39574 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(d)(1) is amended by adding the entry 

for Koppers Industries, Inc. at the end 

of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of source Permit No. County State effective 

date EPA approval date 

Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 

citation 

* * * * * * * 

Koppers Industry, Inc. OP–41–0008 ............ Lycoming .................. 3/30/99 7/13/06 .......................................... 52.2020(d)(1)(s). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–6189 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket # R10–OAR–2005–ID–0001; FRL–

8191–6 ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plan; Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final 

action to approve the nonattainment 

and maintenance plan for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to ten micrometers 

(PM–10) for the Portneuf Valley, PM–10 

nonattainment area in Idaho. EPA is 

also granting Idaho’s request to 

redesignate the Portneuf Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM–10. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 14, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket #, 

R10–OAR–2005–ID–0001. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, e.g. confidential business 

information or other information whose 

disclosure 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 through 

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

copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air 

Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA. EPA 

requests that if possible you contact the 

contact listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section, to 

schedule an appointment. Region 10 

official business hours are 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics (AWT–107), EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101; 

telephone number: (206) 553–0782; fax 

number: (206) 553–0110; e-mail address: 

body.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

I. Background Information 

A. What are we approving in this action? 

B. What comments did we receive on the 

proposal to approve the Plan and what 

are our responses? 

C. What action are we taking on 

redesignation? 

II. Summary of Final Action To Approve the 

State Submittal and Grant the State’s 

Redesignation Request 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

A. What are we approving in this 

action? 

Under the authority of the Federal 

Clean Air Act (Clean Air Act or Act), 

EPA is taking final action to approve the 

State’s moderate area nonattainment 

plan and the maintenance plan for the 

Portneuf Valley PM–10 nonattainment 

area for the 24 hour and annual PM–10 

NAAQS. We are also granting the State’s 

request to redesignate the area from 

nonattainment to attainment for PM–10. 

On June 30, 2004, the Director of the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) submitted plans to bring 

the Portneuf Valley PM–10 

nonattainment area into attainment, and 

maintain attainment with the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for PM–10 for an additional 10 years. 

The State also requested redesignation 

of the area to attainment for PM–10. The 

attainment plan, the maintenance plan, 

and the redesignation request are 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘State 

Submittal.’’

On May 20, 2005, EPA proposed to 

approve the nonattainment area plan 

and the maintenance plan and to grant 

the redesignation request. See Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 70 FR 29243. As 

explained in the proposal, the State 

Submittal satisfies the Clean Air Act 

nonattainment and maintenance 

planning requirements, as well as the 

redesignation requirements. See the 

proposed action for a full description of 

the State submission and our evaluation 

of the Clean Air Act requirements. 

B. What comments did we receive on 

our proposal to approve the ‘‘State 

Submittal’’? 

We received one comment letter on 

our proposed action to approve the State 

Submittal. The commenter, J.R. Simplot 

Company, requested that the State 

Submittal be revised to correct and 

clarify technical data and information 

related to the J.R. Simplot fertilizer 

facility (the Don Plant) located near 

Pocatello, Idaho and the shutdown of 

the Astaris (FMC) facility, located 

immediately adjacent to the J.R. 

Simplot, Don plant. In general the 

commenter requests that EPA revise the 

State Submittal before approving it. As 

explained below, EPA has the authority 

to review and take appropriate action on 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted to it. Revisions, if any, to a 

SIP submitted to EPA are made by the 

State, rather than EPA. After revision 

the State may resubmit the SIP to EPA 

for approval. Each specific comment 

and our response is summarized below: 

Comment: The commenter requests 

that the emission inventory in the State 

Submittal be revised prior to EPA 

approval so that the plan accurately 

reflects the emission reductions that 

have occurred at the Don Plant and at 

the Astaris (formerly FMC) facility. J.R. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 39575 

Simplot Company says that over the 

past two decades, emissions from their 

Don Plant have been reduced by 15,000 

tons/year. The commenter indicates that 

reductions of both primary and 

precursor emissions since 2001 from 

both the Don Plant and Astaris (FMC) 

facility are 6,880 tons/year. This 

reduction is primarily from the 

shutdown of the Astaris (FMC) facility 

in 2001, which accounts for 6,465 tons/ 

year. 

Response: The SIP air quality 

planning process is lengthy. It can take 

several years to develop the technical 

information and analysis needed to 

support a nonattainment or 

maintenance plan. Therefore, generally 

a State establishes a ‘base year’, usually 

the calendar year prior to initiation of 

the planning effort, as the starting point. 

This allows for the collection, 

verification, and use of complete annual 

data and information in the plan. The 

plan then contains consistent and 

comparable data, information, analyses, 

and measures as a basis for developing 

control measures and emission 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment in the future attainment and 

maintenance years. Constantly changing 

conditions (meteorology, voluntary 

emission reductions, economic 

conditions, etc.) that occur after the 

base-year are not considered in the base 

year. The demonstration that the plan is 

adequate for attaining and maintaining 

the standard takes into consideration 

changes in allowable emissions that 

occur after the base year, including new 

enforceable and permanent emission 

limitations and facility shut-downs. The 

demonstration of attainment and 

maintenance in future years is based on 

allowable emissions. 

The base year is 2000 for the State 

Submittal for the Portneuf Valley 

nonattainment area. The 2000 base year 

technical analysis in the State Submittal 

is based on air quality data, actual 

emissions from all sources, and 

meteorology collected in 2000. As 

explained in the proposal, the 

attainment emissions inventory for 2000 

describes the level of emissions in the 

nonattainment area sufficient to attain 

the NAAQS. 

Projected emissions in the State 

Submittal for the future years of 2005, 

2010, 2015, and 2020, were based on 

allowable emissions. Allowable 

emissions were developed from 

enforceable emission limits in permits 

for the industrial sources, included the 

reduction in emissions associated with 

the Astaris shutdown, and estimated 

reasonable worst case emissions from 

area sources such as residential wood 

combustion and road dust. If a source 

installed controls and achieved 

emission reductions on a voluntary 

basis after the 2000 base year, these 

reductions were not considered in the 

State Submittal because future year air 

quality maintenance demonstrations 

must be based on permanent and 

enforceable emission limitations, not 

voluntary reductions. 

The State developed the 2000 base 

year and future year emission estimates 

to demonstrate attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS, using EPA 

issued guidance and procedures. Future 

year emissions in the State Submittal for 

industrial sources were based on the 

permanent and enforceable emission 

limitations contained in permits and 

reflect the shutdown of the Astaris 

facility. The future year emissions in the 

State Submittal, for sources identified 

by J.R. Simplot in Table 1 of their 

comment letter, are based on allowable 

emissions and the shutdown of the 

Astaris facility, rather than emission 

reductions as presented in Table 1 of the 

comment letter. The allowable 

emissions are accurately accounted for 

in the State’s future year allowable 

emission inventories. 

The 2000 base year and future year 

emission inventories are comprehensive 

and accurate. The State has adequately 

demonstrated that the Portneuf Valley 

area has attained and will continue to 

maintain the PM–10 NAAQS at the 

projected emission levels. Even if actual 

emissions and concentrations are lower, 

as the commenter contends, it would 

not affect our finding that the area 

attains and the plan is adequate to 

maintain the standard. 

Comment: The demonstration 

analysis provided in the Plan is 

conservative, meaning that projected air 

quality levels in future years may be 

over estimated and that actual 

measurements will be lower than 

predicted. The commenter believes that 

the speciated roll-back model 

overestimates the concentrations of PM–

10 for future ambient air quality. The 

commenter believes that the Portneuf 

Valley area airshed could accommodate 

emissions greater than those relied on in 

the inventory of allowable emissions 

and still meet the PM–10 NAAQS. The 

commenter requests that the State 

Submittal be adjusted to allow for 

additional emissions. 

Response: The Clean Air Act provides 

EPA with authority to review and take 

appropriate action on SIPs that a State 

submits to it. Therefore, if revisions to 

a SIP submission are necessary, such 

revisions would be made by the State, 

rather than by EPA, and then the revised 

plan resubmitted to EPA for approval. 

As explained in the proposal and the 

TSD accompanying the proposed action, 

EPA determined that, based on air 

quality data for the area since the 

attainment date, control measures, 

speciated linear rollback modeling as 

well as dispersion modeling, trend 

analysis, chemical mass balance source 

apportionment and emission data the 

State adequately demonstrated that the 

area has attained and will maintain the 

PM–10 NAAQS in the future. See 70 FR 

29248–49. Even if a commenter can 

demonstrate that the analysis for the 

Portneuf Valley area is conservative, is 

based on overestimated future year 

emissions, and could be revised to allow 

for additional emissions in the airshed, 

the analysis provided by the State still 

demonstrates attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, 

regardless of whether or not the 

emissions and concentrations are overpredicted in the State’s analysis, the 

area still demonstrates attainment and 

maintenance of the standard. Concerns 

about the level of allowable emissions 

should be addressed to the State. 

Comment: The commenter requests 

that EPA, prior to approval of the plan, 

correct the emission inventory to 

accurately reflect NOX emissions and 

eligible emission reduction credits. 

Response: As explained above, the 

State would need to make the requested 

revisions and resubmit the plan 

according to administrative procedures. 

We have reviewed the inventory of 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

for base year 2000 and the future years. 

The results of that review are explained 

in the TSD and proposal associated with 

this action. We believe the base year 

inventory is comprehensive, current (at 

the time of development), and accurate 

as required by the Act. Future year 

emission estimates are based on 

enforceable emission limitations for 

industrial sources as provided in the 

permits included in the State Submittal. 

In this instance, the emission inventory 

considers, among other things, the 

emissions associated with the limits in 

the J.R. Simplot Don Plant permit, but 

does not consider the voluntary 

emission reductions achieved by the 

facility. Thus the State Submittal 

correctly uses enforceable emission 

limits for future year emissions for 

industrial sources. 

For clarification, should in the future, 

Idaho create emission credits, these 

emission credits would need to be 

included in the future year allowable 

emissions. Emission credits could be 

created, for example, if Idaho lowered 

an enforceable emission limitation, thus 

creating emissions credits based on the 

difference between the old and new 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
39576 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

emission limits. But, these emission 

credits are allowable emissions that 

could be emitted at some future date. 

Therefore, they would need to be 

identified and included in future year 

allowable emission inventories and 

taken into account in any attainment or 

maintenance demonstrations. 

The proposed future year NOX

emission inventories are correct. 

Comment: EPA did not provide in the 

proposal the specific language to be 

added in the regulations (40 CFR part 

52) for the Portneuf Valley Plan. The 

commenter requests that the public and 

regulated community have the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

the specific language to be added to the 

Code of Federal Regulations before EPA 

approval of the SIP/Portneuf Air Plan. 

Response: EPA believes that it is not 

necessary to include this language in the 

proposal. Idaho submitted the J.R. 

Simplot Don Plant operating permit as 

part of the State Submittal. EPA 

evaluated the emission limits, for each 

emission unit emitting PM–10 or 

precursors, as meeting RACT. (See the 

TSD accompanying the proposal.) The 

permit and the TSD are available for 

public review as part of the Docket for 

the proposal. These documents identify 

which emission units and emission 

limits are RACT and become part of the 

Federally enforceable SIP. Final 

approval of the State Submittal means 

that the permit for the J.R. Simplot Don 

Plant, included in the State Submittal, 

is Federally enforceable. EPA may, as 

appropriate, incorporate by reference 

enforceable emission limitations in the 

SIP. Regardless of whether the exact 

incorporation language is included in 

the Federal Register notice, the 

applicable permit provisions become 

incorporated into the Idaho SIP and are 

Federally enforceable. Providing the 

exact incorporation by reference 

language in the proposal is unnecessary. 

We are incorporating by reference 

only those provisions in the operating 

permits that Idaho determined represent 

RACT as presented in Table 6–3 of the 

State Submittal. Those provisions are 

emission unit and pollutant specific and 

include any measurement techniques 

specified for determining compliance. 

Conclusion based on comments 

received and EPA response: 

After review of all comments 

provided during the public comment 

period, EPA has determined that the 

State’s attainment and maintenance 

plan meets all the nonattainment and 

maintenance planning obligations 

provided in the Clean Air Act. 

C. What action are we taking on 

redesignation? 

EPA is approving the Portneuf Valley, 

Idaho PM–10 attainment and 

maintenance plan as submitted to EPA 

on June 30, 2004. 

After review of all comments 

provided during the public comment 

period, EPA has evaluated the State’s 

redesignation request and determined 

that it meets the redesignation criteria 

set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

Clean Air Act. See Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 70 FR 29250–52. Approval 

of the redesignation request changes the 

official designation of the Portneuf 

Valley, Idaho area from nonattainment 

to attainment for the PM–10 standard. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045A, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 11, 

2006. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 39577 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National Parks and 

Wilderness areas. 

Due to the Regional Administrator’s 

recusal in matters involving the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

this decision has been delegated to the 

Deputy Regional Administrator. 

Dated: June 28, 2006. 

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart N—Idaho 

■ 2. Section 52.670 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) by adding the 

following entries to the end of the table. 

■ b. In paragraph (d) by adding the 

following entries to the end of the table. 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (IDAPA) CHAPTER 58, RULES FOR THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION IN IDAHO, 

PREVIOUSLY CODIFIED AT IDAPA CHAPTER 39 (APPENDIX A.3) 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanations 

58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

* * * * * * * 

City and County Ordinances 

* * * * * * * 

City of Pocatello Ordinance 

2450.

Residential wood combustion 

curtailment ordinance.

01/12/94 07/13/06 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan). 

City of Pocatello Ordinance 

2726.

Revised air quality curtailment 

levels.

09/18/03 07/13/06 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan). 

City of Chubbuck Ordinance 

403.

Residential wood combustion 

curtailment ordinance.

11/23/93 07/13/2006 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan). 

City of Chubbuck Ordinance 

582.

Revised air quality curtailment 

levels.

12/9/03 07/13/06 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan). 

* * * * * (d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1

Name of source Permit number State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit 

No. T1–9507–114–1; Facility Number No. 077–00006.

04/5/2004 07/13/2006 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

The following conditions: 

Cover page, facility identification information only, 

#300 Sulfuric Acid Plant, Permit Conditions 16.1, 16.10, 

16.11, 

#400 Sulfuric Acid Plant, Permit Condition 17.1, 17.7, 

17.10, 17.11, 

Phosphoric acid plant, Permit 

Condition 12.3, 12.13, 

Granulation No. 3 Process, 

Permit Condition 9.2.1, 

Granulation No. 3 stack, 

9.17 (except 9.17.1 through 

9.17.6), 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
39578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1—Continued 

Name of source Permit number State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Reclaim Cooling Towers, Permit Condition 14.2, 14.6.1, 

Babcock&Wilcox Boiler, Permit Condition 6.4, 6.12, 

HPB&W Boiler, Permit Condition 5.3, 5.13 through 5.18, 

5.21. 

J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho Compliance Agreement & 

Voluntary Order Idaho 

Code 39–116A.

04/16/2004 07/13/2006 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

The following conditions: 

No. 300 Sulfuric Acid Plant; 

Condition 8 and 9. 

No. 400 Sulfuric Acid Plant; 

Condition 10, 11, and 12. 

Granulation No.1 Plant; Condition 14. 

Granulation No.2 Plant; Condition 15. 

Compliance and Performance 

Testing; Condition 16. 

1EPA 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 maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision. 

* * * * * 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.313, the table entitled 

‘‘Idaho—PM10’’ is amended by revising 

the entry for ‘‘Eastern Idaho IntraState 

AQCR 61: Power-Bannock Counties, 

part of (Pocatello). State Lands-Portneuf 

Valley Area’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.313 Idaho. 

* * * * * 

IDAHO—PM–10 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date Type Date Type 

Eastern Idaho IntraState 

AQCR 61: 

08/14/06 Attainment. 

Power-Bannock Counties, part of: (Pocatello) 

State Lands-Portneuf Valley Area: 

T.5S, R.34E Sections 

25–36 

T.5S, R.35E Section 

31 

T.6S, R.34E Sections 

1–36 

T.6S, R.35E Sections 

5–9, 16–21, 28–33, 

plus the west 1⁄2 of 

sections 10, 15, 22, 

27, 34 

T.7S, R.34E Sections 

1–4, 10–14, and 24 

T.7S, R.35E Sections 

4–9, 16–21, 28–33, 

plus the west 1⁄2 of 

sections 3, 10, 15, 

22, 27, 34 

T.8S, R.35E Section 4 

plus the west 1⁄2 of 

section 3 

* * * * * * * 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 39579 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–6125 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0083; FRL–8196–6] 

RIN 2060–AE48 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated 

Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

integrated iron and steel manufacturing 

facilities. The final amendments add a 

new compliance option, revise emission 

limitations, reduce the frequency of 

repeat performance tests for certain 

emission units, add corrective action 

requirements, and clarify monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on July 13, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0083. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure 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 through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air & Radiation Docket, Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0083, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Phil Mulrine, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Metals and 

Minerals Group (D243–02), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–5289, fax 

number: (919) 541–3207, e-mail address: 

mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities affected by the 

NESHAP include: 

Category NAICS 

code 1

Examples of regulated 

entities 

Industry ....................................................... 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic 

oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops. 

Federal government ................................... .................... Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ...................... .................... Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is be regulated by 

this action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7781 

of subpart FFFFF (NESHAP for 

Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 

Facilities). If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult either the 

air permit authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A 

(General Provisions). 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s final action 

will also be available on the Worldwide 

Web through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a 

copy of the final action will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

judicial review of the final rule 

amendments is available only by filing 

a petition for review in the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by September 11, 2006. Under 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 

objection to the final rule amendments 

that was raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public 

comment can be raised during judicial 

review. Moreover, under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by the final rule 

amendments may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

Organization of This Document. The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the Final Amendments 

III. Impacts of the Final Amendments 

IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed 

Amendments 

A. Equivalency of Opacity Limit 

B. Monitoring Requirements 

C. Applicability to Sinter Coolers Without 

Stacks 

D. Applicability to Discharges Inside 

Buildings 

E. Operating Limit 

F. Corrective Action 

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions 

H. Applicability of MACT Standards 

I. Subsequent Performance Tests for 

Baghouses 

J. Opacity Observations for Sinter Cooler 

K. Compliance Date 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), we 

issued the NESHAP for integrated iron 

and steel manufacturing facilities (40 

CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF). The 

NESHAP implement section 112(d) of 

the CAA by requiring all major sources 

to meet emission standards for 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES