26898 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

New Section 101.222 

(Demonstrations), except 101.222(h), 

101.222(i), and 101.222(j)), 

New Section 101.223 (Actions to 

Reduce Excessive Emissions). 

We are also proposing to disapprove 

sections 101.222(h) (Planned 

Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown 

Activity), 101.222(i) (concerning 

effective date of permit applications), 

and 101.222(j) (concerning processing of 

permit applications) into Texas SIP. The 

EPA is proposing to find that these 3 

sections (101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 

101.222(j)) are not severable from each 

other. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. If a portion of the 

plan revision meets all the applicable 

requirements of this chapter and Federal 

regulations, the Administrator may 

approve the plan revision in part. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). If a 

portion of the plan revision does not 

meet all the applicable requirements of 

this chapter and Federal regulations, the 

Administrator may then disapprove 

portions of the plan revision in part that 

does not meet the provisions of the Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices that meet 

the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove 

state choices that do not meet the 

criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action, in part, approves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and, in part, disapproves state law as 

not meeting Federal requirements; and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and 

• This rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 5, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11429 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0391; FRL–9149–5] 

Determination of Attainment for PM– 

10; Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment 

Area, Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to determine that 

the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area 

on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in 

Idaho has attained the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to 10 

microns (PM–10). EPA’s proposed 

finding that the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area has attained the 24- 

hour PM–10 NAAQS is based on EPA’s 

review of complete, quality-assured 

monitored air quality data for the threeyear period ending December 31, 2009. 

Preliminary data for 2010 indicate that 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. 

EPA’s proposed determination of 

attainment is not equivalent to a 

proposed redesignation to attainment 

under CAA section 107(d)(3). If this 

proposal is finalized, the designation 

status for the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area would remain 

moderate nonattainment until such time 

as the area is redesignated to attainment 

as provided in CAA section 107(d)(3). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2008–0391, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E- Mail: R10– 

Public_Comments@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: Donna Deneen, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Mail Stop: AWT–107, Seattle, WA 

98101. 

D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Attn: 

Donna Deneen (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101, 9th Floor. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2008– 

0391. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

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. 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26899 

1An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/ 

m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e. 

values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up). 

Thus, a recorded value of 154 μg/m3 would not be 

an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150μ/ 

m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 μg/m3 would 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 

μ/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. 

2The property on which the FMC was located is 

now owned by FMC Idaho, LLC (FMC). 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.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 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute, is not 

publicly available. 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 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy during normal business hours at 

the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, (206) 553–6706 or 

deneen.donna@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this notice, the words ‘‘we’’, 

‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ means the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. PM–10 Standard 

B. Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment Area 

C. PM–10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM– 

10 Nonattainment Area 

D. Attainment Date for the Fort Hall PM– 

10 Nonattainment Area 

E. Reclassification Upon Failure to Attain 

F. Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC) 

Lawsuit 

G. Sierra Club Lawsuit 

II. Proposed Attainment Determination 

A. What are the Requirements for 

Attainment Determinations? 

B. What Monitoring Data are Available for 

the Area? 

C. What Do the Air Quality Data Show for 

the Area? 

D. Determination of Attainment 

III. Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Determination of Attainment 

B. Withdrawal of June 19, 1998 Proposal 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. PM–10 Standard 

The NAAQS are levels for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA to 

protect public health and welfare. PM– 

10, or particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers, is among 

the ambient air pollutants for which 

EPA has established health-based 

standards. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 

24634), EPA promulgated two primary 

standards for PM–10: a 24-hour 

standard of 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3) and an annual PM–10 

standard of 50 μg/m3. EPA also 

promulgated secondary PM–10 

standards that were identical to the 

primary standards. 

Effective December 18, 2006, EPA 

revoked the annual PM–10 standard but 

retained the 24-hour PM–10 standard. 

71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24- 

hour PM–10 standard is attained when 

the expected number of days per 

calendar year with a 24-hour 

concentration above 154 μg/m3, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less 

than one.1 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 

50, appendix K. 

B. Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment Area 

On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), 

EPA identified a number of areas across 

the country as PM–10 ‘‘Group I’’ areas of 

concern, that is, areas with a 95% or 

greater likelihood of violating the PM– 

10 NAAQS and requiring substantial 

planning efforts. What is now known as 

the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area 

was originally part of a Group I area 

called ‘‘Power-Bannock Counties 

(Pocatello).’’ In accordance with section 

188(a) and (c)(1) of the CAA, at the time 

of designation all PM–10 nonattainment 

areas were initially classified as 

‘‘moderate’’ by operation of law, with an 

attainment date of December 31, 1994. 

See also 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). 

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 of Idaho 

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 that was previously part of 

the Power-Bannock Counties 

nonattainment area was renamed as the 

Portneuf Valley nonattainment area. The 

Portneuf Valley nonattainment area was 

redesignated to attainment on July 13, 

2006 (71 FR 39574). The area consisting 

of land within the exterior boundary of 

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation that 

was previously part of the PowerBannock Counties nonattainment area is 

now identified as the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.313. 

Today’s proposal applies only to the 

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area. 

C. PM–10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM– 

10 Nonattainment Area 

In the early 1990s, EPA, the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes), and 

the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) began to work together 

to prepare the technical elements 

needed to bring the area into attainment 

with the PM–10 NAAQS. Air quality 

and other information from the 1980s 

and 1990s indicated that the elemental 

phosphorous facility located on fee 

lands within the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area and owned and 

operated by FMC Corporation (FMC 

facility) 2 was the primary cause of the 

PM–10 nonattainment problem in the 

Fort Hall nonattainment area. To 

address this nonattainment problem, 

EPA promulgated a Federal 

Implementation Plan for PM–10 

emissions from the FMC facility in 

August 2000 (FMC FIP) under the 

authority of section 301(a) and (d)(4) of 

the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a). See 65 FR 

51412 (August 23, 2000). The FMC FIP 

contained PM–10 emission limits and 

work practice, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements designed to 

reduce PM–10 emissions from the FMC 

facility to a level that would attain the 

PM–10 standard. 

In December 2001, after operating 

under the FMC FIP for approximately 

one year, the FMC facility ceased 

producing elemental phosphorous from 

phosphate ore. The buildings and 

process equipment on the property have 

since been decontaminated and 

demolished and the construction debris 

has been taken off-site. Removal of all 

point sources identified in the FMC FIP 

was completed in November 2006. The 

storage piles specifically identified in 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3At the time of the extensions, the Fort Hall PM– 

10 nonattainment area was still part of the PowerBannock County nonattainment area. 

4At the time of the lawsuit, the Fort Hall PM– 

10 nonattainment area was still part of the PowerBannock County nonattainment area. 

5EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient 

air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 

58 on October 17, 2006. See 71 FR 61236. The 

requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were 

revised and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 

58.20. 

the FIP have been taken off-site or 

placed below grade and planted over. In 

a letter dated November 1, 2007, EPA 

advised the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

of EPA’s view that there no longer are 

any sources subject to the FMC FIP 

because the FMC FIP applies to the 

owner or operator of an ‘‘elemental 

phosphorous facility’’ and because there 

is no longer an ‘‘elemental phosphorous 

facility’’ located on the FMC property. 

All sources in the Fort Hall 

nonattainment area, however, are 

subject to the Federal Air Rules for 

Reservations (FARR) for Indian 

reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and 

Washington, which are air quality 

regulations designed to protect health 

and welfare on Indian reservations 

located in the Pacific Northwest, 

including the Fort Hall Indian 

Reservation. See 67 FR 18074 (April 8, 

2005) (codified at 40 CFR 49.121 to 

49.139). 

D. Attainment Date for the Fort Hall 

PM–10 Nonattainment Area 

As discussed above, the original 

attainment date for the Fort Hall 

nonattainment area was December 31, 

1994. Section 188(d) authorizes the EPA 

Administrator to grant up to two oneyear extensions of the moderate area 

attainment date, provided certain 

requirements are met. Because the area 

was not attaining the PM–10 NAAQS at 

the time of the December 31, 1994 

attainment date, and finding that the 

area met the requirements for an 

extension, EPA granted a request for a 

one-year extension and extended the 

attainment date to December 31, 1995. 

See 61 FR 20730 (May 8, 1996). The area 

continued to violate the 24-hour PM–10 

standard through December 31, 1995. 

After finding that the area met the 

requirements for a second extension, 

EPA granted a second one-year 

extension of the attainment date to 

December 31, 1996. See 61 FR 66602 

(December 18, 1996).3

E. Reclassification Upon Failure to 

Attain 

Section 188(b)(2) of the CAA requires 

EPA to determine within six months of 

the applicable attainment date whether 

PM–10 nonattainment areas attained the 

PM–10 NAAQS by the attainment date. 

Under Section 188(b)(2)(A), a moderate 

PM–10 nonattainment area is 

reclassified as serious by operation of 

law if EPA finds that the area was not 

in attainment by the applicable 

attainment date. Section 188(b)(2)(B) of 

the CAA states that EPA shall publish 

a notice in the Federal Register within 

six months after the applicable 

attainment date identifying those areas 

that failed to attain the standard and 

that have been reclassified to serious by 

operation of law. 

F. Portneuf Environmental Council 

(PEC) Lawsuit 

On November 20, 1997, the Portneuf 

Environmental Council (PEC) filed a 

lawsuit against EPA, alleging that EPA 

had failed to make a finding regarding 

whether the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area 4 had attained the 

PM–10 NAAQS by the December 31, 

1996, extended attainment date, as 

required by CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). 

Subsequently, EPA published a Federal 

Register notice on June 18, 1998, in 

which EPA proposed to find that the 

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area 

had failed to attain the PM–10 NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date of 

December 31, 1996. See 63 FR 33605 

(June 19, 1998). 

As part of a subsequent settlement 

with PEC, PEC agreed to dismiss its 

lawsuit against EPA provided that EPA 

promulgated no later than July 31, 2000 

a Federal Implementation Plan to 

control PM–10 in the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area. EPA fulfilled its 

obligation to promulgate the FMC FIP, 

and did not take final action on the June 

19, 1998 proposal regarding the 

attainment status for the area. 

G. Sierra Club Lawsuit 

On September 14, 2000, Sierra Club 

and Group Against Smog and Pollution, 

Inc. (jointly referred to as ‘‘Sierra Club’’) 

filed suit against EPA alleging that EPA 

had failed to carry out its statutory 

obligations with respect to certain 

nonattainment areas throughout the 

United States. The complaint included 

a claim that EPA had failed to make a 

finding regarding whether the Fort Hall 

nonattainment area had attained the 

PM–10 NAAQS by the extended 

attainment date of December 31, 1996, 

as required by CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). 

The Sierra Club subsequently agreed in 

a Consent Decree in settlement of its 

lawsuit to give EPA until July 31, 2004 

to determine whether the Fort Hall area 

had attained the PM–10 standard. The 

Consent Decree provided that if EPA 

was not able to determine that the Fort 

Hall area had attained the PM–10 

standard by July 31, 2004, EPA had to 

determine that the area had not attained 

the standard by December 31, 1996 (the 

extended attainment date for the area), 

which would result in reclassification of 

the area to serious nonattainment. EPA 

expected that the FMC FIP, which was 

promulgated just prior to the Sierra 

Club’s lawsuit, would be effective in 

bringing the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area into attainment of 

the PM–10 NAAQS. 

Subsequent amendments to the 

Consent Decree gave EPA additional 

time to make a determination of 

attainment or nonattainment for the 

area. Under the terms of the most recent 

amendment to the Consent Decree with 

Sierra Club, EPA is required to sign a 

notice for publication in the Federal 

Register by August 31, 2010, containing 

either EPA’s final determination that the 

Fort Hall nonattainment area has 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS or EPA’s 

final determination that the area did not 

attain the PM–10 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 1996, and identifying the 

appropriate reclassification of the area 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7513(b)(2)(A). 

II. Proposed Attainment Determination 

A. What are the requirements for 

attainment determinations? 

Generally, EPA determines whether 

an area’s air quality is meeting the PM– 

10 NAAQS based upon complete, 

quality-assured data gathered at 

established state and local air 

monitoring stations (SLAMS) and 

national air monitoring stations (NAMS) 

in the nonattainment areas and entered 

into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). 

Data from air monitors operated by 

state/local/tribal agencies in compliance 

with EPA monitoring requirements must 

be submitted to AQS. EPA relies 

primarily on data in AQS when 

determining the attainment status of an 

area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A. EPA will also consider 

air quality data from other air 

monitoring stations in the 

nonattainment area provided that the 

stations meet the federal monitoring 

requirements for SLAMS, including the 

quality assurance and quality control 

criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. 

40 CFR 58.14 (2006) and 58.20 (2007); 5

71 FR 61236, 61242 (October 17, 2006). 

All valid data are reviewed to determine 

the area’s air quality status in 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26901 

6Because the annual PM–10 standard was 

revoked effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 

61144 (October 17, 2006), this notice discusses only 

attainment of the 24-hour PM–10 standard. 

7Prior to this time, the Tribes relied on data from 

State-operated samplers on State lands for area 

designations and classifications. 

8At times a higher sampling frequency may be 

needed in order to produce approximately 25 valid 

sample pairs per year. 40 CFR part 58 Appendix A, 

section 3.3.1.3. 

9FRMs are manual samplers that pull air through 

a filter for 24 hours (midnight to midnight). The 

filters are then weighed in a lab and a PM 

concentration is calculated based on the mass 

increase of the filter and the volume of air drawn 

through it. 

10Memo from Chris Hall to Donna Deneen, dated 

January 19, 2007, regarding Fort Hall PM–10 

Saturation Study. 

11AQS raw data report for the Ballard site for 

2010. 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Attainment of the 24-hour PM–10 

standard is determined by calculating 

the expected number of exceedances of 

the standard in a year. The 24-hour 

standard is attained when the expected 

exceedances averaged over a three-year 

period is less than or equal to one. 

Generally, three consecutive years of air 

quality data are required to show 

attainment of the 24-hour PM–10 

standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and 

appendix K.6

B. What monitoring data are available 

for the area? 

In 1994 the Tribes requested and EPA 

granted the Tribes program support 

grant funds to enable the Tribes to 

establish their own monitoring station 

to collect ambient air quality data 

representative of conditions on the Fort 

Hall Indian Reservation and to generate 

data to support Tribal air quality 

planning efforts.7 The first Tribal 

monitor, located at the ‘‘Sho-Ban site,’’ 

was a Federal Reference Monitor (FRM) 

that became operational in February 

1995. The Sho-Ban site was located 

approximately 100 feet north of the 

FMC facility across a frontage road. 

Because of operational problems, this 

monitor did not begin to collect valid 

data until October 1996. Also in October 

1996, the Tribes initiated monitoring at 

two new sites. The ‘‘primary site’’ 

contained an FRM located 

approximately 100 feet north of the 

FMC facility across the frontage road, 

approximately 600 feet east of the ShoBan site. There were two filter-based 

FRMs located at the primary site: The 

primary FRM and a co-located audit 

FRM for quality assurance purposes. 

Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites 

were located in the general area of 

expected maximum concentrations of 

PM–10 in the ambient air at the time the 

FMC facility was in operation. The 

‘‘background site’’ was an FRM site 

located approximately one and one-half 

miles southwest of the FMC facility, 

upwind of the predominant wind 

direction from FMC. All three 

monitoring sites met EPA SLAMS 

network design and siting requirements 

set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices 

D and E. 

Because the data reported at the 

background site over a number of years 

remained constant, with no discernible 

trends, both the Tribes and EPA 

determined that background PM–10 

concentrations were adequately 

characterized. Therefore, to conserve 

resources, the Tribes and EPA agreed to 

terminate operation of the FRM at the 

background site in early 2000. Sampling 

ended at the Sho-Ban site at the end of 

March 2003 because the FMC facility 

had ceased production and, given the 

close proximity of the Sho-Ban and 

primary monitoring sites, the 

comparability of the data between the 

two sites, and a continued interest in 

conserving resources, a single 

monitoring location was considered 

sufficient to identify any remaining air 

quality concerns in the area. The 

primary FRM and the audit FRM at the 

primary site remained in operation 

through December 31, 2009, with the 

primary FRM operating once every three 

days and the co-located audit FRM 

operating once every six days, or once 

every three days, depending on whether 

or not additional co-located data were 

needed to meet certain federal 

monitoring requirements.8

In addition to the primary and audit 

filter-based FRMs, from November 1998 

through September 2008, a continuous 

PM–10 sampler, called a Tapered 

Element Oscillating Microbalance 

monitor (TEOM), also operated at the 

primary site. Whereas it generally takes 

a minimum of several weeks to obtain 

PM–10 data from a filter-based FRM,9 a 

TEOM monitors PM–10 levels on a 

continuous basis and provides real-time 

data on PM–10 levels in an area. This 

TEOM monitor was shut down in 

September 2008 because of a bad pump 

and other operational problems and 

replaced by another type of continuous 

sampler, called a Beta Attenuation Mass 

monitor (BAM). The BAM was installed 

at the primary site at the beginning of 

2009, but because of start-up problems, 

did not begin to collect valid data until 

the fall of 2009. 

In 2008, an additional filter-based 

PM–10 monitor began operating in the 

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area. 

This FRM monitor operates at the 

‘‘Ballard site,’’ which is located 

approximately 6 miles north of the 

primary site and is closer than the 

primary site to the population center of 

the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment 

area. The Ballard site was established 

because of concerns that the primary 

site property might no longer remain 

available for monitoring. With those 

concerns in mind, a saturation study 

was conducted by the Tribes and EPA 

prior to the establishment of the Ballard 

site to determine the correlation of 

monitoring data between the primary 

site and several potential alternate sites. 

The potential alternate sites represented 

locations that were as close to the 

primary site as possible and to which 

the Tribes had access. Temporary 

monitors were placed at these locations 

and operated in the late summer and 

early fall of 2006. The study showed 

that there was good correlation of data 

between the primary site and several of 

the potential alternate site locations and 

that the Ballard site was particularly 

desirable because a site pad and deck 

were already established at that 

location.10 In light of the results from 

the study, the relative proximity of the 

Ballard site to the population center of 

the nonattainment area, and the lack of 

access to property closer to the primary 

site, the Ballard site was selected as an 

alternate site to the primary site. On 

April 21, 2008, the primary FRM at the 

Ballard site became operational and 

continues to collect data on a onceevery-three-day schedule.11 Based on a 

review of recent AQS data from April 

2008 through January 2010 showing 

good correlation between the Ballard 

site and the primary site, the fact that 

the Ballard site is closer in proximity to 

the population center of the 

nonattainment area than the primary 

site, and the fact that the FMC facility 

is no longer operating as an elemental 

phosphorous facility, EPA believes that 

the Ballard monitoring site is 

representative of PM–10 levels in the 

Fort Hall nonattainment area. 

Data collection at the primary site 

ended on December 31, 2009 because 

the property owner would not renew the 

lease. At the request of the property 

owner, all monitoring and associated 

equipment was removed from the 

primary site, and beginning on January 

1, 2010, the Ballard site became the only 

PM–10 monitoring site in the 

nonattainment area. To meet monitoring 

network requirements, one of the FRMs 

from the primary site was moved to the 

Ballard site and began operating as an 

audit FRM in January 2010. The BAM 

from the primary site was moved to the 

Ballard site and began operating in 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

12Table dated April 26, 2010, summarizing the 

number of exceedances of the 24-hour PM–10 

standard in the Fort Hall nonattainment area since 

1997. 

13Although EPA believes the data collected at the 

FRMs and TEOM from 2004 through 2006 are 

generally indicative of air quality in the Fort Hall 

PM–10 nonattainment area, they did not meet all 

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 

requirements and therefore may not be used to 

determine whether or not the Fort Hall area is in 

attainment with the 24-hour PM–10 standard. See 

40 CFR 58.11(a) and 58.20; 71 FR 61242 (October 

17, 2006); see also 40 CFR 58.14 (2006). 

14AQS PM–10 raw data report for primary site 

and Ballard site, 2007–2009. 

15The value of 1.0 accounts for the three 

exceedances that occurred in 2008. 

16The TEOM and BAM data are combined; the 

data for these two monitors was submitted under 

the same code in AQS and is considered one 

monitoring record. 

17The primary site TEOM ceased operations on 

September 23, 2008, and the replacement primary 

site BAM did not begin collecting valid data until 

September 1, 2009. The Ballard site FRM did not 

begin operating until April 21, 2008. 

April 2010. PM–10 monitoring for the 

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area 

continues at the Ballard site, with the 

PM–10 BAM operating daily, and both 

the primary FRM and the audit FRM 

collecting data on a once-every-threeday schedule. 

C. What do the air quality data show for 

the area? 

The number of PM–10 exceedances in 

the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area 

has dropped substantially since the area 

was designated nonattainment in the 

early 1990s. There were 16 exceedances 

recorded at the primary site in 1997, the 

first full year of monitoring for the area. 

The number of exceedances had 

decreased to four in 1999, when FMC 

began installing some control 

equipment and implementing some 

emission reduction measures in 

anticipation of promulgation of the FMC 

FIP.12 By 2001, the first full year the 

FMC FIP was in place and the final year 

the FMC facility was fully operational, 

there were no exceedances recorded on 

the FRMs and three exceedances 

recorded on the TEOM. Beginning in 

2002, the first year after the FMC facility 

ceased production, the FRMs at the 

primary site reported one exceedance of 

the 24-hour PM–10 standard in 2002 

and one in 2006.13 The TEOM at the 

primary site, which operated every day, 

recorded one exceedance per year in 

each of 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and 

three in 2008. All of the exceedances 

that have been recorded since FMC 

ceased production of elemental 

phosphorous in December 2001 

occurred on days with sustained winds 

of more than 20 mph for several hours. 

The exceedances in the relevant data 

years for this determination are 

discussed more fully in section D below. 

D. Determination of Attainment 

As discussed above, section 188(b)(2) 

of the CAA requires EPA to determine 

within six months of the applicable 

attainment date whether the Fort Hall 

PM–10 nonattainment area attained the 

PM–10 NAAQS by the extended 

attainment date of December 31, 1996. 

Under the terms of the most recent 

amendment to the Consent Decree with 

Sierra Club, EPA is required to sign a 

notice for publication in the Federal 

Register by August 31, 2010 containing 

either EPA’s final determination that the 

Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area has 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS or EPA’s 

final determination as to whether the 

area attained or failed to attain the PM– 

10 NAAQS by the extended attainment 

date of December 31, 1996 and 

identifying the appropriate 

reclassification of the area pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 7513(b)(2)(A). 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the area has attained the PM–10 

standard based on the most recent three 

years of complete, quality-assured data 

for 2007–2009. Preliminary data for 

2010 also indicate that the area 

continues to attain the standard. EPA 

regulations require that a determination 

of attainment be based on three 

consecutive years of data that meet the 

quality assurance and quality control 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix A. EPA has confirmed that 

complete air quality data in AQS for 

2007, 2008, and 2009 meet quality 

assurance and quality control 

requirements for use in determining 

attainment with the 24-hour PM–10 

standard. 

For calendar years 2007 through 2009, 

the data recorded for the Fort Hall PM– 

10 nonattainment area show generally 

low levels of PM–10, with 99 percent of 

the daily average concentrations below 

83 μg/m3 (less than two-thirds of the 

standard) and annual average PM–10 

concentrations of 23 μg/m3, 28 μg/m3

and 19 μg/m3 for 2007, 2008, and 2009, 

respectively.14 There were no 

exceedances of the standard in 2007, 

three exceedances in 2008, and no 

exceedances in 2009. 

There were no exceedances of the 

PM–10 standard measured at the 

primary site filter-based FRM monitors 

or at the Ballard site. Table 1 identifies 

all the monitors that were operating in 

the Fort Hall nonattainment area during 

the 2007 through 2009 period, and the 

number of PM–10 exceedances recorded 

at each. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCES OF THE 24-HOUR PM–10 STANDARD IN THE FORT HALL PM–10 NONATTAINMENT

AREA FROM JANUARY 1, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009 

Year 

Primary site— 

Primary FRM 

160770011 a (Data 

from 01/01/2007 

through 12/31/ 

2009) 

Primary site— 

Audit FRM 

160770011 a (Data 

from 01/01/2007 

through 12/31/ 

2009) 

Primary site— 

TEOM 160770011 b

(Data from 01/01/ 

2007 through 09/ 

23/2008) 

Primary site— 

BAM 160770011 b

(Data from 09/01/ 

2009 through 12/ 

31/2009) 

Ballard site— 

FRM 160050020 a

(Data from 04/21/ 

2008 through 12/ 

31/2009) 

2007 ............................................. 0 0 0 NA NA 

2008 ............................................. 0 0 c 3 NA 0 

2009 ............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

aEvery-three-day sampling. 

b Continuous monitor. 

c Hourly wind speeds of more than 26 mph and sustained hourly wind speeds of more than 20 mph for several hours on the day of each 

exceedance. 

The calculated number of expected 

exceedances of the PM–10 standard (in 

days per year) for 2007–2009 is 0.0 for 

the primary site FRMs, 1.0 15 for the 

primary site TEOM and BAM,16 and 0.0 

for the Ballard site FRM. Because 

neither the primary site TEOM and 

BAM data nor the Ballard site FRM data 

are complete for 2007–2009,17 the data 

from these monitors may not be used for 

a determination of attainment. The data 

from these monitors may, however, be 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 26903 

18 If this proposal is finalized, and EPA 

subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that the area no longer is attaining the 

NAAQS, EPA will publish such determination in 

the Federal Register. 

19Memo from Donna Deneen to the Fort Hall 

Docket, dated April 26, 2010, regarding PM–10 

Exceedances and Wind Speeds on April 15, May 20, 

and August 26, 2008. 

used to determine that an area has not 

attained the standard, a showing that is 

less stringent than a showing that an 

area has attained the standard. In this 

case, neither the expected exceedance 

rate of 1.0 (for the primary site TEOM 

and BAM) nor the exceedance rate of 0.0 

(for Ballard site FRM) show that the area 

has failed to attain the PM–10 standard, 

The data from the primary site FRMs 

are complete for 2007–2009 and 

therefore may be used for a 

determination of attainment. The 

expected exceedance rate of 0.0 for the 

primary site FRMs is equal to or less 

than the expected exceedance rate of 1.0 

that is allowed under the PM–10 

NAAQS. Because complete data from 

the primary site FRMs show an 

expected exceedance rate equal to or 

below the PM–10 standard, because the 

other monitors at the primary and 

Ballard sites show expected exceedance 

rates equal to or less than the PM–10 

standard, and because, based on data 

available to date, there have been no 

additional exceedances of the PM–10 

standard in the nonattainment area in 

2010, EPA concludes that the area has 

met the standard. EPA therefore 

proposes to determine that the Fort Hall 

PM–10 nonattainment area has attained 

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS.18

EPA has carefully reviewed the 

monitoring data, meteorological data 

and other available information 

regarding the exceedances that occurred 

at the TEOM in 2008. The 

meteorological data for this review came 

from a meteorological station that was 

co-located with the PM–10 monitors at 

the primary site. Because each of the 

PM–10 exceedances was recorded on a 

continuous monitor, it is possible to 

compare hourly PM–10 levels on the 

day of each exceedance with hourly 

wind speed measured at the 

meteorological station. On all three days 

when exceedances were recorded, 

hourly spikes in PM–10 levels 

corresponded to increases in hourly 

wind speeds.19 Hourly wind speeds of 

more than 26 mph and sustained hourly 

wind speeds of more than 20 mph for 

several hours were measured on all 

three days. 

All three exceedances were flagged 

timely by the Sho-Ban Tribes as high 

wind events under EPA’s Exceptional 

Events Rule (72 FR 13560, March 22, 

2007). Under EPA’s Exceptional Events 

Rule, EPA may exclude data from 

regulatory determinations related to 

exceedances or violations of the NAAQS 

if it is adequately demonstrated that an 

exceptional event caused the 

exceedance or violation. 40 CFR 50.1, 

50.14. In this case, EPA need not 

determine whether the flagged 

exceedances can be considered as 

caused by ‘‘exceptional events’’ under 

the Exceptional Events Rule. For the 

purposes of the current attainment 

determination, inclusion of these 

exceedances does not affect EPA’s 

determination of the area’s attainment 

status. In other words, even if EPA 

includes all three days of exceedances 

monitored at the TEOM in 2008, the 

data show that the area attained the 

PM–10 standard and under the existing 

monitoring record, EPA’s proposed 

determination that the area has attained 

the standard is not dependent on 

whether the 2008 exceedances qualify 

for exclusion under the Exceptional 

Events Rule. If in the future we 

determine that it is appropriate to 

evaluate whether the exceedances 

qualify as caused by exceptional events 

and may be excluded from regulatory 

determinations, we will do so at that 

time in accordance with the Exceptional 

Events Rule. 

III. Proposed Action 

A. Proposed Determination of 

Attainment 

EPA is, by this document, proposing 

to determine that the Fort Hall 

nonattainment area has attained the 24- 

hour PM–10 standard, based on 

complete, quality-assured monitoring 

data for 2007–2009, and data available 

to date for 2010. This proposed finding 

of attainment is not a proposed 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3). If this proposal is 

finalized, the designation status in 40 

CFR part 81 for the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area would remain 

moderate nonattainment until such time 

as the area is redesignated to attainment 

as provided in CAA section 107(d)(3). If 

this proposal is finalized, and EPA 

subsequently determines after notice 

and comment rulemaking, that the area 

is no longer attaining the NAAQS, EPA 

will publish such determination in the 

Federal Register. 

B. Withdrawal of June 19, 1998 Proposal 

It has now been twelve years since 

EPA proposed to make a finding of 

nonattainment for the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area (63 FR 33605, June 

19, 1998). In light of all the changes that 

have taken place over that time, 

including the promulgation of the FIP, 

the cessation of the production of 

elemental phosphorous at FMC, the low 

levels of PM–10 recorded in the area, 

and the consent decree with Sierra Club 

that provides for an attainment 

determination for the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area based on 2007–2009 

data, EPA is withdrawing its June 19, 

1998 proposed rulemaking and issuing 

this proposal in its place. Accordingly, 

EPA will not be responding to 

comments on the June 19, 1998 

proposal. Any person who wishes to 

comment on EPA’s proposed finding 

that the Fort Hall nonattainment area 

attained the 24-hour PM–10 standard as 

of December 31, 2009 should do so at 

this time. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action proposes to make a 

determination based on air quality data, 

and would, if finalized, not result in the 

imposition of any additional Federal 

requirements. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is 

not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
26904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

proposed rule merely makes a required 

determination based on air quality data 

and would neither impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on tribal 

governments, nor preempt tribal law, 

the requirements of sections 5(b) and 

5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply 

to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy, 

EPA nonetheless provided a 

consultation opportunity to the 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in a letter to 

the Chairman of the Fort Hall Business 

Council, dated January 25, 2010, 

offering the Tribes the opportunity to 

consult on this determination and have 

meaningful and timely input into this 

proposed decision. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13175, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and 

tribal governments, EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed rule from tribal officials. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 3, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11139 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9150–9] 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Notice of Data Availability; 

Default Emission Factors for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Refined 

Process Categories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Data availability and request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is making available to the 

public draft default emission factors for 

semiconductor manufacturing refined 

process categories. On April 12, 2010 

EPA published a proposed rule, 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs (75 FR 18652) which 

included proposed methods for 

monitoring and reporting greenhouse 

gases (GHGs) from electronics 

manufacturing. More specifically, as one 

option for monitoring and reporting, 

EPA proposed semiconductor 

manufacturers estimate emissions using 

default emission factors for nine distinct 

process categories. For each default 

emission factor, EPA proposed a range 

of values differentiated by production 

technology generation (i.e., wafer size). 

Based on additional information 

received since the publication of the 

proposed rule, EPA has developed draft 

emission factors for the proposed 

process categories. EPA is making those 

draft emission factors as well as the 

underlying data that was used to 

develop the draft emission factors 

available to the public for review and 

comment in the report, Draft Emission 

Factors for Refined Semiconductor 

Manufacturing Process Categories. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0927 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: 

GHGReportingFGHG@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention 

Docket OAR–2009–0927, Mail code 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, Room 

3334, EPA West Building, Attention 

Docket OAR–2009–0927, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is 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 http:// 

www.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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kirsten Cappel, Climate Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9556; fax 

number: (202) 343–2202; e-mail address: 

cappel.kirsten@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline 

1. What is today’s action? 

2. What information is EPA making available 

for review and comment? 

3. How does this information relate to the 

proposed rule Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs? 

4. Where can I get the information? 

5. What is EPA taking comment on and what 

supporting documentation do I need to 

include in my comments? 


cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS