Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0042-0020
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for Lamar
Posted Date: 2016-09-14T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63104-63105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21755]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0042; FRL-9952-09-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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 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). The EPA is approving the revised maintenance plan 
with the exception of one aspect of the plan's contingency measures.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0042. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, 
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the 
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 
excluding federal holidays.

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, hou.james@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The Lamar area was designated nonattainment for PM10 and 
classified as moderate by operation of law upon enactment of the Clean 
Air Act (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 May 13, 2013, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted the 
second 10-year update of the PM10 maintenance plan for the 
Lamar area to the EPA. On June 1, 2016, the EPA published a proposed 
rulemaking in which we proposed to approve the 10-year update because 
it demonstrates continued maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS 
through 2025.

II. Response to Comments

    We received one comment letter during the public comment period, 
which was submitted anonymously.
    Comment: Given the high number of high wind occurrences, and given 
the consistently windy nature of the Lamar area, the EPA cannot rely on 
the Exceptional Events Rule (EER) to ignore PM10 
exceedances. In doing so, the EPA is failing to provide environmental 
justice for people in rural areas, by failing to provide them with 
clean air.
    Response: 55 exceedances between two monitors over the course of 14 
years were reported by the City of Lamar. The EPA notes that high wind 
events do not have to be rare to be considered an exceptional event. 
Quoting from the ``Interim Guidance on the Preparation of 
Demonstrations in Support of Requests to Exclude Ambient Air Quality 
Data Affected by High Winds Under the Exceptional Events Rule,'' U.S. 
EPA May 2013 page 20, it states,

    The EPA will use a weight-of-evidence approach to assess each 
demonstration and comparison of the concentrations during event(s) 
in question with historical concentration data on a case-by-case 
basis. The EPA acknowledges that natural events, such as high wind 
dust events, can recur and still be eligible for exclusion under the 
EER. Therefore, events do not necessarily have to be rare to satisfy 
this element.

[[Page 63105]]

Of the 34 out of 55 flagged PM10 high wind monitored values, 
which the EPA has concurred with, each event has met the criteria set 
forth under the EER. Having satisfied these requirements, and having 
obtained concurrence from the EPA, we find that the exclusion of these 
data from regulatory decisions is appropriate. Additionally, the EPA's 
review and concurrence with the 34 of 55 flagged PM10 high 
wind monitored values is consistent with the EER, and such analysis is 
applied uniformly throughout the state.

III. Final Action

    We are approving 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 approving 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 the EPA approved on October 25, 2005, and meets other CAA 
requirements for a section 175A maintenance plan. We are excluding 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; January 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 approving the revised maintenance plan's 2025 transportation 
conformity motor vehicle emission budget for PM10 of 764 
lbs/day.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. See 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. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting 
federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For this reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    In addition, the SIP does not 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 
final rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).

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: August 26, 2016.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-21755 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P