20730 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the Act. See Public Law

No. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are

to the Clean Air Act as amended (‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’),

which is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.

2Many of these other areas were identified in

footnote 4 of the October 31, 1990 Federal Register

notice.

and (d)(4) are amended by removing

‘‘2133(c)’’ and adding, in place thereof,

‘‘16133(c)’’ and the authority citation

following paragraph (e)(2) is amended

by removing ‘‘2131(c)(3)(A)’’ and

adding, in place thereof,

‘‘16131(c)(3)(A)’’.

§ 21.7639 [Amended]

36. In § 21.7639, the authority citation

following paragraph (b)(2) is amended

by removing ‘‘2130(b)’’ and adding, in

place thereof, ‘‘16136(b)’’.

§ 21.7644 [Amended]

37. In § 21.7644, the authority citation

following paragraph (b)(2) is amended

by removing ‘‘2135’’ and adding, in

place thereof, ‘‘16135’’.

[FR Doc. 96–11419 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ID5–2–7505; FRL–5500–4]

Attainment Extensions for PM–10

Nonattainment Areas: Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In the August 28, 1995

Federal Register, EPA identified two

nonattainment areas in the State of

Idaho which failed to attain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter of less than or

equal to ten micrometers (PM–10) by the

applicable attainment date of December

31, 1994: the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area and the

Sandpoint PM–10 nonattainment area.

In that same Federal Register, EPA

proposed to grant a one-year extension

to the attainment date for those areas,

from December 31, 1994 to December

31, 1995. EPA, by this document, grants

the extensions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s request

and other information supporting this

action are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations: EPA, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, and State of Idaho,

Division of Environmental Quality, 1410

N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho 83710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, 206/553–0782, EPA,

Office of Air Quality, Seattle,

Washington.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Clean Air Act Requirements

Areas meeting the requirements of

section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act 1 were

designated nonattainment for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than or equal to ten

micrometers by operation of law and

classified ‘‘moderate’’ upon enactment

of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

See generally 42 U.S.C. section

7407(d)(4)(B). These areas included all

former Group I PM–10 planning areas

identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7,

1987) as further clarified in 55 FR 45799

(October 31, 1990), and any other areas

violating the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for PM–10 prior to

January 1, 1989.2 A Federal Register

notice announcing the areas designated

nonattainment for PM–10 upon

enactment of the 1990 Amendments,

known as ‘‘initial’’ PM–10

nonattainment areas, was published on

March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) and a

subsequent Federal Register notice

correcting the description of some of

these areas was published on August 8,

1991 (56 FR 37654). See 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.313

(codified air quality designations and

classifications for the State of Idaho).

All initial moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas have the same

applicable attainment date of December

31, 1994.

States containing initial moderate

PM–10 nonattainment areas were

required to develop and submit to EPA

by November 15, 1991, a SIP revision

providing for, among other things,

implementation of reasonably available

control measures (RACM), including

reasonably available control technology

(RACT), and a demonstration of whether

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS by the

December 31, 1994 attainment date was

practicable. See Section 189(a).

The Act provides the Administrator

the discretion of granting a one-year

extension to the attainment date for a

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area

provided certain criteria are met. See

Section 188(d). The statute sets forth

two criteria a moderate nonattainment

area must satisfy in order to obtain an

extension: (1) the State has complied

with all the requirements and

commitments pertaining to the area in

the applicable implementation plan;

and (2) the area has no more than one

exceedance of the 24-hour PM–10

standard in the year preceding the

extension year, and the annual mean

concentration of PM–10 in the area for

the year preceding the extension year is

less than or equal to the standard. See

Section 188(d). As discussed in the

August 28, 1995 Federal Register

document (60 FR 44452), in exercising

its discretion to grant extensions for

PM–10 nonattainment areas, EPA will

examine the air quality planning

progress made in the moderate area.

EPA will be disinclined to grant an

attainment date extension unless a State

has, in substantial part, addressed its

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area

planning obligations as evidenced by

whether the State has: (1) adopted and

substantially implemented control

measures that represent RACM/RACT in

the moderate nonattainment area; and

(2) demonstrated that the area has made

emission reductions amounting to

reasonable further progress toward

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS as

defined in section 171(1) of the Act. See

60 FR 44453.

If the State does not have the requisite

number of years of clean air quality data

to show attainment and does not apply

or qualify for an attainment date

extension, the area will be reclassified

to serious by operation of law under

section 188(b)(2) of the Act. If an

extension to the attainment date is

granted, at the end of the extension year

EPA will again determine whether the

area has attained the PM–10 NAAQS. If

the requisite three consecutive years of

clean air quality data needed to

determine attainment are not met for the

area, the State may apply for a second

one-year extension of the attainment

date. In order to qualify for the second

one-year extension of the attainment

date, the State must satisfy the same

requirements listed above for the first

extension. EPA will also consider the

State’s PM–10 planning progress for the

area in the year for which the first

extension was granted. If a second

extension is granted and the area does

not have the requisite three consecutive

years of clean air quality data needed to

demonstrate attainment at the end of the

second extension, no further extensions

of the attainment date can be granted

and the area will be reclassified serious

by operation of law. See section 188(d).

On August 28, 1995, EPA determined,

based on air quality data showing

violations of the PM–10 NAAQS during

the period from 1992 through 1994, that

the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area and Sandpoint PM–

10 nonattainment area have each failed
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20731

to attain the PM–10 NAAQS by the

applicable attainment date of December

31, 1994. See 60 FR 44454. In that

action, EPA also proposed to grant the

State of Idaho’s request for a one-year

extension of the PM–10 attainment date

for these nonattainment areas based on

the supporting information provided by

the State.

EPA received two comments on the

proposal, both of which supported

EPA’s proposal to grant the one-year

extension, but one of which disagreed

with EPA’s characterization of two

underlying issues. In this notice, EPA is

taking final action on its proposal to

extend the PM–10 attainment date for

the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area and the Sandpoint

PM–10 nonattainment area from

December 31, 1994 to December 31,

1995.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Response to Public Comments

EPA received comments from the

State of Idaho, Division of

Environmental Quality, North Idaho

Regional Office (IDEQ–NIRO) and from

FMC Corporation (FMC), which owns

and operates a facility in the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area. IDEQ–NIRO

strongly endorsed EPA’s proposal to

grant a one-year extension to the

attainment date for the Sandpoint PM–

10 nonattainment area.

FMC supported EPA’s proposal to

grant a one-year extension of the PM–10

attainment date for the Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area,

but felt that EPA could have ‘‘more

appropriately characterized’’ two issues

discussed in the proposal. First, FMC

objected to EPA’s failure to

acknowledge that FMC has undertaken

efforts to voluntarily reduce particulate

emissions from certain sources within

its facility which FMC believes has in

turn contributed to recent indications

that the area is approaching attainment

of the standard. Second, FMC stated that

EPA should discount the importance of

the Eastern Michaud Flats superfund

monitoring Site #2 (EMF Site #2)

monitoring data because FMC asserts

that siting considerations and

exceptional events substantially

diminish the significance and accuracy

of its measurements. EPA has serious

concerns regarding the sufficiency, and

in some cases, the accuracy of the

information provided by FMC in

support of its concerns. For example,

although EPA fully supports the

voluntary efforts FMC has undertaken to

implement PM–10 reductions at its

elemental phosphorus facility, FMC has

not provided documentation to support

the claimed emission reductions or to

show that the voluntary improvements

meet the RACM/RACT requirement.

Moreover, voluntary actions are not

sufficient to meet Clean Air Act

planning requirements for PM–10

nonattainment areas. See sections

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

Even if accurate and fully supportable,

however, the information provided by

FMC in its comments would not change

EPA’s decision to grant the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area a one-year extension

of the attainment date. Indeed, FMC

fully supports the granting of such an

extension. The information provided by

FMC, if fully accepted by EPA, would

only strengthen the basis for EPA’s

decision.

As EPA stated in the proposal, EPA is

currently working on a proposed rule

that would implement a control strategy

for sources located within the Tribal

portion of the nonattainment area. It is

through this process that the control

measures that have been voluntarily

undertaken by FMC can be, if

appropriate, made federally enforceable

and their adequacy in context of the

RACM/RACT requirement can be more

appropriately evaluated. Similarly, if

EPA proposes to rely on the data from

EMF Site #2 to support its proposed

control strategy, the public comment

period on EPA’s proposed strategy

would be an appropriate time for FMC

to present more information to support

its claim that EMF Site #2 does not meet

EPA siting criteria and to request that

specifically identified events should be

deemed exceptional and their effects on

the monitoring site discounted.

B. Final Action

EPA is granting the State of Idaho’s

request for a one-year extension of the

PM–10 attainment date for both the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area and the Sandpoint

PM–10 nonattainment area. This

determination is based upon available

air quality data and a review of the

State’s progress in implementing the

planning requirements that apply to

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas.

For a thorough discussion of the basis

for EPA’s determination, please refer to

the proposal for this action at 60 FR

44452. This action extends the PM–10

nonattainment date for both the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area and the Sandpoint

PM–10 nonattainment area from

December 31, 1994 to December 31,

1995.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the State’s request and all

other information relied on by EPA in

granting one-year extension, including

public comments on the proposal

received and reviewed by EPA, are

maintained in the docket at the EPA

Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of

information submitted to or otherwise

considered by EPA in making this

decision. The docket is available for

public inspection at the location listed

under the ADDRESSES section of this

document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

Extensions under Section 188(d) of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements, but merely extend the

potential date for the imposition of new

requirements. Because this action does

not impose any new requirements, it

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United
20732 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 8, 1996.

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 challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental Protection, Air

pollution control, Particulate matter,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of Idaho

was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 25, 1996.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, 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: 52 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart N—Idaho

2. Section 52.691 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.691 Extensions.

The Administrator, by authority

delegated under section 188(d) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990,

hereby extends for one year (until

December 31, 1995) the attainment date

for the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area and the Sandpoint

PM–10 nonattainment area.

[FR Doc. 96–11344 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–10–1–7025; FRL–5468–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;

Revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Addressing Visible

Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On April 3, 1995 the EPA

simultaneously published a direct final

rule and notice of proposed rulemaking

in which EPA published its decision to

approve a revision to the Texas SIP

addressing visible emissions. During the

30-day comment period, the EPA

received three comment letters in

response to the April 3, 1995,

rulemaking. This final rule summarizes

comments and EPA’s responses, and

finalizes the EPA’s decision to approve

the revisions to the visible emissions

regulations for Texas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the addresses listed

below. The interested persons wanting

to examine these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12124 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), USEPA Region 6, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 3, 1995, the EPA published

a direct final rulemaking approving a

revision to the existing Texas regulation

concerning the control of visible

emissions (60 FR 16806). At the same

time that the EPA published the direct

final rule, a separate notice of proposed

rulemaking was published in the

Federal Register (60 FR 16829). This

proposed rulemaking specified that EPA

would withdraw the direct final rule if

adverse or critical comments were filed

on the rulemaking. The EPA received

three letters containing adverse

comments regarding the direct final rule

within 30 days of publication of the

proposed rule and withdrew the direct

final rule on June 5, 1995 (60 FR 29484).

The specific rationale EPA used to

approve the revision to the Texas visible

emissions regulations is explained in

the direct final rule and will not be

restated here. This final rule contained

in this Federal Register addresses the

comments received during the public

comment period and announces EPA’s

final action regarding approval of the

visible emissions revisions.

Response to Public Comments

In the April 3, 1995, Federal Register,

the EPA requested public comments on

the proposed/direct final rules (please

reference 60 FR 16806–16808 and 60 FR

16829). The EPA received three adverse

comment letters dated May 3, 1995, and

thus proceeded to withdraw the direct

final rule and adequately address each

comment letter. The EPA’s response to

each comment letter is detailed below.

1. A letter was received from Larry

Feldcamp, Baker & Botts, LLP,

representing the Texas Industry Project

(TIP). The TIP believed that the Texas

Regulation I provisions for visible

emissions were unwarranted, and that

the EPA exceeded its statutory authority

under title I of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA) in proposing to

approve those provisions into the Texas

SIP. The TIP believes that the visible

emissions provisions are not necessary

for the attainment or maintenance of

any National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) in Texas. Further,

the TIP is concerned that some visible

emissions provisions in Regulation I

will cause more burdensome

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and compliance certification

requirements for subject sources, since

title V of the CAA incorporates SIP

requirements. Finally, the TIP expressed

concern about federal suits being

available to enforce the visible

emissions provisions, provisions which

the TIP believes should not be in the

Texas SIP.

EPA’s response to letter #1: Section

110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to

provide plans for the implementation

and maintenance, and enforcement of

primary and secondary criteria pollutant

standards, and for these plans to be

submitted to EPA as part of the SIP. The

visible emissions revisions provide for

maintenance of the particulate standard

statewide, and thus meet the intent of

section 110(a)(1). Since EPA believes

that the visible emissions regulations

provide for maintenance of the

particulate standard and strengthen the

SIP as a whole, incorporation of these

revisions into the SIP is required under

section 110. The EPA must take action

on state SIP submittals to either approve

or disapprove the submittals. The EPA

believes that the revised visible

emissions provisions in Texas

Regulation I are approvable (note—the

existing Texas SIP contains visible

emissions provisions in Texas

Regulation I). This approval will

strengthen the Texas SIP by updating

the regulation. The EPA believes that