# Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Emission Controls for Alfalfa Dehydrators > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-9666 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** April 21, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-9666. Public record. Not legal advice.