding the Federal 

Register notice stating that the PM10

emissions are mainly wind blown. The 

commenter believes that this statement 

ignores the fact that there is a major 

combined animal feeding operation 

(CAFO) in Lamar that is a significant 

source of PM10 emissions and that the 

PM10 and precursor emissions from the 

source were not properly considered in 

determining attainment. 

Response: At this time, the CAA does 

not provide EPA with the authority to 

regulate air emissions from CAFOs, 

therefore, EPA is unable to require the 

State to include emissions from CAFO 

sources in their PM10 redesignation 

request for the Lamar area. 

(4) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern over the statement 

that the 1996–2000 violations were 

caused because of ‘‘high winds.’’ The 

commenter stated that it is common for 

there to be high winds in Lamar, so 

much so that a large wind farm (over 

100 MW) has been installed. The 

commenter stated that if Lamar had a 

reasonable action plan for high winds, 

it would have to actually be in effect the 

vast majority of the time, and that it 

should not be an action plan but rather 

a permanent part of the SIP which is 

always in effect. 

Response: On May 30, 1996, EPA 

issued the Natural Events Policy (NEP) 

in a memorandum from Mary D. 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. The NEP is the policy 

EPA established for addressing PM10

NAAQS violations that are due to 

natural events. The policy was applied 

in Lamar, and the State has submitted 

documentation to EPA in both the 

NEAP and the supporting 

documentation packages for each highwind exceedance that establishes a 

clear, causal relationship between the 

PM10 exceedances in Lamar and the 

unusually high-wind natural events. 

The State submitted to EPA in February 

of 1998 a NEAP for Lamar to address 

exceedances that were associated with 

unusually high winds and to address 

the question of what should be done to 

protect public health. EPA determined 

the 1998 Lamar NEAP met the 1996 

NEP. Per the 1996 NEP, the Lamar 

NEAP remains in effect to address 

future exceedances of the PM10 NAAQS 

caused by natural events. 

The NEAP for Lamar includes best 

available control measures (BACM) to 

control sources of wind-blown dust and 

many of these measures, including 

vegetative covers and wind breaks, are 

always in effect. BACM for PM10 are 

techniques that achieve a maximum 

degree of emissions reduction from a 

source as determined on a case-by-case 

basis considering technological and 

economic feasibility (59 FR 42010, 

August 16, 1994). The NEAP for Lamar 

also includes a continuing public 

education program and a blowing dust 

health advisory and notification 

program, that the NEAP for Lamar was 

developed by the State in conjunction 

with the City of Lamar’s Public Works 

Department, Parks and Recreation, 

Prowers County Commissioners, the 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation 

Services, and numerous other 

stakeholders. The State made the draft 

NEAP available for public review and 

comment by public notice in February 

1997, a media advisory and public 

meeting at a January 1998 Lamar City 

Council Meeting, a briefing for the 

Prowers County Commissioners, and a 

briefing of the Colorado Air Quality 

Control Commission in February 1998. 

The NEAP was submitted to EPA in 

October 1997. After the public 

presentations to the Lamar City Council 

and the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission, the State made revisions 

and submitted the final version of the 

NEAP to EPA on April 9, 1998 for 

review and comment. Since EPA 

provided comments and worked with 

the State during the development of the 

NEAP, EPA reviewed the final version 

and found no need to comment. EPA 

sent a letter to the State on June 5, 1998, 

indicating that they had no comments 

on the final version of the NEAP. As 

stated above, the Lamar NEAP remains 

in effect to address future exceedances 

of the PM10 NAAQS caused by natural 

events. 

(5) Comment: Commenter stated that 

there does not appear to be a PM2.5

monitor in Lamar which, according to 

the commenter, would not make sense 

from a public health point of view. The 

commenter went on to state that 

considering that much of the PM 

probably comes from the CAFO and the 

existing coal fired power plant in 

Pueblo, it is highly likely that Lamar is 

exceeding the PM2.5 standard and even 

more likely that Lamar is exceeding the 

level that the EPA staff has 

recommended for a revised PM2.5

standard. 

Response: In order to protect the 

public, air monitoring network design 

and siting are generally guided by 

citizen complaints and areas suspected 

of high concentrations, high 

populations, source emissions, etc. The 

full procedures for site selection can be 

found in a document called ‘‘Guidance 

for Network Design and Optimum Site 

Exposure for PM2.5 and PM10’’. 

However, since this action pertains to 

PM10 and not to PM2.5, the issues raised 

by the commenter are not relevant to the 

submission made by the State and thus 

do not affect our approval of it. 

III. Consideration of CAA Section 110(l) 

Section 110(1) of the CAA states that 

a SIP revision cannot be approved if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of a 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. As stated 

above, the Lamar area has shown 

continuous attainment of the PM10

NAAQS and has met the applicable 

Federal requirements for redesignation 

to attainment. The maintenance plan 

and associated SIP revision will not 

interfere with attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

61566 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 

40 are amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(106) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * * 

(106) On July 31, 2002, the State of 

Colorado submitted a maintenance plan 

for the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area 

and requested that this area be 

redesignated to attainment for the PM10

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. The redesignation request 

and maintenance plan satisfy all 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission, ‘‘State Implementation 

Plan—Specific Regulations for 

Nonattainment—Attainment/ 

Maintenance Areas (Local Elements),’’ 5 

CCR 1001–20, revisions adopted 

November 15, 2001, effective December 

30, 2001 as follows: Section IV, titled 

‘‘Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area,’’

and which supersedes and replaces all 

prior versions of Section IV. 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment, ‘‘Natural 

Events Action Plan for High Wind 

Events, Lamar, Colorado,’’ submitted to 

EPA on February 9, 1998 and 

subsequently approved by EPA, June 5, 

1998 and Lamar’s revised 2003 ‘‘Natural 

Events Action Plan for High Wind 

Events, Lamar, Colorado,’’ submitted to 

EPA on April 16, 2003 and subsequently 

approved by EPA, February 9, 2004. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.332 is amended by 

adding paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 52.332 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(o) On July 31, 2002, the State of 

Colorado submitted a maintenance plan 

for the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area 

and requested that this area be 

redesignated to attainment for the PM10

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. The redesignation request 

and maintenance plan satisfy all 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 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: 

§ 81.306 Colorado. 

* * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61567 

COLORADO—PM–10 

Designated area Designation 

date Type Classification 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

48 CFR Parts 1504, 1509, 1529, 1536, 

1537, and 1552 

[FRL–7986–2] 

Miscellaneous Revisions to EPAAR 

Clauses 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action on administrative changes to the 

EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR). 

This action revises the EPAAR, but does 

not impose any new requirements on 

Agency contractors. The revisions in 

this direct final rule will make minor 

corrections to and streamline Agency 

acquisition processes to be consistent 

with and non-duplicative of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Some 

EPAAR clauses will be revised and 

others will be removed. FAR clauses are 

available to provide coverage for the 

EPAAR clauses that are removed by this 

rule. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 27, 2005 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 25, 2005. If we 

receive such comment, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that this 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OARM–

2005–0004, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov. 

• Surface Mail: EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Attention Docket ID # No. OARM–2005–

0004. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OARM–2005–0004. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET online or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566–

1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tiffany Schermerhorn, Policy, Training 

and Oversight Division, Office of 

Acquisition Management, Mail Code 

3802R, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; e-mail address: 

schermerhorn.tiffany@epa.gov, 

telephone (202) 564–9902. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

This rule revises the Environmental 

Protection Agency Acquisition 

Regulation (EPAAR) to make 

administrative changes. EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because we view this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comment. This 

rule does not impose any new 

requirements on Agency contractors. All 

changes are minor and are consistent 

with the FAR. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule 

does not impose any new information