Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10, 34935-34940 [2016-12804]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
twelve hour advance notice is given by
calling the number posted at the bridge.
Dated: May 18, 2016.
K.C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First
Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016–12929 Filed 5–31–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
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 https://
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
SUMMARY:
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://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,
hou.james@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY 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 https://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;
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34935
• 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’’).
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 (mg/m3). An area attains the 24hour 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
34936
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
‘‘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.
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 mg/m3. In 2008 the area experienced
an exceedance measured at 367 mg/m3;
in 2009 exceedances measured at 233
mg/m3 and 171 mg/m3; and in 2015 an
exceedance measured at 423mg/m3.
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]
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2nd maximum
concentration
(μg/m3)
Maximum
concentration
(μg/m3)
Year
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
133
141
132
93
116
136
93
367
233
136
122
147
147
129
423
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
Monitoring site
111
125
120
82
110
127
82
123
171
131
115
133
141
102
94
Power Plant.
Power Plant.
Power Plant.
Municipal Complex.
Power Plant.
Power Plant
Power Plant.
Power Plant.
Power Plant.
Power Plant.
Municipal Complex.
Power Plant.
Municipal Complex.
Municipal Complex.
Municipal Complex.
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 24hour 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]
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Event date
02/09/02
03/07/02
05/21/02
05/21/02
06/20/02
06/20/02
04/05/05
04/05/05
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
2 An exceedance is defined as a daily value that
is above the level of the 24-hour standard, 150 mg/
m3, after rounding to the nearest 10 mg/m3 (i.e.,
values ending in five or greater are to be rounded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 31, 2016
24-hr PM10
Value
(μg/m3)
Monitoring site
Jkt 238001
up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 mg/m3 would not
be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150
mg/m3; whereas, a recorded value of 155 mg/m3
would be an exceedance since it would be rounded
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
246
246
196
183
181
162
203
164
Data flag
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
to 160 mg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K,
section 1.0.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
34937
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—LAMAR PM10 EPA APPROVED EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS—Continued
[Based on data from power plant and municipal complex sites, AQS identification number 08–099–0001 and 08–099–0002]
24-hr PM10
Value
(μg/m3)
Event date
Monitoring site
05/22/08 ......................................
01/19/09 ......................................
01/19/09 ......................................
04/03/11 ......................................
11/05/11 ......................................
03/18/12 ......................................
04/2/12 ........................................
02/08/13 ......................................
04/09/13 ......................................
05/01/13 ......................................
05/24/13 ......................................
05/25/13 ......................................
05/28/13 ......................................
12/24/13 ......................................
02/16/14 ......................................
03/11/14 ......................................
03/15/14 ......................................
03/18/14 ......................................
03/29/14 ......................................
03/30/14 ......................................
03/31/14 ......................................
04/23/14 ......................................
04/29/14 ......................................
11/10/14 ......................................
04/01/15 ......................................
04/02/15 ......................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Power Plant ......................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Municipal ..........................................................................................
Table 3 below shows the estimated
number of exceedances for the Lamar
PM10 maintenance area for the threeyear 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
227
174
173
169
192
242
163
159
1220
207
406
168
201
168
153
387
173
299
263
264
223
350
321
298
253
419
Data flag
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
Wind.
exceedances (values greater than 150 mg/
m3) 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
number of
exceedances at
power plant monitor
Design value period
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2001–2003 ...............................................................................................................................................
2002–2004 ...............................................................................................................................................
2003–2005 ...............................................................................................................................................
2004–2006 ...............................................................................................................................................
2005–2007 ...............................................................................................................................................
2006–2008 ...............................................................................................................................................
2007–2009 ...............................................................................................................................................
2008–2010 ...............................................................................................................................................
2009–2011 ...............................................................................................................................................
2010–2012 ...............................................................................................................................................
2011–2013 3 .............................................................................................................................................
2012–2014 3 .............................................................................................................................................
2013–2015 3 .............................................................................................................................................
III. What was the State’s process?
and public hearing before adopting a
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires
that a state provide reasonable notice
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
1
1
0.7
0
NA
NA
NA
3-Year estimated
number of
exceedances at
municipal complex
monitor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
SIP revision and submitting it to the
EPA.
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
34938
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, nonroad lawn and garden equipment
(commercial), non-road lawn and
garden equipment (residential), nonroad railroad equipment, and highway
vehicles. We find that Colorado has
prepared adequate emission inventories
for the area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 mg/m3 and 125.6 mg/m3,
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 mg/
m3. 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.
Acknowledging that the State’s
analysis is complete, we used a rollforward 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 mg/m3 background
concentration from the 137.7 mg/m3
design value, which left 116.7 mg/m3.
4 The PM
10 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 mg/m3
from 2014 forward to 2025 to arrive at
a concentration of 120.8 mg/m3. We then
added the 21 mg/m3 of background to
this value to predict a total
concentration in 2025 of 141.8 mg/m3.
This value is below the PM10 NAAQS of
150 mg/m3 and, thus, is consistent with
maintenance.
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
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%.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
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: https://
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
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)).
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).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34939
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
34940
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 May 31, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0011; FRL–9947–18–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Tennessee;
Revision and Removal of Stage I and
II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
changes to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Tennessee through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) on February 8,
2016, for parallel processing. This draft
SIP revision seeks to lower applicability
thresholds for certain sources subject to
Federal Stage I requirements, remove
the Stage II vapor control requirements,
and add requirements for
decommissioning gasoline dispensing
facilities, as well as requirements for
new and upgraded gasoline dispensing
facilities in the Nashville, Tennessee
Area (hereinafter also known as the
‘‘Middle Tennessee Area’’). EPA has
preliminarily determined that
Tennessee’s February 8, 2016, draft SIP
revision is approvable because it is
consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2016–0011 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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. 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
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
Sheckler’s phone number is (404) 562–
9222. She can also be reached via
electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@
epa.gov.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
]]>Agencies
[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 https://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 https://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, hou.james@epa.gov.
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 https://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: https://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
