Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74741 

properties for consolidated burning at 

the designated site, records to include 

the site description of a platted 

subdivision, to ensure that all waste was 

generated at specific residential 

properties for which the site is 

designated, and ensure that all burning 

at the designated site is directly 

supervised by an employee of a fire 

department who is part of the fire 

protection personnel, as defined by 

Texas Government Code, Section 

419.021, and is acting in the scope of 

the person’s employment, where the fire 

department employee shall notify the 

appropriate TCEQ regional office with a 

telephone or electronic facsimile notice 

24 hours in advance of any scheduled 

supervised burn, and other advisory 

requirements including that TCEQ 

approval is not required. 

The March 3, 2014 SIP submittal 

revises 30 TAC Section 111.211 to allow 

prescribed burns for the purpose of 

wildfire hazard mitigation. The 

submitted revision allows prescribed 

burning in other areas, such as where 

rural areas interface with urban areas, 

for the purpose of wildfire hazard 

mitigation in order to reduce the 

incidence, intensity, and spread of 

wildfires. The EPA submitted comments 

to the TCEQ during the State’s public 

comment period. The State responded 

to our comments and those were 

included as part of the SIP submittal. 

We have reviewed the State’s evaluation 

of our comments and agree that the 

revision is not allowing an additional 

activity with the addition of wildfire 

hazard mitigation, since the TCEQ 

already has the ability to allow 

prescribed burns for wildfire hazard 

mitigation purposes on a case by case 

basis. The purpose of the revision is to 

better facilitate the process of allowing 

prescribed burns for wildfire hazard 

mitigation and thereby reduce the 

chance of emissions of pollutants that 

could be emitted in an uncontrolled 

wildfire. Our analysis, available in our 

TSD in the rulemaking docket, finds 

that the revisions to 30 TAC Section 

111.211 are not significant, are 

approvable and would not interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS or prevent 

any reasonable further progress in 

obtaining the NAAQS or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

Texas SIP revisions dated from 1989, 

2004, 2006 and 2014. Specifically, we 

are proposing to approve the August 21, 

1989 and the June 9, 2006 submittals 

that repealed the Rule 105.2 

(subsequently renumbered 30 TAC 

Section 111.155). We are proposing to 

approve the November 15, 2004, 

submittal that revises 30 TAC Section 

111.209. We are proposing to approve 

the July 18, 2006, submittal that adopted 

amendments to 30 TAC Section 111.203 

and 30 TAC Section 111.209 that revises 

30 TAC Subchapter B ‘‘Emissions 

Limits.’’ We are also proposing to 

approve the March 3, 2014, submittal 

that adopted amendments to 30 TAC 

Section 111.211 with revisions to 

Subchapter B. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Texas regulations as 

described in the Proposed Action 

section above. We have made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 21, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2016–25983 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0067; FRL–9954–56– 

Region 10] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the 

Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Franklin County, Idaho is a 

rural and sparsely populated county 

adjacent to Cache County, Utah. In 

2009, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) designated Cache County, 

along with Franklin County, as part of 

the multi-state Logan, Utah-Idaho fine 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
74742 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (Logan UT–ID). On December 14, 

2012, the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted a State Implementation Plan 

(2012 SIP submittal) to address 

attainment planning requirements for 

the Idaho portion of the Logan UT–ID 

nonattainment area. On December 24, 

2014, the IDEQ submitted a supplement 

to the 2012 SIP submission that 

included additional analysis (2014 

amendment). The EPA has evaluated the 

2012 SIP submittal and 2014 

amendment to determine whether the 

submissions meet the applicable Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requirements. Based on 

this evaluation, the EPA is proposing to 

approve certain provisions and 

disapprove other provisions of the 2012 

SIP submittal and 2014 amendment. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 28, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0067 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air 

and Waste (AWT–150), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 

98101; telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256; email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. History of the PM2.5 Standard 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

C. CAA PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

Requirements 

II. Analysis of Idaho’s Submittals 

Previously Approved Attainment Plan 

Elements 

A. Classifications 

B. Emissions Inventory 

C. Control Measures 

Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for 

Approval and Disapproval 

D. Attainment Date 

E. Attainment Demonstration and 

Modeling 

F. Characterization of Franklin County Air 

Shed 

G. Reasonably Available Control Measures/ 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACM/RACT) 

H. Contingency Measures 

I. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 

Quantitative Milestones 

Additional Elements 

J. Conformity Requirements 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for the EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

A. History of the PM2.5 Standard 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA established 

the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), including 

an annual standard of 15.0 mg/m3 based 

on a 3-year average of annual mean 

PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour (or 

daily) standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations (62 FR 38652). 

The EPA established the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS based on significant evidence 

and numerous health studies 

demonstrating the serious health effects 

associated with exposures to PM2.5. To 

provide guidance on the CAA 

requirements for state and tribal 

implementation plans to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA 

promulgated the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine 

Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 

20586, April 25, 2007) (hereinafter, the 

‘‘2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’). 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA 

strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

to 35 mg/m3 and retained the level of the 

annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 mg/m3 (71 

FR 61144). Following promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is 

required by the CAA to promulgate 

designations for areas throughout the 

United States; this designation process 

is described in section 107(d)(1) of the 

CAA. On November 13, 2009, the EPA 

designated areas as either attainment/ 

unclassifiable or nonattainment with 

respect to the revised 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). In that 

November 2009 action, the EPA 

designated Franklin County, Idaho, as 

part of the cross-state Logan UT–ID 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, requiring Idaho to 

prepare and submit an attainment plan 

to meet the revised 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA included Franklin 

County in the nonattainment area due to 

Idaho emission sources, particularly 

motor vehicle commuter patterns, 

contributing to violations of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS recorded at the Logan, 

Cache County, Utah monitor, based on 

2006 to 2008 ambient air quality data. 

On March 2, 2012, the EPA issued 

‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ to provide guidance on the 

development of SIPs to demonstrate 

attainment with the revised 24-hour 

standard (March 2012 Implementation 

Guidance). The March 2012 

Implementation Guidance explained 

that the overall framework and policy 

approach of the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provided effective 

and appropriate guidance on statutory 

requirements for the development of 

SIPs to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, the March 2012 

Implementation Guidance instructed 

states to rely on the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule in developing SIPs 

to demonstrate attainment with the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued a decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

706 F.3d 428, holding that the EPA 

erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS pursuant only to the general 

implementation requirements of subpart 

1, part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

pursuant to the implementation 

requirements specific to particulate 

matter (PM10) in subpart 4, part D of title 

I of the CAA (‘‘subpart 4’’). The court 

reasoned that the plain meaning of the 

CAA requires implementation of the 

1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 

because PM2.5 particles fall within the 

statutory definition of PM10 and thus 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS is 

subject to the same statutory 

requirements as the PM10 NAAQS. The 

Court did not vacate the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule but remanded the 

rule with instructions for the EPA to 

promulgate new implementation 

regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with the requirements of 

subpart 4. On June 6, 2013, consistent 

with the Court’s remand decision, the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74743 

EPA withdrew its March 2012 

Implementation Guidance which relied 

on the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

to provide guidance for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 Court 

decision, states had worked towards 

meeting the air quality goals of the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the 

EPA regulations and guidance derived 

from subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the 

CAA. The EPA considered this history 

in issuing the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule (2014 Classification and 

Deadline Rule) (79 FR 31566, June 2, 

2014) that identified the initial 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards as 

Moderate. The final rule also 

established December 31, 2014 as the 

deadline for the states to submit any 

additional SIP elements related to 

attainment. On December 24, 2014, the 

IDEQ supplemented the 2012 SIP 

submission to address the Court’s 

decision. 

C. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area 

Nonattainment Requirements 

With respect to the requirements for 

attainment plans, the EPA notes that the 

general nonattainment area planning 

requirements are found in subpart 1, 

and the Moderate area planning 

requirements for particulate matter are 

found in subpart 4. The EPA has a 

longstanding general guidance 

document that interprets the 1990 

amendments to the CAA commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘General Preamble’’ 

(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The 

General Preamble addresses the 

relationship between subpart 1 and 

subpart 4 requirements and provides 

recommendations to states for meeting 

statutory requirements for particulate 

matter nonattainment planning. 

Specifically, the General Preamble 

explains that requirements applicable to 

Moderate area nonattainment SIPs are 

set forth in subpart 4, but such SIPs 

must also meet the general 

nonattainment planning provisions in 

subpart 1, to the extent these provisions 

‘‘are not otherwise subsumed by, or 

integrally related to,’’ the more specific 

subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538). 

In addition, on August 24, 2016, the 

EPA issued a final rule establishing 

requirements applicable to 

nonattainment areas for current and 

future PM2.5 NAAQS in response to the 

vacatur of the 2007 implementation 

rule. Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements, 81 

FR 58010 (August 24, 2016). While that 

rule is not effective until October 24, 

2016, the EPA considered the guidance 

contained in the final rule when 

evaluating the SIP submission at issue. 

The requirements of subpart 1 for 

attainment plans include: (i) The section 

172(c)(1) requirements for reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) and attainment demonstrations; 

(ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

(RFP); (iii) the section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for emissions inventories; 

(iv) the section 172(c)(5) requirements 

for a nonattainment new source review 

(NSR) permitting program; and (v) the 

section 172(c)(9) requirement for 

contingency measures. 

Several subpart 4 requirements for 

Moderate areas are comparable with 

subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) 

The section 189(a)(1)(A) NSR permit 

program requirements; (ii) the section 

189(a)(1)(B) requirements for an 

attainment demonstration; (iii) the 

section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for 

RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c) 

requirements for RFP and quantitative 

milestones. In addition, under subpart 4 

the Moderate area attainment date is no 

later than the end of the 6th calendar 

year after designation. 

The EPA has evaluated the 2012 SIP 

submittal and 2014 amendment to 

determine whether they meet the 

applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements. Based on this evaluation, 

the EPA is proposing to approve certain 

provisions and disapprove other 

provisions of the 2012 SIP submittal and 

2014 amendment. 

II. Analysis of Idaho’s Submittals 

The attainment plan elements that the 

IDEQ submitted for Franklin County 

included base year and attainment year 

emissions inventories that addressed 

direct particulate matter emissions and 

all particulate matter precursors, an 

analysis of RACM and RACT, 

contingency measures, and reasonable 

further progress addressed through the 

attainment demonstration. The 

attainment plan’s strategy for 

controlling direct and precursor PM2.5

emissions relied primarily on a 

mandatory episodic woodstove 

curtailment program, the change-out of 

uncertified woodstoves, revised road 

sanding practices, and expected direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor reductions 

from the Tier 2 Federal Motor Vehicle 

Emission Requirements (65 FR 6698, 

February 10, 2000). 

Previously Approved Attainment Plan 

Elements 

A. Classifications 

The applicable attainment planning 

requirements under subpart 4 (section 

189(a) and (b)) depend on whether the 

nonattainment area is classified as 

Moderate or Serious. In response to the 

Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, the 

EPA finalized on June 2, 2014, initial 

classifications of all current 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as 

Moderate (79 FR 31566). Thus, the 

IDEQ’s 2012 SIP submittal and the 2014 

amendment for Franklin County is 

evaluated pursuant to the Moderate area 

requirements of subpart 4. 

B. Emissions Inventory 

On May 14, 2014, we proposed 

approval of the baseline emissions 

inventory included as part of Idaho’s 

2012 submittal (79 FR 27543). The 

emissions inventory covered direct 

PM2.5 and precursors to the formation of 

PM2.5 (nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia 

(NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) to meet 

the comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of CAA section 172(c) for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. We 

received no comments on our proposed 

rulemaking and finalized our approval 

on July 18, 2014 (79 FR 41904). We are 

not taking comments on the inventory 

as part of this action. 

C. Control Measures 

The December 14, 2012 attainment 

plan submitted by the IDEQ included 

permanent and enforceable Franklin 

County, City of Clifton, City of Dayton, 

Franklin City, City of Oxford, City of 

Preston, and City of Weston ordinances 

implementing the mandatory woodstove 

curtailment and burn ban programs. The 

IDEQ’s Air Quality Index (AQI) program 

supports the local jurisdictions by 

instituting mandatory burn bans for 

uncertified woodstoves when PM2.5

concentration levels are at or forecasted 

to reach 25.4 mg/m3. Each of the adopted 

ordinances ban open burning of any 

kind during burn ban days, ban the sale 

or installation of non-EPA certified 

devices in new or existing buildings, 

and prohibit the construction of any 

building for which a solid fuel burning 

device is the sole source of heat. On 

March 25, 2014, the EPA approved the 

ordinances submitted in the attainment 

plan because they provided important 

PM2.5 reductions in the nonattainment 

area and strengthened the Idaho SIP (79 

FR 16201). By including these measures 

in the SIP, the State has made them 

permanent and enforceable. With the 

EPA’s approval of these control 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
74744 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In a letter dated February 26, 2016, included in 

the docket for this action, the IDEQ included an 

update on the continued implementation of the 

road sanding agreement with Franklin County Road 

and Bridge. 

2 Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

in a State Implementation Plan (Sept. 2004). 

measures on March 25, 2014, the 

measures have become federally 

enforceable. The EPA already provided 

notice and comment on the proposed 

approval of these ordinances into the 

SIP on December 26, 2013 (78 FR 

78315), and we are not taking comment 

on those provisions. 

In our March 25, 2014 action, the EPA 

also approved road sanding agreements 

between the IDEQ, Franklin County 

Road and Bridge, and the Idaho 

Transportation Department to reduce 

the contribution of primary PM2.5 from 

reentrained dust on paved roads. 

Although the road sanding agreements 

were expected to reduce emissions of 

PM2.5, we determined that the 

agreements were not directly 

enforceable. However, the road sanding 

agreements are similar to agreements 

previously approved by the EPA as 

voluntary measures in the Idaho SIP (70 

FR 29247), and consistently 

implemented by the relevant state and 

county governments.1 Accordingly, the 

EPA approved the road sanding 

agreements as voluntary measures in 

accordance with existing guidance.2

Lastly, in the 2012 SIP submittal and 

2014 amendment, the IDEQ also 

quantified the emission reduction 

benefits from three woodstove changeout programs conducted in 2006–2007, 

2011–2012, and 2013–2014 that 

replaced a total of 212 units, with 

annual estimated emissions reductions 

of 8.04 tons per year (tpy) PM2.5, 0.47 

tpy NOX, and 18.57 tpy VOC. Further 

details on these control measures can be 

found in the docket for this action as 

well as in the proposed and final 

Federal Register notices approving 

these measures (78 FR 78315 and 79 FR 

16201). The EPA is not taking comment 

on these approved actions. 

Attainment Plan Elements Proposed for 

Approval and Disapproval 

D. Attainment Date 

The CAA requirements of subpart 4 

include a demonstration that a 

nonattainment area will meet applicable 

NAAQS within the timeframe provided 

in the statute (section 189(a)(1)(B)). For 

the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, an 

attainment plan must show that a 

Moderate nonattainment area will attain 

the standard as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than the end of 

the sixth calendar year after the area’s 

designation, which in the case of 

Franklin County was December 31, 

2015. 

E. Attainment Demonstration and 

Modeling 

Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a 

Moderate area nonattainment plan 

contain either a demonstration that the 

plan will provide for attainment by the 

applicable attainment date, or a 

demonstration that attainment by such 

date is impracticable. Due to the multistate nature of the shared Logan UT–ID 

air shed and the location of the violating 

monitor in Logan, Utah, the Utah 

Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) 

conducted the attainment 

demonstration for the entire 

nonattainment area with IDEQ’s active 

participation. This attainment 

demonstration was included in 

Appendix D of IDEQ’s 2012 SIP 

submittal. In response to the EPA’s 2014 

Classification and Deadline Rule, IDEQ 

again worked with the UDAQ to update 

the attainment demonstration with new 

modeling based on more recent 

emission inventory information. This 

updated modeling, cited in the 2014 

amendment, demonstrated attainment 

by the subpart 4 attainment date of 

December 31, 2015. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the attainment demonstration because 

the area did not, in fact, attain the 

NAAQS by December 31, 2015. 

F. Characterization of the Franklin 

County Air Shed 

In evaluating the 2012 SIP submission 

and 2014 amendment under the 

requirements of subpart 4, control of 

direct PM2.5 and precursors must be 

considered. According to CAA section 

302(g) the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means 

any air pollution agent or combination 

of such agents, including any physical, 

chemical, biological, radioactive 

(including source material, special 

nuclear material, and by product 

material) substance or matter which is 

emitted into or otherwise enters the 

ambient air. Such term includes any 

precursors to the formation of any air 

pollutant, to the extent the 

Administrator has identified such 

precursor or precursors for the 

particular purpose for which the term 

‘‘air pollutant’’ is used. The provisions 

of subpart 4 do not define the term 

‘‘precursor’’ for purposes of particulate 

matter, nor do they explicitly require 

the control of any specifically identified 

precursor. However, the EPA has long 

recognized the scientific basis for 

concluding that SO2, NOX, VOC, and 

ammonia are precursors to PM10 and to 

PM2.5 (81 FR 58018–19). 

The EPA’s interpretation of section 

189(e) and section 172 indicates that 

consideration of all precursors is 

necessary for PM2.5 attainment plans, 

and RACM/RACT requirements 

explicitly require the evaluation of 

available control measures for direct 

PM2.5 emissions and precursor 

emissions from stationary, area, and 

mobile sources in order to attain as 

expeditiously as practicable. Section 

189(e) requires the control of 

appropriate precursors from major 

stationary sources, unless the 

Administrator determines that precursor 

emissions from such major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in the area. 

Subpart 4 expressly requires control 

of precursors from major stationary 

sources where direct PM from major 

sources is controlled unless certain 

conditions are met; however, other 

sources of precursors may also need to 

be controlled for the purposes of 

demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable in a given 

area. Thus, the statute requires states 

with Moderate nonattainment areas to 

evaluate available control measures for 

all sources of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursor emissions to determine 

whether such measures are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and to adopt all measures that 

are deemed reasonable and are 

necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as possible (e.g., all 

measures constituting RACM and RACT 

controls for sources located in the area). 

The EPA has interpreted subpart 4 to 

require control of precursors from all 

source categories in a given 

nonattainment area, unless there is a 

demonstration that controlling a 

precursor or precursors is not necessary 

for expeditious attainment of the 

NAAQS in the area. 

As discussed in the EPA’s 1992 

General Preamble, in the event that a 

state’s attainment plan includes controls 

on major stationary sources for PM10 in 

order to achieve timely attainment in 

the area, section 189(e) requires controls 

of all PM10 precursors for major 

stationary sources located within the 

area, unless there is a showing that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to violations in the area (57 FR 13541). 

Thus, the EPA’s interpretation of 

subpart 4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in the 

area in question, i.e., states may 

determine that only certain precursors 

need be regulated for attainment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74745 

purposes. Id.; see also Assoc. of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA, et al., 423 F.3d 989 

(9th Cir. 2005). The EPA maintains that 

application of this same approach to 

PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is 

appropriate and reasonable (81 FR 

58020–22). 

The General Preamble describes the 

assessment of precursors as specific to 

each nonattainment area, and 

acknowledges that the determination of 

precursor significance would likely vary 

based on the characteristics of the areawide nonattainment problem. The 

General Preamble further provides that 

in making a determination regarding the 

significance of precursors, the EPA will 

rely on technical information presented 

in the state’s submittal, including filter 

analysis, the relative contribution to 

overall nonattainment, the selected 

control strategies, as well as other 

relevant factors (57 FR 13541). The 

recent PM2.5 Implementation Rule also 

discusses the types of technical analyses 

that states may perform to demonstrate 

the significance or insignificance of a 

particular precursor. (81 FR 58020–22); 

40 CFR 51.1006. 

The IDEQ’s 2012 SIP submittal 

contained a detailed analysis of the 

Logan UT–ID air shed (see Appendix A, 

Special Air Quality Studies, PM2.5

Saturation Studies—Utah State 

University). This study concluded that, 

‘‘the Cache Valley (Logan UT–ID) PM2.5

nonattainment is somewhat uniquely a 

wintertime problem, when low lying, 

persistent radiation and subsidence 

inversions set up, trapping pollutants in 

the Valley for extended periods of time, 

thereby allowing photochemicallyderived particulate material to become 

elevated. Chemical analysis by 

researchers at Utah’s Division of Air 

Quality and Air Monitoring Center, as 

well as Utah State University, have 

shown that 50–95% of the PM2.5

collected at the Logan site is composed 

of ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3).’’ This 

secondary formation of ammonium 

nitrate is due in large part to NOX and 

VOC emissions from onroad motor 

vehicles combining with the abundant 

levels of ammonia from small cattle 

operations, agricultural fields, and 

natural and constructed wetlands in the 

greater air shed, both within and 

surrounding the nonattainment area. 

The study concluded that, ‘‘based on 

measurements at the Logan location, the 

Valley’s wintertime formation of 

ammonium nitrate was found to be 

limited by the availability of nitric acid 

(HNO3). Furthermore, the report stated 

that the Cache Valley was found to be 

NH3-rich by a factor of approximately 

two. Comparisons of wintertime 

ambient NH3 concentrations between 

the Valley’s urban area (Logan) and a 

rural location (Amalga), showed the 

rural area averaged ≈2.5 times the NH3

of the urban site.’’ As a result of this 

analysis, all scientific precursors to 

PM2.5, including VOCs and ammonia, 

were considered as part of the 2012 SIP 

submittal and 2014 amendment. 

G. Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACT/RACM) 

The general SIP planning 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

under subpart 1 include section 

172(c)(1), which requires 

implementation of all RACM (including 

RACT). The CAA section 172(c) 

indicates that what constitutes RACM or 

RACT is related to what is necessary for 

attainment in a given area, as the 

provision states that nonattainment 

plans shall provide for attainment of the 

NAAQS in the area covered by the 

attainment plan. 

The SIP requirements under subpart 4 

likewise impose upon states an 

obligation to develop attainment plans 

that impose RACM and RACT on 

sources within a nonattainment area. 

Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that states 

with areas classified as Moderate 

nonattainment areas must have SIP 

provisions to assure that RACM and 

RACT level controls are implemented 

by no later than four years after 

designation of the area. As with subpart 

1, the terms RACM and RACT are not 

defined within subpart 4. Nor do the 

provisions of subpart 4 specify how 

states are to meet the RACM and RACT 

requirements. However, the EPA’s 

longstanding guidance in the General 

Preamble provides recommendations for 

appropriate considerations for 

determining what control measures 

constitute RACM and RACT for 

purposes of meeting the statutory 

requirements of subpart 4. 

The EPA’s guidance for RACM under 

subpart 4 in the General Preamble 

includes: (1) A list of some potential 

measures for states to consider; (2) a 

statement of the EPA’s expectation that 

the state will provide a reasoned 

explanation for a decision not to adopt 

a particular control measure; (3) 

recognition that some control measures 

might be unreasonable because the 

emissions from the affected sources in 

the area are de minimis; (4) an emphasis 

on state evaluation of potential control 

measures for reasonableness, 

considering factors such as 

technological feasibility and the cost of 

control; and (5) encouragement that 

states evaluating potential control 

measures imposed upon municipal or 

other governmental entities also include 

consideration of the impacts on such 

entities, and the possibility of partial 

implementation when full 

implementation would be infeasible 

(e.g., phased implementation of 

measures such as road paving). 57 FR 

13540. 

With respect to RACT requirements, 

the EPA’s existing guidance in the 

General Preamble: (1) Noted that RACT 

has historically been defined as ‘‘the 

lowest emission limit that a source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility;’’ (2) noted that 

RACT generally applies to stationary 

sources, both stack and fugitive 

emissions; (3) suggested that major 

stationary sources be the minimum 

starting point for a state’s RACT 

analysis; and (4) recommended that 

states evaluate RACT not only for major 

stationary sources, but for other source 

categories as needed for attainment and 

considering the feasibility of controls. 

Id. at 13541 

For both RACM and RACT, the EPA 

notes that an overarching principle is 

that if a given control measure is not 

needed to attain the relevant NAAQS in 

a given area as expeditiously as 

practicable, then that control measure 

would not be required as RACM or 

RACT because it would not be 

reasonable to impose controls that are 

not in fact needed for attainment 

purposes. In making recommendations 

for the subpart 4 RACM and RACT 

requirements, the focus is upon the 

process to identify emissions sources, to 

evaluate potential emissions controls, 

and to impose those control measures 

that are reasonable and that are 

necessary to bring the area into 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable, but by no later than the 

attainment date for the area. The only 

exception is if the economically and 

technically feasible measures not 

necessary to attain by the outermost 

attainment date and adopted as RACT/ 

RACM will collectively advance 

attainment by at least a year. If that is 

the case, the additional measures must 

be adopted. 

The new PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

adopts a process oriented analysis 

similar to the approaches set forth in the 

General Preamble and the remanded 

2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule (81 

FR 58035–47); 40 CFR 51.1009. 

Consistent with EPA guidance at the 

time, the IDEQ evaluated which 

measures would constitute RACM and 

RACT in Franklin County. 

1. The IDEQ evaluated the technical 

and economic feasibility of establishing 

a motor vehicle inspection and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
74746 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3 Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

in a State Implementation Plan (Sept. 2004). 

maintenance (I&M) program for Franklin 

County (Appendix C of the 2012 SIP 

submittal). Modeling conducted by the 

UDAQ, using the EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, 

showed expected NOX reductions of 

4.6% from implementing an I&M 

program generally. Projecting this 

anticipated NOX reduction to Franklin 

County’s share of the overall Logan UT– 

ID motor vehicle fleet (approximately 

10%) yields a potential NOX reduction 

benefit of 0.46% for the air shed. The 

IDEQ estimated the cost of establishing 

an I&M program for Franklin County 

based on an existing I&M station in 

Canyon County, Idaho (population 

198,871 in 2013). The IDEQ then scaled 

the potential costs of this program to 

reflect the population of Franklin 

(12,854 in 2013). The IDEQ found that 

while some variable costs may be 

reduced, the annual fixed costs of 

keeping a basic I&M station operational 

remained quite high (total annual 

estimated cost would be approximately 

$300,000). The IDEQ calculated that 

dividing this annual cost by the expect 

NOX emissions reduction for Franklin 

County (15 tons per year) yields an 

estimated cost per ton of NOX reduced 

of at least $20,000 per ton. The IDEQ 

also calculated the cost per vehicle 

(approximately 8,574 vehicles) to be $70 

per vehicle based on a two year 

inspection cycle. Given ongoing vehicle 

fleet turnover with newer, cleaner Tier 

2 and 3 vehicles since the IDEQ’s 2012 

SIP submittal, these costs relative to 

expected NOX reductions have likely 

increased as the small percentage of pre1996 motor vehicles most likely to fail 

an I&M test for NOX and VOC emissions 

are retired from the vehicle fleet. For 

these reasons, the IDEQ determined that 

a Franklin County I&M program was not 

a reasonable control approach based on 

factors including the cost of control and 

economic feasibility. 

2. As discussed above, the General 

Preamble suggests that major stationary 

sources be the minimum starting point 

for a state’s RACT analysis and 

recommended that states evaluate RACT 

not only for major stationary sources, 

but for other source categories as needed 

for attainment and considering the 

feasibility of controls. In developing the 

emissions inventories underlying the 

2012 SIP submittal and 2014 

amendment, the criteria of 40 CFR 51 

for air emissions reporting requirements 

under the EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) was used to establish a 

100 tpy threshold for identifying 

stationary point sources. For Franklin 

County there are no point sources with 

the potential to emit 100 tpy of PM2.5 or 

any PM2.5 plan precursor. As described 

in Appendix B of the IDEQ’s 2012 SIP 

submittal, emissions from point sources 

under the EPA’s NEI reporting threshold 

of 100 tpy were included in the area 

source base-year emissions inventory. 

For Franklin County, due to its rural 

nature and general lack of industrial 

base, emissions from these industrial 

and commercial source categories are 

generally insignificant compared to 

other source categories. For these 

reasons, the IDEQ considered RACT 

requirements satisfied for Franklin 

County. 

TABLE 1—FRANKLIN COUNTY 2008 WINTER EMISSIONS INVENTORY IN TONS PER EPISODE DAY

Source category PM2.5 NOX SO2 VOC NH3

Agriculture, crops, and livestock .......................................... 0.008 0 0 2.763 4.65 

Gasoline, bulk, and stations ................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

Commercial cooking ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

Construction dust ................................................................. 0.014 0 0 0 0 

Fuel combustion, industrial .................................................. 0.006 0.087 0.061 0.001 0.002 

Fuel combustion, commercial/institutional ........................... 0.004 0.07 0.018 0.001 0 

Fuel combustion, residential non-wood ............................... 0.001 0.049 0.014 0.002 0.008 

Fuel combustion, residential wood ...................................... 0.1 0.009 0.002 0.138 0 

Miscellaneous Commercial/Industrial Processes ................ 0.001 0.001 0 0 0.008 

Solvent, commercial and consumer .................................... 0 0 0 0.14 0 

Solvent, commercial and industrial ...................................... 0 0 0 0.26 0 

Waste disposal ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0.008 0 

Mobile, emissions ................................................................ 0.028 0.711 0.004 0.498 0.008 

Mobile, road dust ................................................................. 0.596 0 0 0 0 

Nonroad mobile .................................................................... 0.035 0.428 0.009 0.636 0 

Point sources ....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Totals ............................................................................ 0.793 1.355 0.108 4.447 4.676 

3. As previously discussed in the 

Control Measures section, the IDEQ 

submitted road sanding agreements 

negotiated between the IDEQ, Franklin 

County Road and Bridge, and the Idaho 

Department of Transportation to reduce 

PM2.5 emissions from re-entrained road 

dust. In our March 25, 2014 final 

approval of the road sanding agreements 

as voluntary measures, we explained 

that the agreements were not directly 

enforceable and could not be considered 

as full control measures, with full 

emission reduction credit under the 

attainment demonstration.3 As part of 

the 2014 amendment, the IDEQ 

submitted revised road sanding 

agreements to address the EPA’s 

enforceability concerns. While these 

revised road sanding agreements 

improve on potential enforceability, 

they still do not meet our enforceability 

criteria to be approved as full control 

measures meeting RACM requirements. 

4. As previously discussed in the 

Control Measures section, the EPA 

approved the permanent and 

enforceable Franklin County, City of 

Clifton, City of Dayton, Franklin City, 

City of Oxford, City of Preston, and City 

of Weston ordinances implementing the 

mandatory woodstove curtailment and 

burn ban program (79 FR 16201, March 

25, 2014). The EPA is now proposing to 

determine that these ordinances already 

approved into the Idaho SIP satisfy our 

criteria for RACM under subpart 1 and 

subpart 4. The EPA also notes that 

because the ordinances banned the sale 

or installation of non-EPA certified 

devices in new or existing buildings in 

Franklin County jurisdictions, the three 

woodstove change-out programs 

conducted in 2006–2007, 2011–2012, 

and 2013–2014, that replaced 212 units, 

can be considered to have permanent, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74747 

4See page 17 of Cache Valley Air Quality Studies, 

included as Appendix A of IDEQ’s 2012 SIP 

submission. 

enforceable, and lasting emission 

reductions in the nonattainment area, 

estimated to be 8.04 tpy PM2.5, 0.47 tpy 

NOX, and 18.57 tpy VOC. 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

woodstove curtailment, device 

restrictions and burn ban control 

measures discussed above, and already 

incorporated into the SIP, as meeting 

the requirements of RACM. We are 

proposing to approve IDEQ’s 

determination that an I&M program for 

Franklin County is not economically 

feasible under RACM. We are also 

proposing to approve IDEQ’s 

determination that RACT controls are 

not necessary given the lack of 

stationary sources in the county. 

Not Possible To Advance Attainment by 

One Year 

Under the attainment plan 

requirements, an area must implement 

all reasonable control measures that are 

not necessary to attain by the outermost 

attainment date, if such measures would 

advance the date of attainment by an 

estimated one year. At the time of the 

IDEQ’s December 24, 2014 amendment, 

the State and the EPA had access to 

monitoring data showing that it would 

not be possible to advance attainment 

by one year (December 31, 2014) due to 

expected 3-year average of 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations of 40 mg/m3 at the 

Franklin monitor, and 45 mg/m3 at the 

Logan, Utah monitor, based on 

preliminary 2012–2014 data. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve IDEQ’s 

determination that it was not possible to 

advance the attainment date by one-year 

and that they implemented all 

reasonable available control measures 

identified. 

Precursors Addressed 

As discussed in the ‘‘Characterization 

of the Franklin County Air Shed’’ 

section above, secondary formation of 

ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) is the most 

dominant source of PM2.5 in the valley 

(approximately 80% of the PM2.5). Due 

to the unique topography of being 

surrounded by steep mountain ranges 

approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet above 

the Cache Valley floor, this air shed is 

particularly susceptible to wintertime 

inversion events. During these inversion 

events VOCs and NOX emissions 

(primarily from on-road motor vehicles) 

are trapped in a shallow layer of air 

with ammonia emissions (primarily 

from agricultural operations) to form 

ammonium nitrate. The 2012 submittal 

included the Utah State University 

Special Air Quality Studies which 

determined that the air shed was 

ammonia rich by a factor of 

approximately two. Modeled sensitivity 

runs, conducted by UDAQ in 

cooperation with IDEQ, also showed 

that significant reductions in the 

ammonia inventories would have little 

to no effect on predicted PM2.5

concentrations.4 As such, one of the 

most significant control measures for 

the area as a whole, was Utah’s 

establishment of an I&M program to 

reduce NOX and VOCs from on-road 

motor vehicles. As discussed above, 

IDEQ also assessed the economic 

feasibility of establishing an I&M 

program to reduce NOX and VOCs, but 

found that the estimated $20,000+ per 

ton reduction of NOX renders the cost 

unreasonable and thus not RACM. IDEQ 

also considered other potential NOX

controls such as controls for home 

heating of natural gas or distillate oil, 

but determined it was prohibitively 

expensive given the tiny proportion of 

the emissions inventory for those 

sources (see Table 1). The potential for 

VOC and SO2 reductions from Franklin 

County sources was similarly small. 

While the emissions inventory shows 

some potential for reducing VOC 

emission from commercial, consumer, 

and industrial solvents, IDEQ noted that 

many of these products are purchased in 

the more populous retail center in 

Logan, Utah. Therefore the Utah VOC 

controls for these products would have 

an air shed wide impact. Lastly, IDEQ 

notes that MOVES modeling conducted 

as part of the 2012 submittal, using a 

2008 base year, predicted VOC 

emissions reductions from on-road 

mobile sources of 37% by January 1, 

2015, due to fleet turnover with cleaner 

Tier 2 vehicles. IDEQ did assess 

potential SO2, NOX, VOC, and NH3

reductions from Idaho-specific control 

measures. However, due to the sparse 

population and generally small 

emissions inventories, the direct PM2.5

control measures discussed above 

(woodstoves and road sanding) were 

deemed as the only viable and 

economically feasible measures possible 

to impose as RACM. 

Overall RACM Analysis 

IDEQ’s analysis of potential control 

measures under RACM was informed by 

the emissions inventory for the area (see 

pages 23–29 of the 2012 submittal). As 

discussed above, many of the source 

categories in the Franklin County 

portion of the nonattainment area have 

negligible emissions due to the sparse 

population and rural nature of the 

county. IDEQ then analyzed the 

emissions inventory for SO2, NOX, VOC, 

NH3, and direct PM2.5, to determine 

possible control measures (see pages 

38–41). Pursuant to that analysis, IDEQ 

identified and established the 

mandatory woodstove curtailment 

program, burn ban, heating device 

restrictions and the woodstove changeout programs discussed above to satisfy 

the RACM requirement for the 

predominant emissions sources in the 

county, with estimated emission 

reductions greater than 0.13 tons per 

episode day. The IDEQ also determined 

reasonable measures beyond the Tier 2 

Federal Motor Vehicle Emission 

Requirements, the diesel emission 

reduction program, the commuter bus 

service, and the Park-n-Ride lots already 

in place for the area are not available for 

mobile emissions. The EPA has 

reviewed the comprehensive emissions 

inventory information, as summarized 

in Table 1. Based on the 2012 submittal 

and 2014 amendment, the EPA proposes 

to find that IDEQ has satisfied the 

RACM requirement for the Idaho 

portion of the area. 

H. Contingency Measures 

Contingency measures are additional 

measures to be implemented in the 

event that an area fails to attain a 

standard by its attainment date, or fails 

to meet Reasonable Further Progress 

(RFP). See CAA section 172(c)(9); 81 FR 

58066. These measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

take effect with minimal further action 

by the state or the EPA. Contingency 

measures should also contain trigger 

mechanisms and an implementation 

schedule. In addition, they should be 

measures not already included in the 

SIP control strategy, and should provide 

for emission reductions equivalent to 

one year of RFP. 

The EPA explained that the April 16, 

1992 General Preamble provided the 

following guidance: ‘‘States must show 

that their contingency measures can be 

implemented without further action on 

their part and with no additional 

rulemaking actions such as public 

hearings or legislative review. In 

general, EPA will expect all actions 

needed to affect full implementation of 

the measures to occur within 60 days 

after EPA notifies the State of its 

failure.’’ (57 FR at 13512). The statute 

requires that contingency measures 

provide for additional emission 

reductions that are not relied on for RFP 

or attainment and that are not included 

in the demonstration. The purpose of 

contingency measures is to provide a 

cushion while the plan is being revised 

to meet the missed milestone and 

continue progress towards expeditious 

attainment. In other words, contingency 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
74748 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5We also note that the 9th Circuit Court of 

Appeals recently rejected EPA’s interpretation of 

CAA section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early 

implementation of contingency measures. Bahr v. 

EPA, No. 12–72327 (Sept. 12, 2016). The Court 

concluded that contingency measures must take 

effect at the time the area fails to make RFP or attain 

by the applicable attainment date, not before. Id.at 

35–36. The IDEQ control measures, which have 

already been implemented, do not meet the 

standard for section 172(c)(9) contingency measures 

set out by the Bahr decision. 

6The EPA’s General Preamble and Addendum 

provide guidance interpreting the RFP and 

quantitative milestone requirements of subpart 4 

and were available at the time IDEQ submitted the 

2014 addendum. See General Preamble, 57 FR 

13539; Addendum, 59 FR 42015–17. The EPA’s 

guidance recommendations with respect to section 

189(c) include several relevant features: (1) That the 

control measures comprising the RFP should be 

implemented and in place to meet the milestone 

requirement; (2) that it is reasonable for the three 

year periods for milestones to run from the date that 

the attainment plan submission is due; and (3) that 

the precise form quantitative milestones should 

take is not specified and they may take whatever 

form would allow progress to be quantified or 

measured adequately. The guidance contains a 

partial list of potential approaches, including 

percent implementation of control strategies, 

percent compliance with implemented control 

measures, and adherence to a compliance schedule. 

See Addendum, 59 FR 42016. 

measures are intended to achieve 

reductions over and beyond those relied 

on in the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations. 

In its 2012 SIP submittal, the IDEQ 

relied on two sets of measures as 

contingency measures: Idaho control 

measures that had already been adopted 

and implemented but which were not 

included or accounted for in UDAQ’s 

attainment demonstration modeling; 

and the contingency measures included 

in Utah’s 2012 SIP submission. IDEQ 

asserted that such measures collectively 

would achieve emission reductions 

resulting in a 0.2 mg per year reduction, 

equaling one year’s worth of emission 

reductions necessary to achieve RFP at 

the time of IDEQ’s 2012 submittal. 

While the IDEQ asserts that the 0.2 mg 

per year reduction would occur, the 

reductions are not quantified in the 

UDAQ modeling. The EPA is therefore 

proposing to disapprove the IDEQ’s 

contingency measure plan element.5

I. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

and Quantitative Milestones 

For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, two 

statutory provisions apply regarding 

RFP and quantitative milestones. First, 

under subpart 1, CAA section 172(c)(2) 

requires attainment plans to provide for 

RFP, which is defined in CAA section 

171(l) as ‘‘such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by [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.’’ Reasonable further 

progress is a requirement to assure that 

states make steady, incremental progress 

toward attaining air quality standards, 

rather than deferring implementation of 

control measures and thereby emission 

reductions until sometime just before 

the date by which the standard is to be 

attained. Second, under subpart 4, CAA 

section 189(c) requires that attainment 

plan submissions have ‘‘quantitative 

milestones which are to be achieved 

every 3 years until the area is 

redesignated to attainment and which 

demonstrate reasonable further progress 

. . . toward attainment by the 

applicable date.’’ 

The IDEQ’s 2012 SIP submittal was 

developed to meet the subpart 1 RFP 

requirements, and the 2014 amendment 

was intended to address the D.C. 

Circuit’s determination that the subpart 

4 requirements apply to PM2.5 NAAQS; 

however, the IDEQ submittals do not 

include quantitative milestones as 

required pursuant to section 189(c). 

Specifically, section 189(c) provides 

that an attainment plan must have 

quantitative milestones which are to be 

achieved every three years until the area 

is redesignated to attainment, and 

which demonstrate reasonable further 

progress toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date.6 While the 

SIP submittals did identify one measure 

of RFP (i.e. that the area will attain by 

the attainment date), the SIP submittals 

do not adequately address the RFP 

requirement or provide specific 

quantitative milestone as required 

pursuant to section 189(c). For this 

reason, we propose to disapprove the 

SIP with respect to the RFP and 

quantitative milestones requirements. 

While the specific RFP and 

quantitative milestones requirements 

were not satisfied in the SIP submittals, 

the IDEQ’s attainment plan did contain 

control measures that were 

implemented after the area was 

designated nonattainment. For example, 

the woodstove curtailment and burn ban 

ordinances were adopted and in place 

during the summer and fall of 2012. In 

addition, the woodstove change-out 

programs conducted in 2006–2007 and 

2011–2012, had already commenced 

and achieved sustained and quantifiable 

emission reductions of 8.04 tons per 

year (tpy) PM2.5, 0.47 tpy NOX, and 

18.57 tpy VOC. The IDEQ calculated the 

emissions reductions associated with 

the number of woodstoves exchanged in 

each of those years. In addition, the 

IDEQ quantified the estimated reduction 

in PM2.5 reentrained road dust 

emissions from the road sanding 

agreements effective July 16, 2012 and 

October 25, 2012. The control measures 

in the IDEQ’s attainment plan were in 

place and achieving reductions within 

three years of submission. The State 

relied upon these control measures, in 

addition to the Utah control measures, 

to provide the bulk of the emissions 

reductions projected to bring the area 

into attainment, and those measures 

were achieving reductions during the 

three years from the subpart 4 

attainment plan submission date. 

However, the IDEQ’s SIP submittal did 

not specify whether such measures were 

also included for the purposes of RFP 

and quantitative milestones. If properly 

accounted for and specified in the SIP 

submittal, such reductions might be 

sufficient to provide the necessary 

demonstration of RFP for use in a 

quantitative milestones report. 

J. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

Federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

the EPA, the FHWA, and the FTA to 

demonstrate that their long-range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) conform 

to applicable SIPs. This demonstration 

is typically determined by showing that 

estimated emissions from existing and 

planned highway and transit systems 

are less than or equal to the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) 

contained in a SIP. 

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, the EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

One of the adequacy criteria requires 

that motor vehicle emissions budgets 

when considered together with all other 

emissions sources, are consistent with 

the applicable requirements for 

reasonable further progress, attainment 

or maintenance (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)((iv)). In this case the 

applicable requirement is attainment of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

Cache Valley NAA failed to attain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 74749 

7 December 31, 2014 is the attainment date 

associated with the motor vehicle emission budgets 

submitted as part of the 2012 submittal. Although 

IDEQ did submit revised emissions and attainment 

year inventories as part of the 2014 supplement, 

IDEQ did not explicitly submit revised budgets for 

the Subpart 4 attainment date of December 31, 

2015). 

8On April 1, 1996 the US Department of 

Transportation published a notice in the Federal 

Register describing the criteria to be used to 

determine which highway projects can be funded 

or approved during the time that the highway 

sanction is imposed in an area. (See 61 FR 14363) 

9Control strategy SIP revisions as defined in the 

transportation conformity include reasonable 

further progress plans and attainment 

demonstrations (40 CFR 93.101). 

10The Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization 

is responsible for transportation planning in a 

portion of Cache County, UT which is part of this 

nonattainment area. 

December 31, 2014.7 Therefore, the 

submitted motor vehicle emissions 

budgets do not meet the aforementioned 

adequacy criterion. We are proposing to 

disapprove the submitted budgets 

consistent with our proposed 

disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration for the Idaho portion of 

the area. 

III. Consequences of a Disapproved SIP 

This section explains the 

consequences of a disapproval of a SIP 

under section 110(k) of the Act. The Act 

provides for the imposition of sanctions 

and the promulgation of a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) if a state fails 

to submit and the EPA approve a plan 

revision that corrects the deficiencies 

identified by the EPA in its disapproval. 

The Act’s Provisions for Sanctions 

If the EPA finalizes disapproval of a 

required SIP submission, such as an 

attainment plan submission, or a 

portion thereof, section 179(a) provides 

for the imposition of sanctions unless 

the deficiency is corrected within 18 

months of the final rulemaking of 

disapproval. The first sanction would 

apply 18 months after the EPA 

disapproves the SIP. Under EPA’s 

sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the 

first sanction imposed at 18 months 

following a disapproval is 2:1 offsets for 

sources subject to the new source 

review requirements under section 173 

of the Act. If the deficiency remains 

uncorrected at 24 months after the 

disapproval a second sanction is 

imposed consisting of a prohibition on 

the approval or funding of certain 

highway projects.8 The EPA also has 

authority under section 110(m) to 

impose sanctions on a broader area, but 

is not proposing to take such action in 

today’s rulemaking. The imposition of 

sanctions is avoided or stopped by a 

final EPA rulemaking action finding that 

the state corrected the SIP deficiencies 

resulting in the disapproval. 

Federal Implementation Plan Provisions 

That Apply if a State Fails To Submit 

an Approvable Plan 

In addition to sanctions, if the EPA 

finds that a state failed to submit the 

required SIP revision or finalizes 

disapproval of the required SIP revision, 

or a portion thereof, the EPA must 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the date of the finding if the 

deficiency has not been corrected 

within that time period. 

Ramifications Regarding Conformity 

One consequence if EPA finalizes 

disapproval of a control strategy SIP 

submission is a conformity freeze.9 If we 

finalize the disapproval of the 

attainment demonstration SIP without a 

protective finding, a conformity freeze 

will be in place as of the effective date 

of the disapproval (40 CFR 93.120(a)(2)). 

The Idaho portion of the Cache Valley 

NAA is a ‘‘donut area’’ as defined in the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

93.101).10 As such, the Idaho portion of 

the area does not have a metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) and there 

is no long range transportation plan or 

TIP that would be subject to a freeze. 

However, the freeze does mean that no 

new projects in the Idaho portion of the 

Cache Valley NAA may be found to 

conform until another attainment 

demonstration SIP is submitted and the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets are 

found adequate or the attainment 

demonstration is approved. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

woodstove curtailment ordinances, burn 

ban, heating device restrictions and 

woodstove change-out programs as 

meeting RACM requirements. However, 

for the reasons set forth above and 

because the area failed to attain by the 

December 31, 2015 attainment date, we 

are proposing to determine that the 

IDEQ has not satisfied the attainment 

demonstration, the contingency 

measures, the RFP and quantitative 

milestone, and the motor vehicle 

emission budget requirements for the 

Franklin County portion of the Logan 

UT–ID area. As such, we are proposing 

to disapprove these elements. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. 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 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 on any Indian 

reservation land in Idaho or any other 

area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
74750 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

2 64 FR at 35715. 

Dated: October 18, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–26016 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0520; FRL–9952–65– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Louisiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Louisiana through the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ) on August 11, 2016 that 

addresses regional haze (RH) for the first 

planning period. This revision was 

submitted to address deficiencies 

identified in a previous action regarding 

requirements of the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA’s rules 

that require states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). This action concerns Best 

Available Retrofit Technology for 

certain sources. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 28, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2016–0520, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

huser.jennifer@epa.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Jennifer Huser, 214–665–7347, 

huser.jennifer@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Huser, 214–665–7347, 

huser.jennifer@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Jennifer Huser or Mr. 

Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Program 

In the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1977, Congress 

established a program to protect and 

improve visibility in the Nation’s 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

The EPA promulgated regional haze 

regulations in 1999 to implement 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

These regulations require states to 

develop and implement plans to ensure 

reasonable progress toward improving 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas 1 (Class I areas). See 64 FR 35714 

(July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 

6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by air 

pollution, principally fine particulate, 

produced by numerous sources and 

activities, located across a broad 

regional area. The sources include but 

are not limited to, major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources including nonanthropogenic sources. These sources 

and activities may emit fine particles 

(PM 2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particulate 

can also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. See 64 

FR at 35715. Data from the existing 

visibility monitoring network, the 

‘‘Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments’’ (IMPROVE) 

monitoring network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time in most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

The average visual range in many Class 

I areas in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without manmade air pollution.2

Visibility impairment also varies day-today and by season depending on 

variations in meteorology and emission 

rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by 

which visibility is measured in the 

regional haze program. A change of 1 dv 

is generally considered the change in 

visual range that the human eye can 

perceive. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources 

with the potential to emit greater than 

250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any 

visibility impairing pollutant in order to 

address visibility impacts from these 

sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS