```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7340-7347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02233]

[[Page 7340]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[Docket : EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0017; FRL-9774-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: 
Sandpoint PM[bdi1][bdi0] Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan 
and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part 
the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) submitted by the State of Idaho on 
December 14, 2011, for the Sandpoint nonattainment area (Sandpoint NAA) 
for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10), and to approve the 
State's request to redesignate this area to attainment for the 
PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA 
is proposing to disapprove a separable part of the Sandpoint NAA LMP 
that does not meet LMP eligibility criteria or applicable requirements 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The part of the Sandpoint NAA LMP that 
the EPA is proposing to approve complies with applicable requirements 
and meets the requirements of the CAA for full approval. The EPA is 
also proposing to approve the State's redesignation request because it 
meets CAA requirements for redesignation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0017, by any of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    C. Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
    D. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office 
of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT--107. 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-
2012-0017. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
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 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, 
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
    A. PM10 NAAQS
    B. Planning Background
III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process
IV. Requirements for Redesignation
    A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas
    B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas
    C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
V. Review of the State's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for 
Redesignation and LMPs
    A. Has the Sandpoint NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?
    B. Does the Sandpoint NAA have a fully approved SIP under 
Section 110(k) of the CAA?
    C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section 
110 and Part D of the CAA?
    D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement 
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?
    E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant 
to Section 175A of the CAA?
    F. Has the State demonstrated that the Sandpoint NAA qualifies 
for the LMP option?
    G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions 
inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?
    H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of 
an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in 
accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
    I. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for 
contingency provisions?
    J. Has the State met conformity requirements?
VI. Revisions to Sandpoint PM10 SIP
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the 
LMP submitted by the State of Idaho on December 14, 2011, for the 
Sandpoint NAA, and to approve the State's request to redesignate this 
area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. The Sandpoint NAA LMP 
submittal included a request to approve revisions to the control 
measures included in the PM10 attainment State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Sandpoint NAA. The EPA is proposing 
to approve the revised Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 for control of 
residential burning because it strengthens the SIP. The EPA is also 
proposing to approve the State's request to remove the Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint operating permit control measure from 
the SIP because the facility has been shut down, dismantled, and is no 
longer in operation. However, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
State's request to remove the operating permits for two other sources 
because these

[[Page 7341]]

sources are still in operation and the State did not provide a 
demonstration that removal of the two permits would not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, the removal of 
controls that were relied on to demonstrate attainment would disqualify 
the Sandpoint NAA for LMP eligibility and require that the State submit 
a full maintenance plan. Because the State submitted the Sandpoint NAA 
LMP intending to qualify for the LMP option, and did not submit a full 
maintenance plan, we are proposing to disapprove the separable portion 
of the submittal that is not consistent with the LMP qualifying 
criteria. This proposed partial disapproval does not prevent the State 
from submitting a subsequent SIP revision demonstrating that the 
removal of the two operating permits does not interfere with attainment 
or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The EPA's proposed partial disapproval would be simultaneously 
corrected because we are, in this same action, proposing to fully 
approve the Sandpoint NAA LMP with all control measures in place. 
Therefore, upon final action a fully approved LMP would be in place and 
no further submittal would be required from the State to address the 
partial disapproval.

II. Background

A. PM10 NAAQS

    ``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is 
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. The 
size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing 
health problems. The EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that 
generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once 
inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause 
serious health effects. People with heart or lung diseases, children 
and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle 
pollution exposure. However, even healthy individuals may experience 
temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of particle 
pollution.
    On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated a NAAQS for PM10 
(52 FR 24634). The EPA established a 24-hour standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ 
and an annual standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\, expressed as an annual 
arithmetic mean. The EPA also promulgated secondary PM10 
standards identical to the primary standards. In a rulemaking action 
dated October 17, 2006, the EPA retained the 24-hour PM10 
standard but revoked the annual PM10 standard (71 FR 61144, 
effective December 18, 2006).

B. Planning Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA designated the Sandpoint area as a 
PM10 nonattainment area due to measured violations of the 
24-hour PM10 standard (52 FR 29383). The notice announcing 
the designation upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments was published 
on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 6, 1991, the Sandpoint NAA 
was classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of 
the CAA (56 FR 56694).
    The Sandpoint NAA is located in northern Idaho and includes the 
communities of Sandpoint, Kootenai, and Ponderay, covering 
approximately fifteen square miles of Bonner County. The Sandpoint NAA 
is a low-lying area, at 2085 feet above sea level, surrounded by 
mountain ranges with varying heights of approximately 3000 to 7000 
feet. The Sandpoint NAA is located approximately 46 miles north of 
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and 70 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington.
    After the Sandpoint NAA was designated nonattainment for 
PM10, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 
worked with the communities of Sandpoint, Kootenai, and Ponderay to 
develop a plan to bring the area into attainment no later than December 
31, 1996. The State submitted the plan to the EPA on August 16, 1996, 
as a moderate PM10 SIP under section 189(a) of the CAA. The 
moderate PM10 SIP included a comprehensive residential wood 
combustion program, controls on fugitive road dust, and emission 
limitations on industrial sources. The EPA took final action to approve 
the Sandpoint moderate PM10 SIP on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 
43006). On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint NAA had 
attained the PM10 NAAQS (75 FR 35302).
    On December 14, 2011, the State submitted to the EPA the Sandpoint 
NAA LMP for approval, and requested that the EPA redesignate the 
Sandpoint NAA to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. The State 
also requested approval to revise control measures in the Sandpoint 
PM10 SIP. In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve in 
part and disapprove in part the Sandpoint NAA LMP, and to concurrently 
redesignate the Sandpoint area from nonattainment to attainment for the 
PM10 NAAQS.

III. Public and Stakeholder Involvement in Rulemaking Process

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur 
prior to the revision being submitted by a state to the EPA. The State 
of Idaho provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the 
Sandpoint NAA LMP from October 11, 2011 to November 10, 2011. A notice 
of public hearing was published in the Coeur d'Alene Press and the 
Bonner County Daily Bee on October 11, 2011. The State held a public 
hearing on December 9, 2011, in Sandpoint, Idaho. This SIP revision was 
submitted by the Governor's designee to the EPA on December 14, 2011. 
The EPA has evaluated the State's submittal and determined that the 
State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing 
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

IV. Requirements for Redesignation

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Area

    A nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment after the 
area has measured air quality data showing the NAAQS has been attained, 
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for 
redesignation (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). These criteria are further 
clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, entitled ``Procedures 
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni 
Memo). The criteria for redesignation are:
    1. The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS;
    2. the Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the 
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    3. the state containing the area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    4. the Administrator has determined that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; 
and
    5. the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined 
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from

[[Page 7342]]

Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, 
entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option Memo). The LMP Option Memo contains a 
statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality 
criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard 
ten years into the future. Thus, the EPA provided the maintenance 
demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in the LMP Option 
Memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these areas, 
and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation 
conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the 
PM10 NAAQS and, based upon the most recent five years of air 
quality data at all monitors in the area, the 24-hour design value 
should be at or below 98 [micro]g/m\3\. If an area cannot meet this 
test, it may still be able to qualify for the LMP Option if the average 
design value (ADV) for the area is less than the site-specific critical 
design value (CDV). In addition, the area should expect only limited 
growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including 
fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional 
emissions analysis test. The LMP Option Memo also identifies core 
provisions that must be included in the LMP. These provisions include 
an attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued 
operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and 
contingency provisions.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule 
(40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance 
areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity 
rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating a Federal action conforms 
to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from 
the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the 
area.
    While qualification for the LMP Option does not exempt an area from 
the need to affirm conformity, conformity may be demonstrated without 
submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets 
are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the 
maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the 
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a 
violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation 
conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these 
areas need not be capped for the maintenance period and therefore a 
regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, Federal 
actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to 
satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) for 
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be 
unlimited.

V. Review of the State's Submittal Addressing the Requirements for 
Redesignation and LMPs

A. Has the Sandpoint NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

    To demonstrate that an area has attained the PM10 NAAQS, 
states must submit an analysis of ambient air quality data from an 
ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10 
concentrations. The data should be quality-assured and stored in the 
EPA Air Quality System database. The EPA has reviewed air quality data 
for the area and has confirmed that the Sandpoint NAA attained the 
PM10 NAAQS \1\ by the applicable attainment date of December 
31, 1996 and continues to attain the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA's 
analysis is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the annual PM10 standard was revoked 
effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006), 
this notice discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM10 
standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m\3\. An area has 
attained this 24-hour standard if the average number of expected 
exceedances per year is less than or equal to one, when averaged over a 
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be 
collected in accordance with Federal requirements (40 CFR part 58 
including appendices).
    On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint NAA 
attained the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1996 (75 FR 35302). 
The EPA has also reviewed more recent ambient air quality data for the 
24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and has determined that the Sandpoint 
NAA continues to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A summary of 
the EPA's data review and analysis can be found in the docket for this 
action (Sandpoint PM10 NAAQS LMP Memo, dated September 13, 
2012).
    A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by the State to the EPA on 
January 15, 1980, and approved by the EPA on July 28, 1982 (40 CFR 
52.670). Updated monitoring plans have been subsequently submitted and 
approved, with the most recent submittal dated July 1, 2012 and 
approved on October 25, 2012. The monitoring plan describes the 
PM10 monitoring network throughout Idaho, which includes the 
Sandpoint monitoring site. In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the 
State states that the Idaho DEQ has monitored PM10 in 
Sandpoint since 1985, and that data from 1996 through 2008 show that 
PM10 concentrations remain well below the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS. In addition, the State states that the Sandpoint 
monitoring site is operated in compliance with the EPA monitoring 
guidelines set forth in 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality 
Surveillance. Data from the Sandpoint monitoring site has been quality 
assured by Idaho DEQ and submitted to the EPA Air Quality System (AQS), 
accessible through the EPA AirData Web site at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/.

B. Does the Sandpoint NAA have a fully approved SIP under Section 
110(k) of the CAA?

    To qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be fully 
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA, and must satisfy all 
requirements that apply to the area. As discussed in Section II.B. 
above, the State submitted the Sandpoint PM10 SIP to the EPA 
on August 16, 1996. The EPA fully approved the Sandpoint 
PM10 SIP on June 26, 2002, as satisfying all requirements 
that apply to the area (67 FR 43006). Thus, the area has a fully 
approved nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.

C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under Section 110 and 
Part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that for an area to be 
redesignated to attainment the state must meet all applicable 
requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA. The EPA 
interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that 
applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a 
complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how the 
State meets these requirements.
(1) CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for 
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited 
to: submittal of a SIP adopted by the state after reasonable notice and 
public hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of 
appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit program;

[[Page 7343]]

provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for 
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting; 
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency 
participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of 
these requirements (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). For purposes of 
redesignating the Sandpoint NAA, the EPA has reviewed the Idaho SIP and 
finds that the State has satisfied all applicable requirements under 
CAA section 110(a)(2) for the PM10 NAAQS. The EPA's approval 
of the State's SIP for attainment and maintenance of the 
PM10 NAAQS under CAA section 110 can be found at 40 CFR 
52.673.
(2) Part D Requirements
    CAA part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas 
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a 
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10 
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and 
the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional 
Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following 
paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the Sandpoint 
NAA.
(2)(a) Part D, Section 172(c)(2)--Reasonable Further Progress
    CAA section 172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment 
area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements can be found in 
the General Preamble (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). CAA section 
172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for reasonable 
further progress (RFP). Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such 
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 
pollutant as are required by this part (part D of title I) or may 
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring 
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by 
the applicable date.'' The requirements for RFP, identification of 
certain emissions increases and other measures needed for attainment 
were satisfied with the approved Sandpoint moderate PM10 SIP 
(67 FR 43006). On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint 
NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1996 (75 FR 
35302), therefore the State has demonstrated that no further showing of 
RFP or quantitative milestones is necessary.
(2)(b) Part D, Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Sandpoint 
NAA. The State included an emissions inventory dated March 31, 2006 in 
the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal. The State used 1999 as a base year for 
the emissions inventory because the State determined that it is 
representative of emissions during the five year period (1996-2001) 
associated with air quality data demonstrating attainment, and that a 
more current inventory would not find higher total emissions rates that 
those estimated for 1999. The State has demonstrated that the 1999 base 
year emissions inventory is current, accurate, and comprehensive, and 
therefore meets the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
(2)(c) Part D, Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
    The CAA requires all nonattainment areas to meet several 
requirements regarding NSR. A state must have an approved major NSR 
program that meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5). The Part 
D NSR rules for PM10 nonattainment areas in Idaho were 
approved by the EPA on July 23, 1993 (58 FR 39445) and amended on 
January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Revisions to Idaho's NSR rules were most 
recently approved by the EPA on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719). Within 
the boundaries of the Sandpoint NAA, the requirements of the Part D NSR 
program will be replaced by the State's Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program requirements upon the effective date of 
redesignation.
(2)(d) Part D, Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 
110(a)(2): Air Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an 
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to 
verify the attainment status of the area. On January 15, 1980, the 
State submitted a comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended 
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. The EPA approved the plan 
on July 28, 1982 (40 CFR 52.760). This monitoring plan has been 
updated, with the most recent submittal dated July 1, 2012 and approved 
on October 25, 2012. The monitoring plan describes the PM10 
monitoring network throughout Idaho, including the Sandpoint monitoring 
site. The Sandpoint monitoring site is operated in compliance with the 
EPA monitoring guidelines set forth in 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air 
Quality Surveillance. In addition, the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal 
provides a commitment to continue operation of the PM10 
monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to annually 
verify continued attainment of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in 
Sandpoint.
(2)(e) Part D, Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if an area 
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. On June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that 
the Sandpoint NAA attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date of December 31, 1996 (75 FR 35302), therefore 
contingency measures are no longer required under Section 172 (c)(9) of 
the CAA. However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance 
plans under Section 175(a)(d). Please see section IV.I. for a 
description of Idaho's maintenance plan contingency provisions.
(2)(f) Part D, Section 189(a), (c) and (e)--Additional Provisions for 
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas
    CAA sections 189(a), (c) and (e) apply to moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas. Any of these requirements which were applicable 
and due prior to the submission of the redesignation request must be 
fully approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to 
attainment. With respect to the Sandpoint NAA, these requirements 
include:
    (a) Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures 
were implemented by December 10, 1993 (section 189(a)(1)(C));
    (b) either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a 
demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable (section 
189(a)(1)(B));
    (c) quantitative milestones which were achieved every three years 
and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994 
(section 189(c)(1)); and
    (d) provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable 
to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major 
stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the 
Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the 
area (section 189(e)).

[[Page 7344]]

    Provisions for reasonably available control measures, attainment 
demonstration, and RFP milestones were fully approved into the SIP upon 
the EPA approval of the Sandpoint PM10 SIP for the Sandpoint 
NAA on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43006). The EPA approved changes to Idaho's 
major NSR rules on July 17, 2012 (77 FR 41916) and November 26, 2010 
(75 FR 72719). Idaho's major nonattainment NSR rules and PSD rules 
include control requirements that apply to major stationary sources of 
PM10 and PM10 precursors in nonattainment and 
attainment/unclassifiable areas.

D. Has the State demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due 
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA provides that a nonattainment 
area may not be redesignated unless the EPA determines that the 
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP. 
Therefore, a state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement 
in air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions by 
demonstrating that air quality improvements are the result of actual 
enforceable emission reductions. This showing should consider emission 
rates, production capacities, and other related information. The 
analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted levels 
(or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented that such an 
assumption is unrealistic.
    Permanent and enforceable control measures in the Sandpoint 
PM10 SIP include controls on residential wood combustion, 
fugitive road dust, and industrial sources of emissions. The Sandpoint 
NAA LMP submittal describes the efforts started in 1995 to control 
residential wood combustion in the City of Sandpoint, which included a 
public awareness campaign, an uncertified woodstove replacement 
program, and a new city ordinance related to woodstoves and burning. 
The public awareness program provided citizens with information about 
stove sizing, installation, proper operation and maintenance, general 
health risks of wood smoke, new stove technology, and alternatives to 
wood heating. The replacement program resulted in the removal of 84 
uncertified wood stoves which were replaced by natural gas units, 
certified wood stoves, and pellet stoves. In addition, the Sandpoint 
NAA LMP submittal describes Sandpoint Ordinance 965, which restricts 
the sale and installation of uncertified solid fuel heating appliances, 
and implements a wood burning curtailment program in the City of 
Sandpoint.
    The Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal also describes measures to reduce 
particulate matter emissions due to winter sanding of road surfaces in 
the City of Sandpoint including changing the type and volume of sanding 
material used, using alternative materials, and increasing the 
frequency of street sweeping. Sandpoint City Ordinance 939, adopted in 
1994, requires applicators of anti-skid material to use only material 
that meets certain standards for percentages of fines and durability. 
In addition, the Sandpoint Independent Highway District and Idaho 
Transportation Department have acquired equipment to apply liquid de-
icer and have also designated certain roads in Sandpoint as an ``anti-
skid free zone.''
    Finally, the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal describes the control 
measures relied on to address industrial source emissions. The State 
developed emissions limits for facilities in the Sandpoint NAA through 
the Tier II Operating Permit Program, with input from each facility to 
ensure the reductions in potential to emit were feasible and offered 
sufficient operational flexibility. Portions of the Tier II operating 
permits for three sources, Louisiana Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint, 
Lake Pre-Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt were approved into 
the Sandpoint PM10 SIP on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43006).
    The controls on residential wood combustion, fugitive road dust, 
and industrial sources of emissions described above were approved by 
the EPA into the Sandpoint PM10 SIP, and are both permanent 
and Federally-enforceable (67 FR 43006). However, Idaho's Sandpoint NAA 
LMP submittal included a request to remove the three Tier II operating 
permits from the Sandpoint PM10 SIP. The EPA is proposing to 
approve the State's request to remove the Louisiana-Pacific 
Corporation--Sandpoint operating permit from the SIP because the 
facility has ceased operations and has been dismantled. The EPA is 
proposing to disapprove the State's request to remove the two other 
operating permits (Lake Pre-Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt) 
because the submittal did not include a demonstration that removal of 
the two permits would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 
the PM10 NAAQS. This proposed partial disapproval does not 
prevent the State from submitting a subsequent SIP revision to remove 
the two Tier II operating permits with the required demonstration.
    The EPA has concluded that areas that qualify for the LMP Option 
will meet the NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions. 
Therefore, under the LMP Option, the maintenance demonstration is 
presumed to be satisfied if an area meets the criteria to qualify for a 
LMP. An application of the LMP qualifying criteria to the Sandpoint NAA 
is provided below. By qualifying for a LMP, the State presumptively 
demonstrates that the air quality improvements in the Sandpoint NAA are 
the result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of either 
economic trends or meteorology.

E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to 
Section 175A of the Act?

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the LMP in accordance 
with the principles outlined in the LMP Option Memo. Upon final 
approval, the Sandpoint NAA will have a fully approved maintenance 
plan.

F. Has the State demonstrated that the Sandpoint NAA qualifies for the 
LMP option?

    The LMP Option Memo outlines the requirements for an area to 
qualify for a LMP. First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS. On 
June 22, 2010, the EPA determined that the Sandpoint NAA attained the 
PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1996 (75 FR 35302). The EPA has 
reviewed more recent ambient air quality data for the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS, and has determined that the Sandpoint NAA 
continues to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Please see 
section V.A. for a detailed discussion.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past five years of 
monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value (CDV). 
The CDV is a margin of safety value at which an area has been 
determined to have a one in ten probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The 
LMP Option Memo provides two methods to review monitoring data for the 
purpose of determining qualification for a LMP. The first method is a 
comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS. A second method that applies to the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS is the calculation of a site-specific CDV and a 
comparison of the site-specific CDV with the ADV for the past five 
years of monitoring data. The State's LMP submittal provides a 
comparison of five-year ADVs compared to the 24-hour and annual CDVs 
for the years 2004-2008, as described in the first method for review of 
monitoring data to determine qualification for a

[[Page 7345]]

LMP. The State's analysis demonstrates that the Sandpoint NAA has met 
the LMP design value criteria since 1999, the base year for the most 
recent emissions inventory. The EPA has reviewed the calculations and 
concurs with the State's findings. The EPA also calculated ADVs using 
more recent data and found that the Sandpoint NAA meets the LMP design 
value criteria for the period 2007-2011. The EPA's design value 
calculations and analysis can be found in the docket for this action 
(Sandpoint PM10 NAAQS LMP Memo, dated September 13, 2012). 
Therefore, the EPA finds that the Sandpoint NAA meets the design value 
criteria outlined in the LMP Option Memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test described in attachment B of the LMP Option Memo. Using 
the methodology outlined in the LMP Option Memo, the State has 
submitted an analysis of whether increased emissions from on-road 
mobile sources would increase PM10 concentrations in the 
Sandpoint NAA to levels that would threaten the assumption of 
maintenance that underlies the LMP policy. Based on monitoring data for 
the period 2004-2008, the State has determined that the Sandpoint NAA 
passes the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. The EPA has 
reviewed the calculations in the State's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal 
and concurs with this conclusion.
    The LMP Option Memo requires all controls relied on to demonstrate 
attainment remain in place for a NAA to qualify for a LMP. The controls 
on residential wood combustion, fugitive road dust, and industrial 
sources of emissions described above were approved by the EPA into the 
Sandpoint PM10 SIP, and are both permanent and Federally-
enforceable (67 FR 43006). However, Idaho's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal 
included a request to remove the three Tier II operating permits from 
the Sandpoint PM10 SIP. The EPA is proposing to approve the 
State's request to remove the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint 
operating permit from the SIP because the facility has ceased 
operations and has been dismantled. The EPA is proposing to disapprove 
the State's request to remove the two other operating permits (Lake 
Pre-Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt) because the submittal did 
not include a demonstration that removal of the two permits would not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS. 
This proposed partial disapproval does not prevent the State from 
submitting a subsequent SIP revision to remove the two Tier II 
operating permits with the required demonstration. Because the 
industrial source controls relied upon to demonstrate attainment remain 
in place for those sources that have not been permanently shut down, 
the State still meets the qualification criteria under the LMP Option 
Memo.
    As described above, the Sandpoint NAA meets the qualification 
criteria set forth in the LMP Option Memo, and therefore qualifies for 
a LMP. The LMP Option Memo also indicates that once a State submits a 
LMP and it is in effect, the State will be expected to determine, on an 
annual basis, that the LMP criteria are still being met. If the State 
determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take 
action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough to requalify for 
the LMP. One possible approach the State could take is to implement 
contingency measures. Section V. I. provides a description of 
contingency provisions submitted as part of the Sandpoint NAA LMP 
submittal. In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the State commits to 
evaluate, on an annual basis, the LMP criteria for the Sandpoint NAA.
    As a result of the above analysis, the EPA is proposing to approve 
the LMP for the Sandpoint NAA and the State's request to redesignate 
the Sandpoint NAA to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS.

G. Does the State have an approved attainment emissions inventory which 
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    Pursuant to the LMP Option Memo, the state's approved attainment 
plan should include an emissions inventory which can be used to 
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent 
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality 
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability 
requirements of the LMP Option. The state should review its inventory 
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the 
inventory if necessary.
    The State's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal includes an emissions 
inventory completed in 2006, with a base year of 1999. The State 
determined that using 1999 as a base year in the inventory would be 
representative of the first five years of clean data (i.e., having no 
violations of the PM10 NAAQS). The Sandpoint NAA LMP 
submittal states that since 1999, the only major stationary source in 
the Sandpoint NAA has ceased operation and has been dismantled. The 
submittal also provides ambient monitoring data to analyze population 
growth as it relates to particulate matter concentrations. Based on 
this data, the State has concluded that population growth is not 
interfering with improvements in particulate matter ambient air 
quality. The State concludes that the 1999 emissions inventory is 
representative of emissions during the five year period (1996-2001) 
associated with air quality data demonstrating attainment, and that a 
more current inventory would not find higher total emissions rates than 
those estimated for 1999. The Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal meets the EPA 
guidance, as described above, for purposes of an attainment emissions 
inventory.

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an 
appropriate EPA-Approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance 
with 40 CFR Part 58?

    PM10 monitoring was established in the Sandpoint area in 
1985. The monitoring network was developed and has been maintained in 
accordance with Federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, 
and in consultation with EPA Region 10. The EPA most recently approved 
the State's air monitoring plan on October 25, 2012. In the Sandpoint 
NAA LMP submittal, the State states that it will continue to operate 
its monitoring network to meet the EPA requirements at 40 CFR part 58.

I. Does the plan meet the clean air act requirements for contingency 
provisions?

    CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of 
any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the 
area to attainment. As explained in the LMP Option Memo and the 
Calcagni Memo, these contingency provisions are considered to be an 
enforceable part of the Federally-approved SIP. The maintenance plan 
should clearly identify the provisions to be adopted, a schedule and 
procedures for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit 
for action by the state. The maintenance plan should identify the 
events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a 
contingency provision, the contingency provision that would be adopted 
and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which 
the state would adopt and implement the provision. The LMP Option Memo 
and Calcagni Memo state that the EPA will determine the adequacy of a 
contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, it must require

[[Page 7346]]

that the State will implement all measures contained in the CAA part D 
nonattainment plan for the area prior to redesignation.
    In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the State has included 
maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to 
meet the PM10 NAAQS. The primary contingency provision is 
the Episodic Curtailment Program in Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 which 
restricts and controls burning activities to reduce particulate matter 
emissions. Ordinance 965 has been strengthened by the City of Sandpoint 
to protect both the PM10 NAAQS and the PM2.5 
NAAQS. The ordinance specifies ``triggers'' for implementing 
provisions, based on forecasted PM10 and PM2.5 
levels. The Sandpoint NAA LMP also references Idaho regulations 
previously approved into the SIP which provide the State with broad 
authority to require or revise a permit of any stationary source, at 
any time, should it be determined that emission rate reductions are 
necessary to attain or maintain the PM10 NAAQS.
    The contingency provisions submitted by the State have been 
adopted, are currently being implemented in the Sandpoint area, and 
contain triggers based on forecasted PM10 levels for 
implementing specific provisions to reduce particulate matter emissions 
from home wood heating. Therefore, the EPA believes the contingency 
provisions submitted in the Sandpoint NAA LMP are adequate to meet CAA 
section 175A requirements.

J. Has the State met conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially 
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable 
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that 
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with 
maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option are not subject to the 
budget test, the areas remain subject to the other transportation 
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the 
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state must 
document and ensure that:
    (a) Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    (b) transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal 
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    (c) the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    (d) conformity of transportation plans is determined no less 
frequently than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments 
and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the 
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    (e) the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as 
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    (f) projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon 
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    (g) project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments 
as specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    Upon approval of the Sandpoint NAA LMP, the Sandpoint area is 
exempt from performing a regional emissions analysis, but must meet 
project-level conformity analyses as well as the transportation 
conformity criteria mentioned above.
(2) General Conformity
    For Federal actions required to address the specific requirements 
of the general conformity rule, one set of requirements applies 
particularly to ensuring that emissions from the action will not cause 
or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current 
violations, or delay timely attainment. One way that this requirement 
can be met is to demonstrate that ``the total of direct and indirect 
emissions from the action (or portion thereof) is determined and 
documented by the State agency primarily responsible for the applicable 
SIP to result in a level of emissions which, together with all other 
emissions in the nonattainment area, would not exceed the emissions 
budgets specified in the applicable SIP'' (40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A)).
    The decision about whether to include specific allocations of 
allowable emissions increases to sources is one made by the state air 
quality agencies. These emissions budgets are different than those used 
in transportation conformity. Emissions budgets in transportation 
conformity are required to limit and restrain emissions. Emissions 
budgets in general conformity allow increases in emissions up to 
specified levels. The State has not chosen to include specific 
emissions allocations for Federal projects that would be subject to the 
provisions of general conformity.

VI. Revisions to Sandpoint PM10 SIP

    In the Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal, the State requested that the 
EPA approve revisions to the Sandpoint PM10 SIP. The State 
requested approval of revisions to the Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 
which regulates residential wood burning to protect both the 
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS. The revision aligns the 
ordinance with the EPA Air Quality Index public advisory levels, 
establishes triggers for burn curtailment based on forecasted levels of 
PM10 and PM2.5, adopts Federal standards of 
performance for new residential wood heaters, and includes a violation 
and penalty provision. The EPA is proposing to approve the revised 
Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 into the Sandpoint PM10 SIP 
because it strengthens the SIP.
    In addition, the State requested that the EPA remove three Tier II 
operating permits (Louisiana-Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint, Lake Pre-
Mix, and Interstate Concrete and Asphalt) from the Sandpoint 
PM10 SIP, originally approved on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 
43006). The Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal asserts that the State did not 
submit these operating permits as part of the attainment demonstration 
and that the EPA, without a request from the State, approved portions 
of the permits into the SIP.
    As a result of the State's request, the EPA reviewed the 
administrative record of the Sandpoint PM10 SIP approval 
action. The State's Sandpoint PM10 SIP submittal included an 
attainment demonstration that relied on industrial source emission 
reductions (See 67 FR 43006, June 26, 2002). As noted in the EPA's June 
26, 2002, approval, the State chose to establish the necessary 
PM10 industrial source controls through the State's Tier II 
Operating Permit Program. The administrative record for the Sandpoint 
PM10 SIP included a letter from the Idaho DEQ to the EPA 
indicating which portions of the operating permits for the specific 
sources were appropriate to approve into the Sandpoint PM10 
SIP (IDEQ Letter PM10 Industrial Source Controls, May 16, 
2002). The EPA approved portions of the three operating permits 
containing the source controls into the Sandpoint PM10 SIP 
to meet the CAA requirement that emission reductions be both permanent 
and Federally-enforceable (40 CFR 52.670(c)). A footnote to 40 CFR 
52.670(c) explains that ``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

[[Page 7347]]

maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant 
deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment.'' The 
footnote further explains that the ``Idaho Department of Environmental 
Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA 
as a SIP revision.''
    At this time, the EPA is proposing to approve the State's request 
to remove the source operating permit for Louisiana-Pacific 
Corporation--Sandpoint because the facility has ceased operations and 
has been dismantled. Removing the permit for the permanently shut down 
facility from the SIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance 
of the PM10 NAAQS. The facility report from the EPA's 
Enforcement and Compliance History Online Web site is provided in the 
docket for this action (Louisiana-Pacific Corporation -Sandpoint 
Facility Report). The EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's 
request to remove the two operating permits for Lake Pre-Mix and 
Interstate Concrete and Asphalt from the Sandpoint PM10 SIP 
because the submittal did not include a demonstration that the removal 
of the permits would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 
the NAAQS, and because removal of the permits would disqualify the 
State from the LMP option and require the submittal of a full 
maintenance plan. As previously noted, the EPA's partial disapproval 
does not prevent the State from providing the demonstration required to 
remove the two permits from the SIP in the future.
    The EPA's proposed partial disapproval will be simultaneously 
corrected because we are, in this same action, proposing to fully 
approve the Sandpoint NAA LMP with all control measures in place. 
Therefore, upon final action a fully approved LMP will be in place and 
no further submittal will be required from the State to address the 
partial disapproval.

VII. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part the 
Sandpoint NAA LMP submitted by the State and to approve the State's 
request to redesignate this area to attainment for the PM10 
NAAQS. The State's Sandpoint NAA LMP submittal included a request to 
approve revisions to the control measures included in the 
PM10 attainment SIP for the Sandpoint NAA. The EPA is 
proposing to approve the revised Sandpoint City Ordinance 965 for 
control of residential burning because it strengthens the SIP. The EPA 
is also proposing to approve the State's request to remove the 
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation--Sandpoint operating permit control 
measure from the SIP because the facility has ceased operations and has 
been dismantled. However, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
State's request to remove the operating permits for two other sources 
because these sources are still in operation and the State did not 
provide a demonstration that removal of the two permits would not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, the 
removal of controls that were relied on to demonstrate attainment would 
disqualify the Sandpoint NAA for LMP eligibility and require that the 
State submit a full maintenance plan. Because the State submitted the 
Sandpoint NAA LMP intending to qualify for the LMP option, and did not 
submit a full maintenance plan, we are proposing to disapprove the 
separable portion of the submittal that is not consistent with the LMP 
qualifying criteria. This proposed partial disapproval does not prevent 
the State from submitting a request for approval of a SIP revision 
demonstrating that the removal of the two operating permits does not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The EPA's proposed partial disapproval would be simultaneously 
corrected because we are, in this same action, proposing to fully 
approve the Sandpoint NAA LMP with all control measures in place. 
Therefore, upon final action a fully approved LMP would be in place and 
no further submittal would be required from the State to address the 
partial disapproval.

VIII. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 the 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; and
     Does not provide the 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).
    In addition, 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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate 
matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: January 22, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-02233 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```