[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9666]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 21, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO31-1-6012; FRL-4876-9]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Colorado; Emission Controls for Alfalfa Dehydrators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is proposing to approve a revision to 
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor of 
Colorado on May 6, 1993. The Governor requested that Colorado 
Regulation No. 5, which contained emission control regulations for 
alfalfa dehydration plant drum facilities that had begun operation 
prior to December 31, 1984, be removed from the federally-approved SIP. 
The State made this request pursuant to the repeal of Regulation No. 5 
from the State air quality regulations, which was mandated by 
amendments to the State's laws relating to the regulation of 
agricultural sources of air pollution. EPA is proposing to approve this 
revision because the State provided a modeling demonstration which 
showed that the removal of the emission limitations in Regulation No. 5 
from the SIP would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 
PM-10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The effect of 
this approval, if promulgated, will be to remove the provisions of 
Regulation No. 5 regarding existing alfalfa dehydrators from the 
federally-approved SIP.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
May 23, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to:

    Vicki Stamper, 8ART-AP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
    Copies of the State submittal and other relevant information are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations:

    Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VIII, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
    Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, 4300 
Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80222-1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Stamper, 8ART-AP, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, suite 
500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 293-1765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1992, the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act was 
signed into law. This State Act significantly revised the previously-
existing Colorado statutory provisions relating to air quality, 
including the regulation of agricultural sources of air pollution. 
Specifically, Section 25-7-109(8) of the Colorado Revised Statutes 
states that the State ``...shall not regulate emissions from 
agricultural production such as farming, seasonal crop drying, animal 
feeding, and pesticide application...'' unless such a source is 
otherwise required to meet Federal requirements (e.g., construction or 
operating permits, new source performance standards, etc.). Colorado's 
Regulation No. 5 contained emission control regulations for existing 
alfalfa dehydration plant drum facilities, which fall under the 
category of seasonal crop drying. Because the State Air Quality Control 
Commission is now prohibited from regulating air pollution emissions 
from sources such as seasonal crop drying, the State repealed Colorado 
Regulation No. 5 and requested that it be removed from the federally-
approved SIP.
    Only one alfalfa dehydration plant drum facility in the State was 
subject to Regulation No. 5. This plant is operated by the Graves Ranch 
company in the vicinity of La Porte, Colorado, which is near the city 
of Fort Collins in the northern Front Range area of the Colorado Rocky 
Mountains. The plant only operates during the summer agricultural 
season (June through October), and it is not currently considered to be 
a major stationary source. Regulation No. 5 was repealed by the State 
on March 18, 1993, resulting in the elimination of all State emission 
control limits for this source. The State subsequently submitted a 
request to remove Regulation No. 5 from the federally-approved SIP on 
May 6, 1993.
    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended, prohibits 
EPA from approving a revision to the SIP ``if the revision would 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 
reasonable further progress...or any other applicable requirement of 
[the Clean Air Act].''1 Thus, in order for EPA to approve a 
revision to a State's SIP, especially one which weakens or eliminates 
an existing emission limitation, EPA must ensure that the revision will 
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA informed 
the State of this requirement in a March 16, 1993 letter during the 
public comment period for the State's repeal of Regulation No. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The Clean Air Act (``the Act'') is codified in the U.S. Code 
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background

    The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(l) of the Act provides that each revision to an 
implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act must be adopted 
by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.
    The EPA must also determine whether a submittal is complete and 
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1) 
of the Act and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP 
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. (1992). The EPA 
attempts to make completeness determinations within 60 days of 
receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by 
operation of law if a completeness determination is not made by EPA 6 
months after receipt of the submission.
    After providing more than 30 days of prior public notice, the State 
of Colorado held a public hearing on March 18, 1993 to entertain public 
comment on the repeal of Colorado Regulation No. 5. The State 
subsequently repealed the regulation from the Code of Colorado 
Regulations and, on May 6, 1993, the Governor submitted a request that 
Regulation No. 5 be removed from the federally-approved SIP. EPA 
received the submittal on May 11, 1993.
    The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness 
shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness 
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1992). The submittal 
was found to be administratively and technically complete, and a letter 
dated July 8, 1993 was forwarded to the Governor indicating the 
completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be taken in the 
review process. EPA then proceeded to review the submittal for 
technical adequacy.

2. Technical Adequacy Review

    As noted, EPA had previously informed the State in a March 16, 1993 
letter that EPA could not approve the removal of Regulation No. 5 from 
the SIP without insuring that its repeal would not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. The criteria pollutant (i.e., 
pollutant which is subject to the NAAQS) emitted from the Graves' 
alfalfa dehydration plant of significance is PM-10 (those particles 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers). Currently, both La Porte and Fort Collins are designated 
unclassifiable for the attainment status of the PM-10 NAAQS.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\The provisions of section 193 of the Act which prohibit 
modification of certain control requirements in nonattainment areas 
without offsetting equivalent or greater emissions reductions are 
not applicable to this SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the section 110(l) noninterference requirement, the 
State presented PM-10 ambient air quality monitoring data for the Fort 
Collins and La Porte areas in its May 6, 1993 submittal. Specifically, 
the State submitted PM-10 monitoring data collected in Fort Collins 
during 1990 and in La Porte from May through December of 1992 which 
showed that the PM-10 values in the area are generally one-third of the 
NAAQS for PM-10. The State concluded that, because of these low values, 
the repeal of the emission limitations on the Graves' alfalfa 
dehydration plant would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 
the PM-10 NAAQS.
    EPA reviewed the information submitted by the State and determined 
that the monitoring data alone were insufficient to demonstrate that 
the repeal of the emission limits in Regulation No. 5 would not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS. 
Specifically, in an August 30, 1993 letter, EPA informed the State that 
these monitoring data were not adequate for the required demonstration 
because: (1) The data did not necessarily reflect the uncontrolled 
emissions from Graves' alfalfa dehydration plant (since Regulation No. 
5 was still in effect at the time of the monitoring); and (2) EPA did 
not review or approve the La Porte PM-10 monitor as a site of maximum 
concentration. Consequently, EPA requested that the State submit a 
modeling analysis based on the potential, uncontrolled emissions from 
the Graves' alfalfa dehydration plant to demonstrate that the repeal of 
the Regulation No. 5 emission limits would not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS.
    The State subsequently submitted the requested modeling 
demonstration on September 24, 1993. The State utilized conservative 
estimates for both the potential, uncontrolled PM-10 emissions from the 
Graves' alfalfa dehydration plant, as well as the ambient PM-10 
background concentration for the La Porte area, in an EPA-approved 
screening model. The model predicted a worst case cumulative 24-hour 
PM-10 concentration of 107 ug/m3 and a worst case cumulative 
annual PM-10 concentration of 7.75 ug/m3 in the La Porte area. EPA 
believes these values are sufficiently below the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS of 
150 ug/m3 and the annual PM-10 NAAQS of 50 ug/m3 to 
adequately demonstrate that the repeal of Regulation No. 5 will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS. See the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this notice for further 
details on the demonstration provided by the State.

III. Proposed Action

    Based on the demonstration provided by the State on September 24, 
1993 which showed that the repeal of Regulation No. 5 would not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS, EPA is 
proposing to approve the revision to the Colorado SIP submitted on May 
6, 1993. The effect of this approval, if promulgated, will be to remove 
the provisions of Regulation No. 5 regarding existing alfalfa 
dehydrators from the federally-approved SIP.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Note that the new construction or modification of alfalfa 
dehydration plant drum facilities will continue to be regulated 
under the State's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and 
new source review (NSR) provisions, which are included in Colorado 
Regulation No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As 
indicated at the outset of this document, EPA will consider any 
comments received by May 23, 1994.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small business, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    This proposed Federal SIP-approval of a regulatory relaxation does 
not impose any new requirements. Accordingly, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of 
these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the 
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of two 
years. The EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 
2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver until 
such time as it rules on EPA's request. This request is still 
applicable under Executive Order 12866, which superseded Executive 
Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: April 8, 1994.
Jack McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-9666 Filed 4-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F