Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
ID ID: [ID-02-003; FRL -7568-9]
NOTICE: RULES
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States; air quality planning purposes; designation of areas:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Ada County/Boise, ID Area
EFFECTIVE DATES: November 26, 2003.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
final action to rescind its earlier finding that the PM
SUMMARY: Idaho,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Table of ContentsI. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Final Action Is Being Taken?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is the Purpose of This Rulemaking?
Under the authority of the federal Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act or the Act) EPA is finalizing certain actions related to the
PM
Simultaneously, EPA is taking final action to approve the
PM
\1\ Although the State's maintenance plan and redesignation
request refers to ``Northern Ada County,'' we are using the term
``Ada County/Boise, Idaho'' or ``Ada County/Boise, Idaho area'' for consistency with 40 CFR 81.313.
The action to redesignate Ada County/Boise, Idaho to attainment is
based on valid monitoring data and projections of ambient air quality
made in the demonstration that accompanies the maintenance plan. EPA
believes the area will continue to meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for PM
II. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Action?
EPA received the following comments from six commenters on the July 30, 2003 proposal for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area. All comments either were in support of the proposal, requested further explanation on certain aspects of the proposal, or were outside the scope of the proposal.
[[Page 61107]]
Comment: The air in Canyon County is not polluted because of vehicle emissions. An inspection and maintenance program is not needed in Canyon County.
Response: EPA is approving a maintenance plan for Ada County, not Canyon County. However, to the extent that the State believes that control measures outside the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area support the maintenance plan, EPA is approving, at the State's request, those measures as part of the maintenance plan as well. The federal Clean Air Act does not specify the particular control measures that must be used to demonstrate maintenance of the standards. Under the Act, state and local governments have the primary responsibility to determine which pollution sources to control, figure out how controls will be implemented, and demonstrate the controls result in attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. In this case, the State has made that demonstration. EPA's role is to ensure that whatever measures are selected produce the emissions reductions needed to meet the standards. Our action here merely approves the maintenance plan and its associated control measures already adopted by the State and imposes no additional requirements.
Comment: Canyon County and Ada County are not one airshed. Canyon County should not be included in the monitoring network for the Ada County area. Canyon County should be its own separate area and treated separately.
Response: For the purpose of air quality management, the boundary of an air shed is determined based on, among other things, the meterological and topographical parameters, pollution source and impact area, and land use characteristics. Often the airshed boundary does not follow political jurisdiction boundaries such as a county line or city line. Based on the air quality studies and data available to EPA, including the modeling reconciliation in Appendix D of the maintenance plan, it is evident that pollution production and transport in the Treasure Valley area encompass geographical boundaries larger than any specific county border. As both Ada and Canyon County are experiencing rapid growth and expansion, it is logical that the airshed management efforts focus on the larger area. The State selects the monitor locations (including in Ada County and Canyon County) that make up its monitoring network. EPA has approved the State's network as meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 58 appendix D.
Comment: The Middleton monitors do not reflect Canyon County air quality and should be repositioned. DEQ should not use the Middleton monitors to define Canyon County's ozone reading.
Response: The Middleton monitors measure ozone and
PM
Comment: EPA should emphasize that this action has nothing to do with Canyon County and asks that we refute the statement in the settlement agreement that IDEQ intends to develop an air quality plan for Treasure Valley.
Response: While EPA agrees that IDEQ's efforts to develop an air quality plan for the Treasure Valley are independent of our action on the maintenance plan, EPA has no basis for refuting IDEQ's intentions to develop an air quality plan for the Treasure Valley. It is entirely appropriate forin fact EPA encouragesthe State to take any preventive steps needed to ensure air quality standards are met in the Treasure Valley and all of Idaho.
Comment: The basis for reinstating the PM
Response: As explained in the proposal, the basis for revoking the
1987 PM
Comment: Control measures are not needed in Canyon County because
Ada County has attained the PM
Response: In order for EPA to redesignate the Ada County/Boise,
Idaho area, the State must not only show that the area is currently
attaining the PM
Comment: The commenter requests that all references to Canyon County be omitted in the approval of the Ada County SIP.
Response: As discussed above, the Ada County/Boise, Idaho maintenance plan meets EPA's review criteria. EPA has no basis for omitting references to Canyon County.
Comment: Canyon County and Ada County should not be combined because of geological, geographical, population, and economic activity differences. The plan is only about Ada County, not Canyon County, and the counties should not be combined because they differ in various ways.
Response: EPA agrees that there are differences between Canyon County and Ada County. EPA believes IDEQ has appropriately accounted for those differences in its emissions inventory and modeling demonstration, as indicated in our evaluation of those elements in the Technical Support Document.
Comment: The commenter questions whether The Amalgamated Sugar
Company contributes to the Ada County PM
Response: The Amalgamated Sugar Company, although located in Canyon
County, is along the Ada County's upwind flow which sometimes impacts a
portion of the Ada County PM
[[Page 61108]]
an attainment area but impacts or interferes with the air quality of
the nonattainment or maintenance area at issue in the SIP or maintenance plan.
Comment: Contingency measures should not apply to Canyon County.
Response: The federal Clean Air Act requires contingency provisions to be an element of a maintenance plan but does not specify which ones to include or where or how they should be applied. Under the federal Clean Air Act, state and local governments have the primary responsibility of determining the location, scope, and timing of particular contingency measures. It is EPA's role is to ensure that whatever measures are selected would promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the area. The contingency measures in the plan meet this requirement. Our action here merely approves these contingencies as part of the maintenance plan and imposes no additional requirements.
Comment: The commenter asks about the meaning of the correction made to the PM
Response: EPA assumes the commenter is referring to a revision IDEQ submitted to EPA on July 21, 2003. The revision corrected an error found in the fugitive road dust emissions for future years. While this correction changed the value of future fugitive road dust emissions, it did not change the method for determining fugitive road dust emissions in the submitted maintenance plan. IDEQ reran the model to incorporate the correction and submitted an addendum reflecting the results of the new modeling run.
Comment: The commenter inquires who has authority to withhold Federal Funds.
Response: EPA assumes the commenter is referring to section 176(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits a Federal agency from approving, accepting or funding any transportation plan, program or project in certain circumstances. Under this provision, the Federal Government, not a State or local agency, has the ability to withhold Federal transportation funds.
Comment: The commenter inquires about the criteria EPA uses to approve a submission from COMPASS and IDEQ.
Response: EPA assumes the commenter means a SIP submission. SIP submissions are submitted by the Governor of Idaho or his designee. As discussed in the proposal on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44715), the State's submission must meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The review criteria is derived from the Act, general preamble, and further interpreted by a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (Calcagni Memorandum). (See also Section III of the Technical Support Document).
Comment: The monitors in Canyon County show different levels of pollutants than in Ada County and, therefore, approvability of the plan is questionable.
Response: Air quality monitors in an airshed do not record same levels at the same time because windflows or pollution sources impacting two monitors are not same. Unless there is a region or area wide pollution source that is causing the problem, one expects to see different levels at different monitors.
Comment: More monitors are needed and monitors should be at locations indicating the most air quality problems.
Response: As mentioned above, the State selects the monitors that make up the State monitoring network. EPA has approved the State's network as meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 58 appendix D. EPA, however, will forward this comment to monitoring representatives at IDEQ.
Comment: Dairy operations should have more restrictions.
Response: The State of Idaho has the primary responsibility to determine which sources to control to meet the NAAQS. Our action here merely approves the maintenance plan as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements. In this instance, IDEQ has devised an approach that meets and maintains attainment needs by controlling the sources that they have chosen.
Comment: The CMAQ model should be used to compare results with Environ's CAMX model.
Response: CMAQ is a more sophisticated and advanced air quality model. The input parameters (chemistry and meteorology) to run the CMAQ model are not yet fully developed for the Ada County/Boise, Idaho area. IDEQ, EPA, and several other partners are currently working together to develop a CMAQ modeling system for the northwest including the Boise area for use in future applications.
Comment: The objective should be to model the meteorology and the air quality of the valley in real time.
Response: EPA agrees that a real time modeling system would be valuable for the air quality management. EPA Region 10, states, and several other partners have been collaboratively working to develop a real time air quality simulation system for the northwest including the Boise area. However, for the purpose of an attainment or maintenance demonstration, it is generally adequate to simulate typical historical worst case pollution episodes.
Comment: Air quality impacts from industry are overstated because the potential to emit is used rather than actual emissions. Micron PC.com's projected emissions are overestimated and requests that IDEQ correct them.
Response: IDEQ appropriately determined industrial emissions based on a source's potential to emit because there are no permanent, enforceable measures to prevent the higher potential emission levels from occurring. If a facility's projected emissions are higher than its potential to emit, the use of those emissions in the State's demonstration would indicate overcontrol and would have no effect on the approvability of the maintenance plan. We will, however, forward this correction request to IDEQ.
Comment: The commenter emphasizes the importance of enforcing and monitoring facility compliance with the operating permits that the state relied on to demonstrate attainment. The commenter also encourages active enforcement of local laws, permits, regulations and ordinances, specifically the municipal solid waste ban because in order to take credit for reductions from these new laws, they must be successfully implemented. Additionally, the commenter also requests that EPA require IDEQ to certify that all inspections are completed and facilities are in compliance.
Response: EPA agrees that the enforcement of operating permits, laws, regulations, and ordinances is an important component of the State's air quality control program. As discussed in the Technical Support Document, the SIP and its control measures meet the requirements for permanent and enforceable measures. EPA further believes that the state has adequately shown that it has the appropriate personnel, funding and authority to enforce and ensure compliance of its permits, laws, regulations and ordinances. Since we are taking final action on a proposal to approve the States's maintenance plan and request to redesignate the Ada County/Boise, Idaho as an attainment area and since the State's submission meets all the requirements for approval, it is not appropriate in this action to impose additional requirements as requested by the commenter. [[Page 61109]]
Comment: The maintenance plan should be changed if permit conditions that were relied on to demonstrate compliance are changed.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. Because emission rates
must reflect permanent, enforceable measures, any changes to the permit
conditions relied on to demonstrate compliance with the PM
III. Final Action
The Environmental Protection Agency rescinds its earlier finding
that the PM
IV. 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 preexisting 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. 1044).
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 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 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 December 26, 2003. 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 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, Wilderness areas.
Dated: September 29, 2003.
L. John Iani,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NIdaho
2. Section 52.670 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(38) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(38) The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ, the
State, or Idaho) submitted a PM
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) The following terms and conditions limiting particulate matter emissions in the following permits:
(1) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for LP Wood
Polymers, Inc. Permit No. 00100115, issued July 12, 2002, the following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and the Appendix.
(2) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Consolidated
Concrete Company, Permit No. 00100046, issued December 03, 2001, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, and the Appendix. [[Page 61110]]
(3) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Crookham
Company, Permit No. 02700020, issued January 18, 2002, the following
conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, and the Appendix.
(4) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Double D
Service Center, Permit No. 00100168, issued February 4, 2002, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and the Appendix.
(5) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Plum Creek
Northwest Lumber, Inc., Permit No. 00100091, issued July 12, 2002, the
following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1.2, 3.1, and the Appendix.
(6) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for C. Wright
Construction, Inc., Permit No. T2000033, issued July 08, 2003, the
following conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, (2.12, Table 2.2 as it
applies to PM
(7) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Nelson
Construction Co., Permit No. T2020029, issued July 21, 2003, the
following conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.12, 2.14, 3 (heading only,
3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 4 (heading only), 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5, and Table 5.1.
(8) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Mike's Sand
and Gravel, Permit No. 00100184, issued July 12, 2002, the following conditions: 1.1, 1.3, 2.2.1, 3.1, and the Appendix.
(9) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Idaho
Concrete Co., Permit No. T2020031, issued July 8, 2003, the following
conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, 2.13, 3 (heading only), 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4 (heading only), and Table 4.1.
(10) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Idaho
Concrete Co., Permit No T2020032, issued July 8, 2003, the following
conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, 2.13, 3 (heading only), 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4 (heading only), and Table 4.1.
(11) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Idaho
Concrete Co., Permit No. T2020033, issued July 8, 2003, the following
conditions: 2 (heading only), 2.5, 2.13, 3 (heading only), 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4 (heading only), and Table 4.1.
(12) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for The
Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Permit No. 02700010, issued September
30, 2002, the following conditions: 2 (heading only), (2.7, Table 2.2
as it applies to PM
PM
3. Section 52.672 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.672 Approval of plans.
* * * * *
(e) Particulate Matter. (1) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho
State Implementation Plan, the Northern Ada County PM
* * * * *
Sec. 52.676 [Removed and Reserved]
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 52.676.
PART 81[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In Sec. 81.313, the table entitled ``Idaho PM10'', the entry for ``Ada County: Boise'' is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 81.313 Idaho.
* * * * *
IdahoPM10
Designation Classification Designated area
Date Type Date Type
* * * * * * *
Ada County: BoiseNorthern Boundary 12/26/2003 Attainment Beginning at a point in the center of
the channel of the Boise River, where
the line between sections 15 and 16
in Township 3 north (T3N), range 4
east (R4E), crosses said Boise river;
thence, west down the center of the
channel of the Boise River to a point
opposite the mouth of More's Creek;
thence, in a straight line north 44
degrees and 38 minutes west until the
said line intersects the north line
T5N (12 Ter. Ses. 67); thence west to
the northwest corner T5N, R1W Western
BoundaryThence, south to the
northwest corner of T3N, R1W; thence
east to the northwest corner of
section 4 of T3N, R1W; thence south
to the southeast corner of section 32
of T2N, R1W; thence, west to the
northwest corner of T1N, R1W; thence,
south to the southwest corner of
section 32 of T2N, R1W; thence, west
to the northwest corner of T1N, R1W;
thence south to the southwest corner
of T1N, R1W Southern Boundary
Thence, east to the southwest corner
of section 33 of T1N, R4E Eastern
BoundaryThence, north along the
north and south center line of
Townships T1N, R4E, T2N, R4E, and
T3N, R4E, Boise Meridian to the
beginning point in the center of the
channel of the Boise River.
* * * * * * * [[Page 61111]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 0326919 Filed 102403; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Donna Deneen, Office of Air Quality (OAQ107), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 5536706.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 44 CFR Part 64 10 CFR Part 50 49 CFR Part 571 47 CFR Part 76