[Federal Register: May 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 97)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29243-29252]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20my05-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R10-OAR-2005-ID-0001; FRL-7915-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Portneuf Valley, Idaho,
Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Agency, or we)
proposes to approve revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM-10) for the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area. The revisions include a nonattainment area plan
that brought the area into attainment by the applicable attainment date
of December 31, 1996, a maintenance plan that will provide for
maintaining the PM-10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
ten years into the future, and a request to redesignate the Portneuf
Valley nonattainment area to attainment for PM-10. We are proposing to
approve these revisions because we believe the State adequately
demonstrates that the control measures being implemented in the
Portneuf Valley result in attainment and maintenance of the PM-10
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and that all other requirements
of the Clean Air Act for redesignation to attainment are met.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. R10-OAR-
2005-ID-0001, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
3. E-mail: r10.aircom@epa.gov.
4. Mail: Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, Attn: Steve Body, Mailcode: AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
5. Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Attn:
Steve Body (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101, 9th floor
mail room. Such deliveries are only accepted during EPA's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. R10-OAR-2005-
ID-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov website are an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, such as CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Please contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
review of these records.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics, Region 10, AWT-107, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth
Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; phone: (206) 553-0782; fax number: (206) 553-
0110; e-mail address: body.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Overview
A. What action are we taking?
B. What is the background for this action?
1. Description of Area
2. Description of Air Quality Problem
3. Designation History of the Nonattainment Area
4. SIP Submittal History of the Nonattainment Area
C. What impact does this action have on the Portneuf Valley
community?
II. Review of Nonattainment Area Plan
A. What criteria did EPA use to review the nonattainment area
plan?
1. New Source Review Permit Program
2. Demonstration of Attainment
3. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) including
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
4. Major Stationary Sources of PM-10 Precursors
5. Emissions Inventory Requirements
6. Enforceable Emission Limitations and Other Control Measures
7. Additional Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans
B. What do we conclude about the nonattainment area plan?
III. Review of Maintenance Plan
A. What criteria did EPA use to review the maintenance plan?
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
2. Maintenance Demonstration
3. State Monitoring of Air Quality to Verify Continued
Attainment
4. Contingency Measures
5. Transportation Conformity
[[Page 29244]]
6. Additional Requirements for Maintenance Plans
B. What do we conclude about the maintenance plan?
IV. Review of Redesignation Request
A. What criteria did EPA use to review the request for
redesignation?
1. Attainment Determination
2. Fully Approved Nonattainment Area Plan
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvements in Air Quality
4. Other Planning Requirements
5. Section 110 Requirements
6. Part D Requirements
7. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions Requirements
8. Subpart 4 requirements
B. What do we conclude about the request for redesignation?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Overview
A. What Action Are We Taking?
We are proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision for PM-10 submitted on June 30, 2004, by the State of Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) for the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area. The revision includes a nonattainment area plan,
maintenance plan, and a request to redesignate the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area to attainment for PM-10. We are proposing to approve
these two plans and the request for redesignation because we believe
the State adequately demonstrates that the control measures being
implemented in the Portneuf Valley result in attainment and maintenance
of the PM-10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and that
all other requirements of the Clean Air Act (the Act) for redesignation
to attainment are met.
B. What Is the Background for This Action?
1. Description of Area
The Portneuf Valley, Idaho PM-10 nonattainment area is located in
southeastern Idaho and includes the Cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck.
For a legal description of the boundaries, see 40 CFR 81.313. The
nonattainment area covers 96.6 square miles and the combined population
of the two cities is approximately 76,000.
The topography of the Portneuf Valley area is complex. The City of
Pocatello lies in the Portneuf Valley at an elevation of approximately
4500 feet. The Pocatello Mountain Range, with elevations reaching 9000
feet above mean sea level (MSL), forms the east side of the Valley and
the Bannock Mountain Range, reaching 7500 feet above MSL, lies to the
west. The Portneuf Valley empties into the Snake River plain.
The Portneuf Valley is arid with significant variation in
temperature between winter and summer seasons. Winter average
temperature is 24.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter and spring are
characterized by brisk southwest winds of 20 to 30 miles per hour (mph)
which often persist for days. Migratory weather disturbances are
greatly influenced by the complex terrain, making prediction of wind
flow patterns difficult. Periodically, stagnate air conditions are
established for a period of several days that can lead to elevated PM-
10 levels. July is the warmest month with an average temperature of
69.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual rainfall of 12.5 inches is distributed
throughout the year with a maximum in the spring. Average snow fall is
41.7 inches.
2. Description of Air Quality Problem
The highest PM-10 levels in the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area
occur in the winter. Cold temperature, high relative humidity, and fog
are conducive to sulfur dioxide (SO2) rapidly reacting with ammonia in
the atmosphere to create ammonium sulfate. Also during these
conditions, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) react with ammonia to
create ammonium nitrate. These winter conditions are also often
associated with stagnation episodes. Very little ventilation occurs
through vertical mixing or by horizontal transport out of the valley.
Without a means of ventilation, PM-10 levels increase day-to-day from
both primary and secondary formation, and tend to peak by the third day
of a stagnation episode. Sources of primary PM-10 are J.R. Simplot, re-
entrained dust from paved roads, agricultural activity, residential/
commercial construction, non-agricultural windblown dust, and to a
lesser extent, residential combustion and motor vehicles. Sources of
precursor emissions resulting in secondary PM-10 formation are from one
stationary source and to a limited extent, motor vehicles (cars,
trucks, and locomotives).
Secondary PM-10 in the Portneuf Valley has been measured during
these winter stagnation events at more than 50 percent of the total PM-
10 mass. In extreme events, snow cover is present for an extended
period which increases radiative cooling and maintains temperature near
or below the freezing point, heightens the strength and depth of the
deep stable layer, and promotes the formation of valley fog. The
breakup of the stagnation episode is usually accompanied by
precipitation.
3. Designation History of the Nonattainment Area
On July 1, 1987, (52 FR 24634), the Environmental Protection Agency
revised the NAAQS for particulate matter with a new indicator that
includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). See 40 CFR 50.6. The 24-hour
primary PM-10 standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m3), with no more than one expected exceedance per year over
a three year period. The annual primary PM-10 standard is 50 [mu]g/
m3 expected annual arithmetic mean over a three year period.
The secondary PM-10 standards are identical to the primary standards.
On August 7, 1987, (52 FR 29383), EPA identified a number of areas
across the country as PM-10 ``Group I'' areas of concern, i.e., areas
with a 95% or greater likelihood of violating the PM-10 NAAQS and
requiring substantial SIP revisions. What is now known as the Portneuf
Valley nonattainment area was originally part of a Group I area called
``Power-Bannock Counties (Pocatello),'' an area subsequently designated
as a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area by the Act. See also 56 FR
11101. This original nonattainment area has gone through two boundary
changes. First, on June 12, 1995, EPA corrected the ``Power-Bannock
Counties (Pocatello)'' boundaries to more closely represent the air
shed in which the City of Pocatello is located. 61 FR 29667. Second, on
November 5, 1998, EPA granted a request from the State to divide the
nonattainment area (as corrected) into two areas separated by the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation boundary. 63 FR 59722. The area consisting of
land under State jurisdiction is now identified as the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area, and the area consisting of land within the exterior
boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is now identified as the
Fort Hall nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.313. Today's proposed
approval of the nonattainment area plan, maintenance plan, and
redesignation request applies only to the Portneuf Valley nonattainment
area.
4. SIP Submittal History of the Nonattainment Area
Under the Act, the State of Idaho was required to submit a PM-10
SIP (or ``nonattainment area plan'') for the Power-Bannock Counties
(Pocatello) nonattainment area for meeting the PM-10 NAAQS. In March
1993, Idaho submitted a PM-10 SIP (1993 SIP) to
[[Page 29245]]
meet this requirement. Among other things the 1993 SIP submittal
addressed primary particulate and made a finding that PM-10 precursors
were an insignificant contributor to violations of the PM-10 standard.
Under the Act, control requirements for major stationary sources of PM-
10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, except
where such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels
which exceed the standards in the area. However, because PM-10
precursors were not insignificant in the area and the 1993 SIP
submittal did not address them, the State was required to submit a
revised plan.
On February 26, 1999, the State submitted the ``Portneuf Valley
Particulate Matter (PM-10) Air Quality Improvement Plan, 1998-1999''
(1999 SIP). In June 2000, EPA informed the State that although the 1999
SIP submittal addressed PM-10 precursors, the 1999 SIP submittal was
inadequate, specifically with respect to transportation conformity and
the motor vehicle emissions budget. The State was required to submit a
revised plan.
On June 30, 2004, the State submitted the ``Portneuf Valley PM-10
Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan, Maintenance Plan, and
Redesignation Request'' (June 30, 2004 SIP submittal). This submittal
contains a nonattainment area plan (replacing the State's 1993 and 1999
SIP submittals), a maintenance plan, and a request for redesignation to
attainment. We are proposing to approve both plans and the request for
designation to attainment based on our evaluation below. See the
Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this notice for further
supporting documentation.
C. What Impact Does This Action Have on the Portneuf Valley Community?
EPA's approval of the State's June 30, 2004, SIP submittal (that
is, approval of the nonattainment area plan, maintenance plan, and
redesignation request) would result in redesignation of Portneuf Valley
to a PM-10 attainment area. A redesignation to attainment would relieve
the Portneuf Valley area of certain obligations currently in place
because of its nonattainment status. In the event of new sources in the
area, minor New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements would apply.
Although the SIP revision contains emissions reduction control
measures that impact residential wood combustion, roadways, and
industrial facilities, these control measures are already in place and
are enforceable by the State. Therefore, our approval of these measures
now has little or no additional regulatory impact on the Portneuf
Valley community.
II. Review of Nonattainment Area Plan
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Nonattainment Area Plan?
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Part D, Title I
of the Act. The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on the how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP
revisions submitted under Title I of the Act, including those State
submittals containing provisions to implement the moderate PM-10
nonattainment area SIP requirements. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
Under section 189(a) of the Act, States containing initial moderate
PM-10 nonattainment areas are required to submit an implementation plan
that includes the following elements:
1. An approved permit program for construction of new or modified
major stationary sources of PM-10.
2. A demonstration that the plan provides for attainment by the
applicable attainment date or that attainment by such date is
impracticable.
3. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control
technology (RACT) is implemented.
Below is a discussion of how the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area
plan meets the requirements of section 189(a) and associated
requirements in section 172(c)(1) and (5). We also discuss how the
nonattainment area plan meets certain other provisions of section 189
and Part D (specifically the PM-10 precursor control provision in
section 189(e), the emissions inventory requirement in section
172(c)(3) and the requirement for enforceable control measures in
section 110(a)(2)(A)). For discussion of how other requirements in
section 189, Part D, and section 110(a)(2) are met, see the TSD
accompanying this document.
1. New Source Review Permit Program
Section 189(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires, ``For the purpose of
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(5), a permit program
providing that permits meeting the requirements of section 173 are
required for construction and operation of new and modified major
sources of PM-10.''
Section 189(a) and section 172(c)(5) require each nonattainment
area plan to provide for permits for the construction and operation of
new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment
area. The Act requires a permit program for the construction and
operation of new and modified major stationary sources of PM-10 located
in moderate nonattainment areas (known as ``nonattainment area NSR'').
EPA approved nonattainment NSR rules for PM-10 nonattainment areas in
Idaho on July 23, 1993 (58 FR 39445), and amended provisions were
approved by EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). See 60 FR 28726 (June
2, 1995). Therefore, the State has met this permit program requirement.
2. Demonstration of Attainment
Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires either a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for
attainment by the applicable attainment date or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is impracticable.
The initial attainment date for the Power-Bannock Counties
(Pocatello) nonattainment area (and therefore the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area) was established by operation of law as no later
than December 31, 1994. See section 189(c)(1) of the Act. Section
189(d) of the Act provides criteria by which the Administrator may
grant two, 1-year extensions to the attainment date. The State met the
requirements for extending the attainment date and EPA granted two 1-
year extensions. 61 FR 20730 and 61 FR 66602. Consequently, the
attainment date for the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area is December
31, 1996.
To demonstrate attainment, the State relies on a combination of
supporting evidence. First it points to ambient air quality monitoring
data showing the area attained both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS
as of December 31, 1996. We published an official finding of attainment
by this date in a Federal Register notice on July 5, 2002, 67 FR 48552.
Subsequent air monitoring data shows that the area has continued to
meet both NAAQS for every three year period since the attainment date.
Thus, monitoring data as of and since the attainment date demonstrates
attainment of the NAAQS.
Second, the State relies on emissions reduction measures from
sources impacting the nonattainment area to bring the area into
attainment. These measures include stationary source controls,
residential wood burning controls, outdoor burning controls, and road
sanding emissions reduction measures. With these measures in place,
there have been no further violations of the 24-hour or annual PM-10
NAAQS
[[Page 29246]]
in the nonattainment area, thus, providing further support of a
demonstration of attainment. Each specific control measure is discussed
in more detail in the TSD.
Finally, the State relies on speciated linear rollback modeling.
The rollback model uses filter analyses, emissions inventories, and
chemical source profiles to assess the impacts of sources and source
groups on PM-10 concentrations. For the Portneuf Valley nonattainment
area, the model predicts a 24-hour PM-10 level of 146 [mu]g/
m3 in 2000, then a decrease to 103 [mu]g/m3 by
2005 followed by a gradual increase up to 111 [mu]g/m3 in
2020. These predicted levels also demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.
Based on air quality data for the area since the attainment date,
control measures that have been implemented without further violation
of the NAAQS and speciated linear rollback modeling showing attainment
in the year 2000, we conclude that the state has adequately
demonstrated attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
3. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act requires that moderate area SIPs
contain ``reasonably available control measures'' (RACM) for the
control of PM-10 emissions. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act, in turn,
provides that RACM for nonattainment areas shall include ``such
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology* * *''. Read together, these provisions require that
moderate area PM-10 SIPs include RACM and RACT for existing sources of
PM-10 emissions.
The General Preamble provides further guidance on interpretation of
the requirement for RACM and RACT. Congress, in enacting the amended
Act, did not use the word ``all'' in conjunction with RACT. Thus, it is
possible that a State could demonstrate that an existing source in an
area should not be subject to a control technology especially where
such a control is unreasonable in light of the specific area's
individual attainment needs or is infeasible. EPA recommends that
available control technology be applied to those existing sources in
the nonattainment area that are reasonable to control in light of the
feasibility of such controls and the individual attainment needs of the
specific area.
The nonattainment area plan contains a description of available
control measures that the State determined to be reasonable. For
agricultural area sources, control measures qualifying as RACM include
best management practices and land conservation practices for
agricultural activities under the Federal Food Security Act of 1985
(FSA), as amended in 1996 and 2002, (see 16 U.S.C. 3801-3862). Control
measures for other area sources include a certified wood stove
ordinance, a mandatory residential wood combustion curtailment program,
tax and other incentives for non-certified wood stove replacements, an
air pollution emergency rule (open burning ban) and city, county and
state written agreements to reduce road sanding emissions. These
measures are consistent with measures identified as RACM in Appendix C
to the General Preamble. 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). Federal area
source requirements that were relied on by the State and qualify as
RACM include Tier 2 Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions requirements. (65
FR 6698, February 10, 2000, as amended on April 13, 2001, June 3, 2002,
and December 6, 2002). The State did not rely on emissions reductions
from the Federal non-road motor vehicle rule (69 FR 38958, June 29,
2004) or requirements limiting the sulfur content in diesel fuel (66 FR
5002, January 18, 2001). These measures provide additional reductions.
For industrial sources, the nonattainment area plan contains an
analysis of RACT for the J.R. Simplot, Don Plant (J.R. Simplot), the
single largest industrial source of both primary particulate and
precursor emissions in the area. This is the only industrial source for
which Idaho assessed RACT because it is the only major stationary
source in the nonattainment area. Based on its evaluation, the State
determined that construction and installation of additional control
technology is not required to implement RACT. However, for some
emission units at J.R. Simplot, the State established more restrictive
emission limits. These new emission limits are reasonable because the
source has already demonstrated that it is meeting these limits and
require no additional cost to the source. The State included the new
limits in a Tier II operating permit 077-00006 and has
submitted the permit as part of the June 30, 2004 SIP revision. See the
TSD accompanying this notice for additional discussion of the permit
limits.
The State also relies on emissions reductions from Astaris (FMC),
an elemental phosphorus facility located in the adjacent Fort Hall
nonattainment area. Astaris (FMC) was a major source of PM-10 and PM-10
precursors until it permanently ceased manufacturing operations in
2001.
Based on Appendix C in the General Preamble, the State's evaluation
of RACT and RACM for sources contributing to PM-10 concentrations in
the nonattainment area, and the individual attainment needs of this
specific area, we conclude that the State has met the requirements for
implementing RACM and RACT on sources of PM-10 and precursor emissions
in the non-attainment area.
4. Major Stationary Sources of PM-10 Precursors
Section 189(e) of the Clean Air Act provides that control
requirements for major stationary sources of PM-10 shall also apply to
major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, except where the
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels which exceed the standards in the area.
Secondary ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate are a significant
fraction of the highest PM-10 concentrations reported for the Portneuf
Valley nonattainment area. J.R. Simplot is the only major stationary
source of these precursor emissions in the area. Therefore, RACT
(discussed above) has been established for J.R. Simplot. In light of
the control requirements established for this major stationary source
of PM-10 precursors, we conclude that the requirements of Section
189(e) are met.
5. Emissions Inventory Requirements
Section 172(c)(3) requires each plan to include a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the
relevant pollutants in such area. From this inventory, emissions can be
compared to measured air quality to estimate emissions reductions
needed to attain the standard if violations of the standard are
reported. Where measured air quality is below the standard, the
comparison can be used to estimate how much emissions may be allowed to
increase and still protect the ambient air quality standard. Emissions
estimates are also a key component to predicting future air quality
through use of dispersion modeling. The inventory should be consistent
with EPA's most recent guidance on emissions inventories for
nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the
emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data
showing attainment.
Idaho selected calendar year 2000 for the emissions inventory
because it represents the most recent year for which valid ambient air
quality data
[[Page 29247]]
was available. The emissions inventory covers all sources within the
boundaries of the nonattainment area, and also includes sources outside
the boundaries of the nonattainment area for purposes of dispersion
modeling. The inventory includes direct sources of PM-10 as well as
sources of the following precursors to PM-10: ammonia, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, and volatile organic compounds. The sources covered by
the inventory fall into four major source categories: Point sources,
area sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources.
The largest contributors of primary PM-10 and precursor emissions
within the nonattainment area for 2000 are as follows:
PM-10: J.R. Simplot, re-entrained dust from paved roads, agricultural
activity, residential/commercial construction, non-agricultural
windblown dust
NOX: J.R. Simplot, On-road and non-road mobile sources
(including locomotives)
SOx: J.R. Simplot
NH3: J.R. Simplot
VOC: J.R. Simplot, solvent usage, gasoline marketing, biogenic,
residential/commercial construction, on-road and non-road mobile
We have reviewed the emissions inventory and have found the methods
used to develop it are consistent with EPA guidelines. In addition, the
assumptions and calculations were checked and found to be thorough and
comprehensive.
In summary, the State has adequately developed an emissions
inventory for 2000 that identifies the levels of emissions of PM-10 in
the nonattainment area as sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Thus, we
conclude the inventory meets the inventory requirements for a
nonattainment area plan.
6. Enforceable Emission Limitations and Other Control Measures
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires the plan to include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. As
discussed above, the area is using agricultural best management
practices, motor vehicle fuel emissions standards, residential wood
combustion ordinances, road sanding agreements, and an operating permit
for J.R. Simplot to meet RACT/RACM requirements. Agricultural best
management practices and motor vehicle fuel emissions standards are
called for through Federal legislation or regulations. The wood stove
curtailment programs is implemented through enforceable city ordinances
in coordination with IDEQ. The stationary source emission limits are
included in permits issued under a Federally-approved and enforceable
operating permit program. Although the winter road sanding and de-icing
agreements with county and municipal governments are not enforceable,
they have been consistently followed in the 10 years since the
agreements were first made in 1993 because of economic advantages. In
light of the regulations, ordinances, and agreements and other things
in place to ensure these control measures are implemented, we conclude
that the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) have been met.
7. Additional Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans
In addition to the core requirements of section 189(a)(1) discussed
above, other provisions of the Act in section 172(c) and 110(a) need to
be met in order to approve the nonattainment area plan. The additional
requirements and how the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area plan meets
these requirements is discussed in the TSD accompanying this document.
B. What Do We Conclude About the Nonattainment Area Plan?
Based on our review of the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area plan
submitted by the State on June 30, 2004, we conclude that the
requirements for an approvable nonattainment area plan under the Act
have been met. Therefore, we are proposing approval of the
nonattainment area plan submitted for the Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area.
III. Review of Maintenance Plan
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Maintenance Plan?
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act stipulates that for an area to be
redesignated to attainment, EPA must fully approve a maintenance plan
which meets the requirements of section 175A. Section 175A defines the
general framework of a maintenance plan, which must provide for
maintenance, i.e., continued attainment, of the relevant NAAQS in the
area for at least ten years after redesignation. The following is a
list of core provisions required in an approvable maintenance plan.
1. The State must develop an attainment emissions inventory to
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the NAAQS.
2. The State must demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS.
3. The State must verify continued attainment through operation of
an appropriate air quality monitoring network.
4. The maintenance plan must include contingency provisions to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area.
As explained below, Idaho has complied with each of these
requirements in the PM-10 maintenance plan for the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
The State should develop an attainment emissions inventory to
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the NAAQS. Where the State has made an adequate demonstration
that air quality has improved as a result of the control measures in
the SIP, the attainment inventory will generally be an inventory of
actual emissions at the time the area attained the standards. This
inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on
emissions inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and
should include the emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment.
The emissions inventory submitted for the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area plan also meets the attainment inventory
requirements for a maintenance plan. See our evaluation of the
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area plan in section II. The
emissions inventory is for the year 2000, a time period associated with
the monitoring data showing attainment. (Attainment is associated with
all three periods: 1998-2000, 1999-2001, and 2000-2002). We have
reviewed this inventory and found the methodology used to develop it is
consistent with EPA guidelines. In addition, the assumptions and
calculations were checked and found to be thorough and comprehensive.
In summary, the State has adequately developed an attainment
emissions inventory for 2000 that identifies the levels of emissions of
PM-10 in the nonattainment area as sufficient to attain the NAAQS.
Thus, we conclude the State has met the attainment emissions inventory
requirements for the Portneuf Valley PM-10 maintenance plan.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by
either
[[Page 29248]]
showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not
exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show
that the future mix of sources or its precursors will not exceed the
level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the
future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS. Under the Act, many areas were required to submit modeled
attainment demonstrations to show that the proposed reduction in
emissions will be sufficient to attain the applicable NAAQS. For these
areas, the maintenance demonstration should be based upon the same
level of modeling. In areas where no such modeling was required, the
state should be able to rely on the attainment inventory approach. In
both instances, the demonstration should be for a period of 10 years
following the redesignation.
Idaho uses several analytical tools to demonstrate maintenance for
the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area. These tools include
dispersion modeling, trend analysis, chemical mass balance source
apportionment and linear speciated roll forward modeling. Several tools
are used because no single analytical approach was determined to be
appropriate for this area. As discussed earlier, the air quality
problem and atmospheric processes in the Portneuf Valley area are
complex. The highest PM-10 levels in the area occur in the winter, when
cold temperatures, high relative humidity, and fog are conducive to the
formation of secondary aerosols. The sources contributing to the PM-10
levels are primary PM-10 and precursor emissions. Sources of primary
PM-10 are J.R. Simplot, re-entrained dust from paved roads,
agricultural activity, residential/commercial construction, non-
agricultural windblown dust, and to a lesser extent, residential
combustion and motor vehicles. Precursor emissions are from primarily
stationary sources and to a limited extent, motor vehicles (cars,
trucks, and locomotives). The topography of the Portneuf Valley area
greatly influences migratory weather disturbances, making prediction of
wind flow patterns difficult. Periodically, stagnate air conditions are
established for a period of several days, which lead to build-up in PM-
10 emissions and elevated PM-10 concentrations. Pollutant dispersion
during stagnation conditions are difficult to model.
In light of the complexity of the area, the State's reliance on
multiple analytical techniques--dispersion modeling, trend analysis,
chemical mass balance source apportionment and linear speciated roll
forward modeling--is appropriate. When viewed together, the combined
results provide an adequate showing that the area will maintain the
NAAQS in the future. Our evaluation of each analytical tool and overall
conclusion is summarized below.
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling in the Portneuf Valley area is a challenge due
to the complex terrain, meteorology, and the large number and variety
of sources emitting primary particulate and precursor emissions. In
selecting a model, the State appropriately considered, among other
things, whether the model could simulate ambient levels of PM-10 from
emissions of primary particulate, atmospheric chemical reactions that
form secondary aerosols, complex wind regimes and local scale
dispersion and transport. Because of its known capabilities in
addressing these and other relevant factors, CALPUFF, an EPA-preferred
model listed in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, was selected.
To assess performance of the model, the State ran CALPUFF to
estimate PM-10 levels during worst case meteorological episodes in 1995
and 1999 and compared the predictions to actual measurements. Model
performance was mixed. On one hand, estimated PM-10 levels were
reasonable given the uncertainties in the meteorological data, the
emissions estimates, source characterization and the model's
characterization of atmospheric phenomena. On the other hand, certain
estimates raised questions and indicated a need for alternative
analytical techniques to determine whether maintenance for the area was
demonstrated. PM-10 levels were overestimated in the early morning and
at night when the inversion was established. In addition, the highest
predicted values occurred on days different from the days they were
observed. Lastly, questionable levels above the NAAQS in two small
areas could not be verified by monitoring data. There was extensive
refinement of model inputs to reduce discrepancies but discrepancies
still remained.
Because the dispersion model overall provided invaluable
information in assessing air quality in the area (i.e., by providing
better understanding of sources, transport and fate of PM-10 and hot
spot locations), the State still used the model to predict PM-10
concentrations for future years. In these runs, the model showed
maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas except the same two questionable
areas identified during the performance evaluation. Therefore,
alternative analytic tools were used to more fully understand the
modeling results and to demonstrate maintenance for the entire
nonattainment area.
Ambient Air Quality Data
PM-10 levels have been monitored at several sites across the
Portneuf Valley nonattainment area since the mid-1980s. Data from these
sites show that the last violation of the 24 hour PM-10 standard was
reported in 1995.
Annual PM-10 trends at all sites in the nonattainment area show a
continuous improvement in PM-10 air quality since monitoring was
initiated. There has been a dramatic decrease in PM-10 levels near the
industrial complex of Astaris (FMC) and J.R. Simplot with the addition
of controls and the shutdown of the Astaris (FMC) manufacturing
operations. Annual average PM-10 concentrations at a site near the
industrial complex have dropped from 54 [mu]g/m\3\ in the late 1980's
to 27 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2001. Air quality has shown continued improvement
at the other monitoring sites decreasing from approximately 30 [mu]g/
m\3\ in the late 1980's to 20 [mu]g/m\3\ in the last few years.
Average 24 hour PM-10 concentrations have shown similar dramatic
reductions. Peak PM-10 levels reached 259 [mu]g/m\3\ at the sewage
treatment plant (STP) site and 232 [mu]g/m\3\ at the Idaho State
University (ISU) site in the early 1990's. Peak concentrations are 74
[mu]g/m\3\ in 2001 at the STP site and 74 [mu]g/m\3\ in 1999 at the ISU
site. The G&G site reported a peak concentration of 204 [mu]g/m\3\ in
1993 and 79 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2002.
Ambient data confirms that the control strategies that have been
implemented in the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area are effective in
reducing PM-10 levels. It is anticipated that additional emissions
reductions from State and Federal motor vehicle control programs will
continue to result in declining PM-10 levels in the valley. In light of
ambient air quality improvement, we conclude that the ambient air
quality data supports a demonstration of maintenance.
Meteorological Data
Meteorology analysis shows that improvement in ambient air quality
is not due to favorable meteorology. The state analyzed days with
meteorology characterized as having poor dispersion conditions. These
conditions are characterized by a cold high pressure system with low
pressure gradients, low wind speeds, shallow inversions, and little or
no precipitation. Although
[[Page 29249]]
meteorological data show no discernible annual trend since 1984, the
greatest number of days that met poor dispersion conditions criteria
occurred in 2001 and 2002. Since there were no exceedances of the NAAQS
in 2001 and 2002, this indicates that meteorology has not been a factor
in air quality improvement. In light of no discernible trend in
meteorology while air quality has improved, we conclude meteorology
data provides further support of a demonstration of maintenance for the
area.
Emissions Data
An inventory of actual annual emissions was prepared for the base
year of 2000 and projected for future years 2010, 2015, and 2020.
Calendar year 2000 represents the base year, 2010 represents an
intermediary year, 2015 represents the required ten year maintenance
year, and 2020 represents the last year of the area's 20 year
transportation plan for use in long-term planning.
Historically the highest levels of PM-10 in the Portneuf Valley
nonattainment area occur in winter, and are dominated by secondary
ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. Therefore, an episodic inventory
was prepared for winter conditions. Idaho DEQ selected December 20
through December 26, 1999, which corresponds to an actual air
stagnation episode during which three exceedences of the standard were
recorded. The 1999 episodic emissions inventory was projected out to
future year week-long episodic inventories for 2010, 2015, and 2020. In
addition, for each episodic inventory, weekday and weekend day
inventories were prepared to account for different levels of activity
depending on the day of the week.
When compared to the 2000 base and 1999 episodic inventories, the
State predicts the emissions of primary particulate and precursor
pollutants will drop in future years 2010, 2015, and 2020. This
decrease in emissions is due in large part to the permanent closure of
the Astaris (FMC) manufacturing operations that occurred in 2001. In
light of this projected decline in overall emissions and our
expectation that the Federal non-road motor vehicle rule and
requirements limiting the sulfur content in diesel fuel not accounted
for by the State will result in further reductions, we conclude that
the expected decrease in emissions supports a demonstration of
maintenance out to 2015.
Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Source Apportionment
CMB analysis is a method used to apportion the contribution of
different sources to measured PM-10 levels. CMB analysis of PM-10
filters shows that in the base year, over 50% of the PM-10 mass during
high episode days in Portneuf Valley was ammonium sulfate. The
SO2 emissions, precursors to ammonium sulfate, have since
been reduced by more than half with the closure of the FMC
manufacturing operations. In addition, Federal rules regulating sulfur
content in diesel fuel will dramatically reduce future SO2
emissions from mobile sources.
Future PM-10 concentrations can be estimated using the highest
measured PM-10 concentration since 1989 of 177 [mu]g/m\3\, applying the
fraction apportioned to industry and non-industry, and adjusting for
emissions reduction or growth. By 2015, industry emissions will
decrease by an estimated 60% (compared with base year levels).
Emissions from all other sources are anticipated to increase 18%.
Predictions using CMB show the projected maximum PM-10 level will be
133 [mu]g/m\3\ in the year 2020. This level is below the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS, demonstrating maintenance for the area.
CMB analysis was also used to better understand the discrepancies
identified during evaluation of the dispersion model. The source
contributions predicted by CMB analysis were compared to the source
contributions predicted by the dispersion model. The results suggest
that the levels predicted above the NAAQS are due to over-estimation of
the contribution of vehicle suspended dust. This over-estimation of
motor vehicle emissions may be due to under-prediction of wind speeds
in meteorological simulations, thus artificially enhancing the
influence of the urban (mobile) sources. It is also plausible that
over-predicted concentrations are due to inadequate characterization of
coarse particulate matter removal mechanisms which may over-estimate
the impact of re-entrained road dust.
Linear Speciated Rollback Modeling
Linear speciated rollback modeling is a simple, spatially averaged
mathematical model that assumes a linear relationship between ambient
constituents of PM-10 and the area wide emissions of the corresponding
constituents. The model dis-aggregates the major airborne particulate
components into chemically distinct groups that are emitted by
different source types. The model assumes that ambient PM-10 levels are
directly proportional to emissions.
Anticipated emissions reductions of primary PM-10, SO2
and NOX result in predicted PM-10 levels below the level of
both the annual and 24 hour standards for all future years out to 2020.
The maximum 24 hour PM-10 level of 146 [mu]g/m\3\ occurs in the base
year, drops to 106 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2005 and gradually increases to 111
[mu]g/m\3\ in 2020. Annual PM-10 levels remain essentially constant at
approximately 26 [mu]g/m\3\ in the base year and 27 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2020.
Because these projected levels are below the PM-10 NAAQS, these results
demonstrate maintenance of the area.
In conclusion, dispersion modeling shows that overall the area will
meet the PM-10 NAAQS at least 10 years into the future, but that
further evaluation is warranted in light of questionable levels
predicted in two areas. This further evaluation using trend analysis,
chemical mass balance, and linear speciated rollback modeling
demonstrates maintenance throughout the nonattainment area. In light of
the dispersion modeling results and plausible reasons for the higher
levels in two areas, the difficulty of modeling due to the complex
conditions of the area, the results from other analytic tools
demonstrating maintenance, the anticipated reductions from Federal
rules not relied on by the plan, and contingency measures, as discussed
below, to be implemented in the event PM-10 levels increase, EPA
concludes that the demonstration by the State shows that the Portneuf
Valley nonattainment area will maintain the PM-10 NAAQS at least
through the maintenance year of 2015.
3. State Monitoring of Air Quality To Verify Continued Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated, the State must continue to
operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 to verify the attainment status of the area. The
maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of
air quality monitors that will provide such verification. In its
submittal, the State commits to continue to operate and maintain the
network of PM-10 monitoring stations necessary to verify ongoing
compliance with the PM-10 NAAQS in the Portneuf Valley nonattainment
area.
4. Contingency Measures
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to correct promptly any violation
of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. These contingency
provisions are distinguished from those generally required for
nonattainment areas under section 172(c)(9), which are discussed above.
At a minimum, the contingency
[[Page 29250]]
provisions must include a commitment that the State will implement all
measures contained in the nonattainment area plan prior to
redesignation.
The maintenance plan contains three contingency provisions. The
first would revise the permit to operate a boiler at the Idaho State
University to require a switch of fuel from coal to natural gas during
a burn ban. This measure will reduce SO2 emissions and thus
reduce ammonium sulfate levels during periods of high PM-10.
The second provision addresses wood smoke emissions. Wood smoke
from residential wood stoves has historically been a significant
contributor to wintertime PM-10 levels in the Portneuf Valley non-
attainment area. The State commits to work with the Cities of Pocatello
and Chubbuck to lower the trigger point for implementing a residential
wood combustion curtailment program. The current level is 100 [mu]g/
m\3\ PM-10.
Lastly, the State commits to conducting additional analyses of the
causes of future reported violations of the standard. Based on the
results of that analysis the State will consider the following control
measures to resolve the problem:
Cover all truck loads that have potential to emit PM-10.
Prevent track-out onto paved roads.
More restrictions on outdoor burning.
Institute a vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
Expand the residential wood combustion curtailment
programs to include ``clean burn'' wood stoves.
Prohibit construction of unpaved private roads, driveways,
or parking lots.
Implement transportation control measures.
Implement dust control and prevention programs including
paving dirt roads and alley ways.
Since the maintenance plan is to cover the 10 year period after
Federal approval, it is difficult to completely predict how emissions
characteristics will change. This change in the character of the
potential PM-10 problem is especially significant toward the ``out-
years'' when the ability to predict the future is difficult. The
approach used in the maintenance plan is appropriate since the
contingency measures address sources expected to cause problems in the
near term and include a commitment to evaluate conditions in the long
term.
In light of the control measures relied on by the nonattainment
area plan, the identification of additional contingency measures above,
and the permanent reductions resulting from the closure of the Astaris
(FMC) manufacturing operations, we believe the contingency measure
requirements in the Portneuf Valley maintenance plan meet the
requirements of Section 175A(d) of the Act.
5. Transportation Conformity
Under section 176(c) of the Act, transportation plans, programs,
and projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas, that are developed,
funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws,
must conform to the applicable SIPs. In short, a transportation plan is
deemed to conform to the applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from
implementation of that transportation plan are less than, or equal to
the motor vehicle emission budget established in the SIP.
In this maintenance plan, procedures for estimating motor vehicle
emissions are well documented. Furthermore, the maintenance
demonstration modeling results indicated that the estimated motor
vehicle emissions for base and future years will not cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. Accordingly, we propose to
approve the following motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for PM-10
and its precursors for use in conformity determinations for PM-10 on
future Transportation Improvement Programs and Regional Transportation
Plans. These mobile source emissions represent a combination of vehicle
exhaust, tire wear, brake wear, and road dust.
Portneuf Valley, Idaho PM-10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 (t/ NOX (t/ VOC (t/
Year yr) yr) yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005................................... 897 1,575 983
2010................................... 1,120 1,085 716
2020................................... 1,364 514 585
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MVEB was found to be adequate for conformity purposes on August
31, 2004. (69 FR 56052, September 17, 2004.) The Plan provides for
reductions in residential wood combustion, road sanding, and industrial
emissions. Control measures required by the maintenance plan do not
directly include transportation measures as they are not required for
the maintenance demonstration.
6. Additional Requirements for Maintenance Plans
In addition to the core requirements of section 175(A) discussed
above, other provisions of the Act need to be met in order to approve
the maintenance plan. The additional requirements and how the Portneuf
Valley maintenance plan meets these requirements is discussed in the
TSD accompanying this notice.
B. What Do We Conclude About the Maintenance Plan?
Based on our review of the Portneuf Valley PM-10 maintenance plan
submitted by the State on June 30, 2004, we conclude that the
requirements for an approvable maintenance plan under the Act have been
met. Therefore, we are proposing approval of the maintenance plan
submitted for the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area.
IV. Review of Redesignation Request
A. What Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Request for Redesignation?
The criteria used to review the maintenance plan and redesignation
request are derived from the Act, the General Preamble, and a policy
and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992,
Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states that the EPA can be redesignate
an area to attainment if the following conditions are met:
1. The Administrator has determined the area has attained the
NAAQS.
2. The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan under section 110(k).
3. The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under
section 110 and Part D.
5. The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan,
including a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.
1. Attainment Determination
As discussed earlier, an area has attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
when the average number of expected exceedances per year is less than
or equal to one, when averaged over a three year period. To make this
determination, three consecutive years of complete ambient air quality
data must be collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR
part 58, including appendices). On July 5, 2002, EPA published a
finding that the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area attained the
PM-10 NAAQS by the
[[Page 29251]]
applicable attainment date. Subsequent air monitoring data shows that
the area has continued to meet both NAAQS for every three year period
since the attainment date.
2. Fully Approved Nonattainment Area Plan
States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit a SIP revision which implements reasonably available
control measures (RACM) and demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS
by the attainment date. The SIP for the area must be fully approved
under section 110(k) of the Act, and must satisfy all requirements that
apply to the area. In this notice we are proposing to fully approve the
nonattainment area plan submitted by the State for the Portneuf Valley
PM-10 nonattainment area.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvements in Air Quality
The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable reduction in emissions. The
State provides a historical analysis of meteorology in the Pocatello
area to show that trends in improving air quality are not the result of
meteorological conditions. As discussed above, there has been no
discernible trend in meteorology while air quality has continued to
improve. Therefore we conclude that the improvements in air quality are
the result of emissions reductions from the shut down of the Astaris
(FMC) manufacturing operations, controls related to road sanding, and
the area's wood stove program and not from a change in meteorological
conditions.
Based on the State's analysis, and our earlier conclusion that the
control measures in place in the nonattainment area are permanent and
enforceable, we believe that Idaho has demonstrated air quality
improvements are the result of permanent enforceable emissions
reductions.
4. Other Planning Requirements
The September 1992 Calcagni memorandum directs states to meet all
of the applicable section 110 and Part D planning requirements for
redesignation purposes. Thus, EPA interprets the Act to require state
adoption and EPA approval of the applicable programs under section 110
and Part D that were due prior to the submission of a redesignation
request, before EPA may approve a redesignation request. How the State
has met these requirements is discussed below.
5. Section 110 Requirements
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act contains general requirements for
implementation plans. These requirements include, but are not limited
to, submission of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emissions control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
For purposes of redesignation, review of the Idaho SIP shows that
the State has satisfied all requirements under the Act. Further, in 40
CFR 52.673, EPA has approved Idaho's SIP for the attainment and
maintenance of the national standards under Section 110.
6. Part D Requirements
Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all areas
which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of the NAAQS.
The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific
to each pollutant. All PM-10 nonattainment areas must meet the
applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific PM-10
provisions in subpart 4, ``Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter
Nonattainment Areas.'' The following paragraphs discuss these
requirements as they apply to the Portneuf Valley nonattainment area.
7. Section 172(c) Plan Provisions Requirements
Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for
nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements
may be found in the General Preamble. 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). The
requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of certain
emissions increases, and other measures needed for attainment are
satisfied in our proposed approval in this notice of the nonattainment
area plan for the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area. The
requirement for an emissions inventory is satisfied by the completion
of inventories for the nonattainment area plan and maintenance plan.
The requirements of the Part D New Source Review (NSR) program will be
replaced by the Part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program for PM-10 upon the effective date of this redesignation action.
The Federally-approved PSD regulations for Idaho can be found at IDAPA
16.01.012,07, as incorporated by reference by EPA on July 28, 1982 (47
FR 32531), and most recently amended on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).
8. Subpart 4 Requirements
Part D, subpart 4, section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply
to any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated
to attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment.
These requirements are discussed below:
(a) Provisions to assure that RACM was implemented by December 10,
1993;
(b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a
demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable;
(c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3 years and
which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment
by December 31, 1994; and
(d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable
to major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors, except where the Administrator determined
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area.
In this document EPA is proposing to approve the nonattainment area
plan for the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area containing the
elements meeting requirements (a) through (d) above.
States with PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a
permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992. States also were to
submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993, which become
effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See
sections
[[Page 29252]]
172(c)(9) and 189(a) and 57 FR 13543-13544.
Idaho has presented an adequate demonstration that it has met the
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D. The
Part D NSR rules for PM-10 nonattainment areas in Idaho were approved
by EPA on July 23, 1993 (58 FR 39445) and amended provisions were
approved by EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). The Clean Air Act
requires that contingency measures take effect if the area fails to
meet reasonable further progress requirements or fails to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The Portneuf Valley PM-10
nonattainment area attained the NAAQS for PM-10 by the applicable
attainment date of December 31, 1996. Therefore, contingency measures
no longer are required under section 172(c)(9) of the Act. Contingency
measures are also required for maintenance plans under section 175A(d).
Idaho has provided contingency measures in the maintenance plan for the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area. The contingency measures in
the maintenance plan are discussed in section III above.
B. What Do We Conclude About the Request for Redesignation?
Based on our review of the nonattainment area plan, the maintenance
plan, and the request for redesignation request submitted for the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area on June 30, 2004, we conclude
that all the requirements for redesignation in section 107(d)(3)(E)
have been met. Therefore, we are proposing to redesignate the Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area to attainment.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: May 10, 2005.
Julie M. Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-10149 Filed 5-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P