7340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 PM10 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 mg/m3 and an annual standard of 50 

mg/m3, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Because 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.’’ 

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 mg/m3. 

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 sitespecific 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. 

The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 mg/ 

m3. 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; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 deicer 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 Federallyenforceable (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 mg/m3 for 

the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second 

method that applies to the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS is the calculation of a sitespecific 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 onroad 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 Federallyenforceable (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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 PreMix 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS