[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39574-39579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Docket R10-OAR-2005-ID-0001; FRL-8191-6 ]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
final action to approve the nonattainment and maintenance plan for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
ten micrometers (PM-10) for the Portneuf Valley, PM-10 nonattainment
area in Idaho. EPA is also granting Idaho's request to redesignate the
Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area to attainment for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM-10.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
, R10-OAR-2005-ID-0001. All documents in the docket are listed
on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g.
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air Waste and Toxics (AWT-
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA. EPA requests that if possible you
contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, to schedule an appointment. Region 10 official business hours
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101;
telephone number: (206) 553-0782; fax number: (206) 553-0110; e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:
I. Background Information
A. What are we approving in this action?
B. What comments did we receive on the proposal to approve the
Plan and what are our responses?
C. What action are we taking on redesignation?
II. Summary of Final Action To Approve the State Submittal and Grant
the State's Redesignation Request
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background Information
A. What are we approving in this action?
Under the authority of the Federal Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act or
Act), EPA is taking final action to approve the State's moderate area
nonattainment plan and the maintenance plan for the Portneuf Valley PM-
10 nonattainment area for the 24 hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS. We are
also granting the State's request to redesignate the area from
nonattainment to attainment for PM-10.
On June 30, 2004, the Director of the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted plans to bring the Portneuf
Valley PM-10 nonattainment area into attainment, and maintain
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
PM-10 for an additional 10 years. The State also requested
redesignation of the area to attainment for PM-10. The attainment plan,
the maintenance plan, and the redesignation request are collectively
referred to as the ``State Submittal.''
On May 20, 2005, EPA proposed to approve the nonattainment area
plan and the maintenance plan and to grant the redesignation request.
See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 70 FR 29243. As explained in the
proposal, the State Submittal satisfies the Clean Air Act nonattainment
and maintenance planning requirements, as well as the redesignation
requirements. See the proposed action for a full description of the
State submission and our evaluation of the Clean Air Act requirements.
B. What comments did we receive on our proposal to approve the ``State
Submittal''?
We received one comment letter on our proposed action to approve
the State Submittal. The commenter, J.R. Simplot Company, requested
that the State Submittal be revised to correct and clarify technical
data and information related to the J.R. Simplot fertilizer facility
(the Don Plant) located near Pocatello, Idaho and the shutdown of the
Astaris (FMC) facility, located immediately adjacent to the J.R.
Simplot, Don plant. In general the commenter requests that EPA revise
the State Submittal before approving it. As explained below, EPA has
the authority to review and take appropriate action on a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to it. Revisions, if any, to a SIP
submitted to EPA are made by the State, rather than EPA. After revision
the State may resubmit the SIP to EPA for approval. Each specific
comment and our response is summarized below:
Comment: The commenter requests that the emission inventory in the
State Submittal be revised prior to EPA approval so that the plan
accurately reflects the emission reductions that have occurred at the
Don Plant and at the Astaris (formerly FMC) facility. J.R.
[[Page 39575]]
Simplot Company says that over the past two decades, emissions from
their Don Plant have been reduced by 15,000 tons/year. The commenter
indicates that reductions of both primary and precursor emissions since
2001 from both the Don Plant and Astaris (FMC) facility are 6,880 tons/
year. This reduction is primarily from the shutdown of the Astaris
(FMC) facility in 2001, which accounts for 6,465 tons/year.
Response: The SIP air quality planning process is lengthy. It can
take several years to develop the technical information and analysis
needed to support a nonattainment or maintenance plan. Therefore,
generally a State establishes a `base year', usually the calendar year
prior to initiation of the planning effort, as the starting point. This
allows for the collection, verification, and use of complete annual
data and information in the plan. The plan then contains consistent and
comparable data, information, analyses, and measures as a basis for
developing control measures and emission reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment in the future attainment and maintenance years.
Constantly changing conditions (meteorology, voluntary emission
reductions, economic conditions, etc.) that occur after the base-year
are not considered in the base year. The demonstration that the plan is
adequate for attaining and maintaining the standard takes into
consideration changes in allowable emissions that occur after the base
year, including new enforceable and permanent emission limitations and
facility shut-downs. The demonstration of attainment and maintenance in
future years is based on allowable emissions.
The base year is 2000 for the State Submittal for the Portneuf
Valley nonattainment area. The 2000 base year technical analysis in the
State Submittal is based on air quality data, actual emissions from all
sources, and meteorology collected in 2000. As explained in the
proposal, the attainment emissions inventory for 2000 describes the
level of emissions in the nonattainment area sufficient to attain the
NAAQS.
Projected emissions in the State Submittal for the future years of
2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, were based on allowable emissions.
Allowable emissions were developed from enforceable emission limits in
permits for the industrial sources, included the reduction in emissions
associated with the Astaris shutdown, and estimated reasonable worst
case emissions from area sources such as residential wood combustion
and road dust. If a source installed controls and achieved emission
reductions on a voluntary basis after the 2000 base year, these
reductions were not considered in the State Submittal because future
year air quality maintenance demonstrations must be based on permanent
and enforceable emission limitations, not voluntary reductions.
The State developed the 2000 base year and future year emission
estimates to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, using
EPA issued guidance and procedures. Future year emissions in the State
Submittal for industrial sources were based on the permanent and
enforceable emission limitations contained in permits and reflect the
shutdown of the Astaris facility. The future year emissions in the
State Submittal, for sources identified by J.R. Simplot in Table 1 of
their comment letter, are based on allowable emissions and the shutdown
of the Astaris facility, rather than emission reductions as presented
in Table 1 of the comment letter. The allowable emissions are
accurately accounted for in the State's future year allowable emission
inventories.
The 2000 base year and future year emission inventories are
comprehensive and accurate. The State has adequately demonstrated that
the Portneuf Valley area has attained and will continue to maintain the
PM-10 NAAQS at the projected emission levels. Even if actual emissions
and concentrations are lower, as the commenter contends, it would not
affect our finding that the area attains and the plan is adequate to
maintain the standard.
Comment: The demonstration analysis provided in the Plan is
conservative, meaning that projected air quality levels in future years
may be over estimated and that actual measurements will be lower than
predicted. The commenter believes that the speciated roll-back model
overestimates the concentrations of PM-10 for future ambient air
quality. The commenter believes that the Portneuf Valley area airshed
could accommodate emissions greater than those relied on in the
inventory of allowable emissions and still meet the PM-10 NAAQS. The
commenter requests that the State Submittal be adjusted to allow for
additional emissions.
Response: The Clean Air Act provides EPA with authority to review
and take appropriate action on SIPs that a State submits to it.
Therefore, if revisions to a SIP submission are necessary, such
revisions would be made by the State, rather than by EPA, and then the
revised plan resubmitted to EPA for approval.
As explained in the proposal and the TSD accompanying the proposed
action, EPA determined that, based on air quality data for the area
since the attainment date, control measures, speciated linear rollback
modeling as well as dispersion modeling, trend analysis, chemical mass
balance source apportionment and emission data the State adequately
demonstrated that the area has attained and will maintain the PM-10
NAAQS in the future. See 70 FR 29248-49. Even if a commenter can
demonstrate that the analysis for the Portneuf Valley area is
conservative, is based on overestimated future year emissions, and
could be revised to allow for additional emissions in the airshed, the
analysis provided by the State still demonstrates attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the
emissions and concentrations are over-predicted in the State's
analysis, the area still demonstrates attainment and maintenance of the
standard. Concerns about the level of allowable emissions should be
addressed to the State.
Comment: The commenter requests that EPA, prior to approval of the
plan, correct the emission inventory to accurately reflect
NOX emissions and eligible emission reduction credits.
Response: As explained above, the State would need to make the
requested revisions and resubmit the plan according to administrative
procedures. We have reviewed the inventory of emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) for base year 2000 and the future years. The
results of that review are explained in the TSD and proposal associated
with this action. We believe the base year inventory is comprehensive,
current (at the time of development), and accurate as required by the
Act. Future year emission estimates are based on enforceable emission
limitations for industrial sources as provided in the permits included
in the State Submittal. In this instance, the emission inventory
considers, among other things, the emissions associated with the limits
in the J.R. Simplot Don Plant permit, but does not consider the
voluntary emission reductions achieved by the facility. Thus the State
Submittal correctly uses enforceable emission limits for future year
emissions for industrial sources.
For clarification, should in the future, Idaho create emission
credits, these emission credits would need to be included in the future
year allowable emissions. Emission credits could be created, for
example, if Idaho lowered an enforceable emission limitation, thus
creating emissions credits based on the difference between the old and
new
[[Page 39576]]
emission limits. But, these emission credits are allowable emissions
that could be emitted at some future date. Therefore, they would need
to be identified and included in future year allowable emission
inventories and taken into account in any attainment or maintenance
demonstrations.
The proposed future year NOX emission inventories are
correct.
Comment: EPA did not provide in the proposal the specific language
to be added in the regulations (40 CFR part 52) for the Portneuf Valley
Plan. The commenter requests that the public and regulated community
have the opportunity to review and comment on the specific language to
be added to the Code of Federal Regulations before EPA approval of the
SIP/Portneuf Air Plan.
Response: EPA believes that it is not necessary to include this
language in the proposal. Idaho submitted the J.R. Simplot Don Plant
operating permit as part of the State Submittal. EPA evaluated the
emission limits, for each emission unit emitting PM-10 or precursors,
as meeting RACT. (See the TSD accompanying the proposal.) The permit
and the TSD are available for public review as part of the Docket for
the proposal. These documents identify which emission units and
emission limits are RACT and become part of the Federally enforceable
SIP. Final approval of the State Submittal means that the permit for
the J.R. Simplot Don Plant, included in the State Submittal, is
Federally enforceable. EPA may, as appropriate, incorporate by
reference enforceable emission limitations in the SIP. Regardless of
whether the exact incorporation language is included in the Federal
Register notice, the applicable permit provisions become incorporated
into the Idaho SIP and are Federally enforceable. Providing the exact
incorporation by reference language in the proposal is unnecessary.
We are incorporating by reference only those provisions in the
operating permits that Idaho determined represent RACT as presented in
Table 6-3 of the State Submittal. Those provisions are emission unit
and pollutant specific and include any measurement techniques specified
for determining compliance.
Conclusion based on comments received and EPA response:
After review of all comments provided during the public comment
period, EPA has determined that the State's attainment and maintenance
plan meets all the nonattainment and maintenance planning obligations
provided in the Clean Air Act.
C. What action are we taking on redesignation?
EPA is approving the Portneuf Valley, Idaho PM-10 attainment and
maintenance plan as submitted to EPA on June 30, 2004.
After review of all comments provided during the public comment
period, EPA has evaluated the State's redesignation request and
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. See Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 70 FR 29250-52. Approval of the redesignation request
changes the official designation of the Portneuf Valley, Idaho area
from nonattainment to attainment for the PM-10 standard.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
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 action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This 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 approves 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 rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045A,
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 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.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 11, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be
[[Page 39577]]
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)
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 and
Wilderness areas.
Due to the Regional Administrator's recusal in matters involving
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, this decision has been
delegated to the Deputy Regional Administrator.
Dated: June 28, 2006.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10.
0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--Idaho
0
2. Section 52.670 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c) by adding the following entries to the end of the
table.
0
b. In paragraph (d) by adding the following entries to the end of the
table.
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) Chapter 58, Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho,
Previously Codified at IDAPA Chapter 39 (Appendix A.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58.01.01--Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City and County Ordinances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Pocatello Ordinance 2450. Residential wood 01/12/94 07/13/06 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
combustion page number where Nonattainment Area
curtailment the document Plan and
ordinance. begins]. Maintenance Plan).
City of Pocatello Ordinance 2726. Revised air quality 09/18/03 07/13/06 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
curtailment levels. page number where Nonattainment Area
the document Plan and
begins]. Maintenance Plan).
City of Chubbuck Ordinance 403... Residential wood 11/23/93 07/13/2006 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
combustion page number where Nonattainment Area
curtailment the document Plan and
ordinance. begins]. Maintenance Plan).
City of Chubbuck Ordinance 582... Revised air quality 12/9/03 07/13/06 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
curtailment levels. page number where Nonattainment Area
the document Plan and
begins]. Maintenance Plan).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit number effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho... Air Pollution 04/5/2004 07/13/2006 [Insert The following
Operating Permit page number where conditions:
No. T1-9507-114-1; the document Cover page,
Facility Number begins]. facility
No. 077-00006. identification
information only,
300
Sulfuric Acid
Plant, Permit
Conditions 16.1,
16.10, 16.11,
.............. 400
Sulfuric Acid
Plant, Permit
Condition 17.1,
17.7, 17.10,
17.11,
.............. Phosphoric acid
plant, Permit
Condition 12.3,
12.13,
.............. Granulation No. 3
Process, Permit
Condition 9.2.1,
Granulation No. 3
stack, 9.17
(except 9.17.1
through 9.17.6),
[[Page 39578]]
.............. Reclaim Cooling
Towers, Permit
Condition 14.2,
14.6.1,
.............. Babcock&Wilcox
Boiler, Permit
Condition 6.4,
6.12,
.............. HPB&W Boiler,
Permit Condition
5.3, 5.13 through
5.18, 5.21.
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho... Compliance 04/16/2004 07/13/2006 [Insert The following
Agreement & page number where conditions:
Voluntary Order the document No. 300 Sulfuric
Idaho Code 39-116A. begins]. Acid Plant;
Condition 8 and 9.
No. 400 Sulfuric
Acid Plant;
Condition 10, 11,
and 12.
Granulation No.1
Plant; Condition
14.
Granulation No.2
Plant; Condition
15.
Compliance and
Performance
Testing; Condition
16.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision.
* * * * *
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.313, the table entitled ``Idaho--PM10'' is amended by
revising the entry for ``Eastern Idaho IntraState AQCR 61: Power-
Bannock Counties, part of (Pocatello). State Lands-Portneuf Valley
Area'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.313 Idaho.
* * * * *
Idaho--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Idaho IntraState AQCR 61: 08/14/06 Attainment.
Power-Bannock Counties, part of:
(Pocatello)
State Lands-Portneuf Valley Area:
T.5S, R.34E Sections 25-36
T.5S, R.35E Section 31
T.6S, R.34E Sections 1-36
T.6S, R.35E Sections 5-9, 16-21, 28-33,
plus the west \1/2\ of sections 10,
15, 22, 27, 34
T.7S, R.34E Sections 1-4, 10-14, and 24
T.7S, R.35E Sections 4-9, 16-21, 28-33,
plus the west \1/2\ of sections 3, 10,
15, 22, 27, 34
T.8S, R.35E Section 4 plus the west \1/
2\ of section 3
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39579]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6125 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P