[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27019-27023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12888]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ID-1-1-5528a; FRL-5449-2]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves the State 
Implementation Plan submitted by the State of Idaho for the purpose of 
bringing about the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
less than or equal

[[Page 27020]]

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM<INF>10) in the Northern Ada County 
PM<INF>10 nonattainment area.

DATES: This action is effective on July 29, 1996 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by July 1, 1996. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

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, Region 10, Office of 
Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, 
and State of Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, 
Boise, ID 83720.
    Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston, EPA, 
Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, OAQ-107, Seattle, 
Washington, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Cole, EPA, Region 10, Idaho 
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard, Boise, Idaho 83706, (208) 334-
9555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 22, 1994, EPA issued a proposed rulemaking action on 
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Northern Ada County 
PM<INF>10 nonattainment area. See 59 FR 48582, Sept. 22, 1994. The plan 
was submitted for the purpose of satisfying the moderate area planning 
requirements for PM<INF>10 nonattainment areas, as set forth in 
subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In that 
proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to grant full approval of the 
emissions inventory and PM<INF>10 precursor exclusion elements, limited 
approval of the control measures submitted by the State for the limited 
purpose of making them Federally enforceable, and disapproval of the 
control measures, attainment demonstration and quantitative milestones, 
and reasonable further progress elements of the SIP. Disapproval of 
these elements was based on the State's failure to adopt into the SIP 
and submit to EPA the wood smoke control ordinances for the cities of 
Garden City, Meridian, and Eagle, and for unincorporated Ada County, 
which the State had relied on to implement the residential wood burning 
program identified in the SIP. In addition, the State had failed to 
adequately address in the SIP the enforceability of its control 
measures. EPA received no comments on its proposal.
    On December 30, 1994, the State of Idaho, Department of Health and 
Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ or State) submitted to 
EPA additional information which included the wood smoke control 
ordinances for these areas; an explanation of the enforcement 
procedures, responsibilities, and sources of funding for each of the 
adopted ordinances; and the State's assurance of responsibility for 
adequate implementation of the local control measures. As described in 
more detail below, EPA believes the Northern Ada County PM<INF>10 SIP 
is now fully approvable and therefore fully approves the State's plan.

II. Analysis of State Submission

    A detailed analysis of the SIP is contained in the September 22, 
1994, Federal Register document proposing action on the Northern Ada 
County PM<INF>10 SIP. (59 FR 48582) That analysis evaluated each of the 
SIP elements, and concluded that certain elements were approvable and 
that certain elements had deficiencies requiring resolution. A summary 
of the analysis, and additional analysis of information contained in 
the December 30, 1994, submittal follows.

1. Procedural Background

    IDEQ conducted public hearings and adopted the SIP consistent with 
Section 110 of Clean Air Act. The initial public hearing was held on 
October 11, 1990, and a second public hearing was held on November 14, 
1991, on a plan modification. The additional information submitted on 
December 30, 1994, included four implementing ordinances that had each 
been adopted by the responsible agency after having gone through the 
public hearing process required by State and local law. EPA has 
determined that notice and public hearing, meeting the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.102, is not required for the December 30, 1994, submittal 
because the ordinances and other information submitted by the State do 
not differ materially from the control measures outlined in the SIP 
that went through notice and public hearing.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

    The September 22, 1994 Federal Register document discussed the 
emissions inventory contained in the November 15, 1991, SIP and 
concluded it was consistent with the requirements of Sections 172(c)(3) 
and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act. The additional information submitted on 
December 30, 1994, did not change the emissions inventory. Thus, for 
the reasons set forth in the September 22, 1994 Federal Register 
document, EPA is fully approving the emission inventory.

3. Control Measures

    In the September 22, 1994 Federal Register document, EPA determined 
that the November 14, 1991, SIP did not provide for the timely 
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM), 
including reasonably available control technology (RACT). To achieve 
required emission reductions, the SIP relied upon a residential wood 
burning program, which consisted of four elements: an episodic wood 
burning curtailment program, a wood smoke public education/awareness 
program, a wood stove certification program, and a wood stove change-
out program. The principal element of the residential wood burning 
program was the episodic wood burning curtailment program. The SIP 
stated that this program would be implemented at the local level 
through the adoption of local ordinances by Ada County, and by the 
cities of Boise, Garden City, Eagle, and Meridian. However, as noted in 
the September 22, 1994, Federal Register document, the State had not 
adopted and submitted all of these ordinances as part of the SIP 
submittal and the SIP therefore did not satisfy the RACM/RACT 
requirement.
    The additional information submitted to EPA on December 30, 1994, 
included the required ordinances for Ada County, and for the cities of 
Garden City, Eagle, and Meridian. Each ordinance describes the 
procedures for instituting a wood stove curtailment program, including 
the monitored level at which an ``alert'' is called (100 <greek-m>g/m 
\3\), and provisions for exemptions from the program. The additional 
information also included a description of the procedures by which each 
local agency in the nonattainment area which has passed a wood smoke 
control ordinance will issue wood stove permits, determine exemptions 
from the curtailment program, enforce the program, and fund 
implementation.
    EPA believes that the State's December 30, 1994, submittal 
addresses the deficiencies identified in the September 22, 1994, 
Federal Register document, with one exception which does not bar full 
approval of the State's control measures as meeting the RACM/RACT 
requirement. The State's initial SIP submittal stated that all cities 
in the nonattainment area and the unincorporated areas of Ada County 
had ordinances prohibiting the sale and installation of uncertified 
wood stoves. The initial SIP submittal, however, only included the 
ordinance for the City of Boise, and EPA proposed limited approval of 
that control measure. As stated above, the additional information

[[Page 27021]]

submitted on December 30, 1994, included wood smoke control ordinances 
for Garden City, Eagle, Meridian, and unincorporated Ada County. Only 
the Garden City and Ada County ordinances, however, have prohibitions 
on the sale and installation of non-certified wood stoves. EPA does not 
believe that the failure of the Cities of Meridian and Eagle to 
prohibit the sale and installation of uncertified wood stoves poses a 
bar to full approval of the control measures identified in the SIP as 
meeting the RACM/RACT requirement. As stated in the September 22, 1994, 
Federal Register document, the State did not take any emission 
reduction credit for the wood stove certification program. See 59 FR 
48585. RACM/RACT does not require the implementation of all available 
control measures where an area demonstrates timely attainment of the 
NAAQS and implementation of additional control measures would not 
expedite attainment. See 57 FR 13498, 13540-13544 (April 10, 1992).
    The September 22, 1994 document discussed whether, assuming the 
implementation of control measures on wood smoke as identified in the 
SIP, RACM/RACT required the imposition of controls on emissions of 
other sources of PM<INF>10 in the nonattainment area, such as road 
dust, prescribed silvicultural and agricultural burning, and stationary 
sources. See 59 FR 48585. EPA preliminarily concluded that additional 
controls on these sources would not be necessary, assuming 
implementation of the proposed wood smoke controls, either because 
emissions from such sources were insignificant or because additional 
controls on such sources were not necessary for and would not expedite 
attainment. Now that the State has fully implemented the wood smoke 
controls discussed in the SIP and demonstrated that such controls 
result in timely attainment of the PM<INF>10 standard, EPA concludes 
that RACM/RACT does not require additional controls on sources other 
than wood smoke.<SUP>1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the 
September 22, 1994, Federal Register document and the reasons set forth 
herein, EPA is approving the State's control measures as meeting the 
RACM/RACT requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed in Section II.6 below, the State has recently 
identified in the nonattainment area two major sources of NO<INF>X, 
which is a precursor to particulate formation under certain 
meteorological conditions. Whether RACM requires the implementation 
of additional controls on these major sources of NO<INF>X is 
discussed in Section II.6 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Attainment Demonstration

    As discussed in the September 22, 1994, Federal Register document, 
IDEQ conducted modeling which demonstrated the nonattainment area will 
be in attainment of the 24-hour PM<INF>10 NAAQS during the period of 
1993 through 2000. However, because IDEQ had not demonstrated to EPA 
that it had adopted the wood smoke control measures necessary to 
achieve the emission reductions identified in the SIP, EPA proposed to 
disapprove the attainment demonstration. See 59 FR 48586. Now that IDEQ 
has demonstrated that the necessary control measures have been adopted 
and implemented and EPA is approving those measures as meeting the 
RACM/RACT requirement, EPA is giving full approval to the State's 
attainment demonstration.
    A review of monitored data in the Northern Ada County NAA indicates 
that no exceedences of the standard have occurred since January 7, 
1991. Over time, the expected exceedence rate for the 24-hour standard 
has been steadily decreasing, from a high of 4.5 during the three-year 
period 1986-1988 to 0.0 for the period 1992-1994. Based on the 
monitored data, it appears the nonattainment area has attained the 24-
hour PM<INF>10 standard.

5. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress

    The State's initial SIP submittal also met the requirements for 
quantitative milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). In the 
September 22, 1994, Federal Register document, however, EPA proposed 
disapproving these requirements because attainment and maintenance of 
the standard was predicated on control measures that had not been 
incorporated into the SIP. See 59 FR 48586-48587. Now that this 
deficiency has been corrected by the December 31, 1994, submittal, EPA 
is fully approving State's plan as meeting the quantitative milestones 
and RFP requirements.

6. PM<INF>10 Precursors

    The September 22, 1994, Federal Register document proposed to grant 
the exclusion from controls authorized under Section 189(e) of the Act 
for major stationary sources of PM<INF>10 precursors in the 
nonattainment area. See 59 FR 48587. EPA proposed a finding that major 
stationary sources of PM<INF>10 precursors did not contribute 
significantly to PM<INF>10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in the 
nonattainment area. IDEQ has subsequently submitted information 
identifying in the nonattainment area two major stationary sources of 
NO<INF>x, a PM<INF>10 precursor under certain meteorological 
conditions. Northwest Pipeline has a potential to emit 314 tons of 
NO<INF>x per year and St. Alphonsus Hospital has the potential to emit 
116 tons of NO<INF>x per year. The SIP provides an adequate 
demonstration that implementation of RACT will be sufficient to attain 
the PM<INF>10 by the applicable attainment date. In addition, EPA 
reviewed the ambient air quality data from 1992, 1993, and 1994 and 
determined that the area attained the NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Thus, 
although there are two major stationary sources of PM<INF>10 precursors 
in the nonattainment area, EPA believes these sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM<INF>10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in the 
nonattainment area. Therefore, Section 189(e) of the Clean Air Act does 
not require the imposition of control requirements on major stationary 
sources of PM<INF>10 precursors in the nonattainment area.

7. Enforceability of Control Measures

    In the September 22, 1994, Federal Register document, EPA reserved 
judgment on the enforceability of the identified control measures 
because several of the control measures relied on by the State in its 
SIP submittal had not been submitted to EPA. See 59 FR 48587. As 
discussed in Section II.3 above, IDEQ has now submitted those control 
measures to EPA, and EPA has determined the control measures meet the 
RACM/RACT requirement. The December 31, 1994, submittal includes a 
description of each implementing ordinance, the agency responsible for 
enforcement, enforcement procedures and penalties, and the steps the 
State of Idaho would take should an agency fail to implement or enforce 
its respective ordinance, as required by Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the 
Clean Air Act. Specifically, IDEQ has committed to impose Tier II 
operating permits on all owners and operators of wood stoves within the 
nonattainment area should a local agency fail to implement its 
ordinance, and IDEQ has demonstrated its authority to do so. In 
summary, EPA believes that IDEQ has satisfied the enforceability 
requirements of Title I of the Act, including the requirements of 
Section 110(a)(2)(E), and is therefore fully approving the State's SIP 
as meeting these requirement.

8. Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires that contingency measures be 
included in each moderate area PM<INF>10 nonattainment plan. These 
measures must take effect without further action by the State or EPA 
upon a

[[Page 27022]]

determination that the area has failed to make Reasonable Further 
Progress (RFP) or attain the PM<INF>10 NAAQS by the applicable 
statutory deadline, and should result in emission reductions 
approximately equal to the emissions reductions necessary to 
demonstrate RFP. See generally 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544. For a 
moderate PM<INF>10 nonattainment area, such as Northern Ada County, 
with a three to four year period between SIP development and the 
attainment date, this would mean that contingency measures should 
result in emission reductions equal to at least 25 percent of the 
emission reductions in the total control strategy. 57 FR 13544. A State 
may rely on ``over control'' as a contingency measure, that is, rely on 
control measures that are part of the core control strategy in the SIP, 
if such control measures result in emission reductions greater than 
those required to achieve the 24-hour NAAQS standard of 150 <greek-m>g/
m<SUP>3.
    On July 13, 1995, IDEQ submitted contingency measures to EPA for 
approval which were a combination of over control from the wood smoke 
control measures and new controls on fugitive road dust. Modeling of 
the core control measures in the SIP for the Northern Ada County 
nonattainment area indicates a 17 <greek-m>g/m\3\ reduction in the 24-
hour standard (from 164 <greek-m>g/m\3\ to 147 <greek-m>g/m\3\). This 
means that the core control measures in the SIP result in over control 
of 18 percent (ratio of the difference between 147 <greek-m>g/m\3\ and 
150 <greek-m>g/m\3\ to 17 <greek-m>g/m\3\). To obtain the additional 7 
percent of emission reductions needed for 25 percent reduction of 
emissions through contingency measures, the State has adopted a program 
for the reduction of fugitive road dust. The State's submittal includes 
a signed agreement between the Idaho Transportation Department, Ada 
County Highway District, and IDEQ, which details a road sweeping 
program designed to reduce particulate emissions by prioritizing road 
sanding such that streets with the highest potential to emit PM<INF>10, 
in the form of re-entrained dust, are swept first, and more frequently. 
IDEQ retains the authority to review and approve any changes to the 
plan. The State anticipates that this road dust program will result in 
an additional 9 percent reduction in PM<INF>10 emissions. Together with 
the 18 percent in emission reductions achieved through over control, 
the State's contingency measures are predicted to result in more than 
25 percent of the total reductions necessary for attainment. EPA 
therefore approves the contingency measures submitted by the State on 
July 13, 1995.

9. New Source Review

    States with initial moderate PM<INF>10 nonattainment areas were 
required to submit a permit program for the construction and operation 
of new and modified stationary sources of PM<INF>10 by June 30, 1992. 
See Section 189(a) of the Clean Air Act. This permit program element, 
known as the New Source Review (NSR) program, was submitted by the 
State of Idaho on May 17, 1994. EPA notified the State on June 10, 
1994, that its NSR program submittal was complete. EPA is currently 
reviewing Idaho's NSR program submittal to determine if the program 
meets the requirements of the Act. EPA intends to take action on 
Idaho's NSR program in another rulemaking after EPA has completed its 
review.

III. This Action

    EPA is granting full approval to the November 14, 1991, Northern 
Ada County PM<INF>10 SIP, as supplemented by additional information 
which IDEQ has submitted since that time. IDEQ has demonstrated that 
the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the Act.

IV. Administrative Review

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D, of the 
CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval process does not impose any new requirements, I certify that 
it does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
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 cost-
effective 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 affected 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 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.
    EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air 
Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined 
that this action conforms with those requirements.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, EPA Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and 
Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 
review.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be 
effective July 29, 1996

[[Page 27023]]

unless, by July 1, 1996 adverse or critical comments are received.
    If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before 
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective July 29, 1996.
    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 July 29, 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

    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: March 20, 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: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart N--Idaho

    2. Section 52.670 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(31) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (31) On November 14, 1991, and on December 30, 1994, the Idaho 
Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) submitted revisions to the 
Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Northern Ada County/Boise 
Particulate (PM<INF>10) Air Quality Improvement Plan.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) November 14, 1991, letter from the IDHW Administrator to the 
EPA Region 10 Regional Administrator submitting a revision to the Idaho 
SIP for the Northern Ada County/Boise Particulate Air Quality 
Improvement Plan; The Northern Ada County Boise Particulate (PM<INF>10) 
Air Quality Improvement Plan adopted on November 14, 1991.
    (B) December 30, 1994, letter from the IDHW Administrator to the 
EPA Region 10 Regional Administrator including a revision to the Idaho 
SIP for the Northern Ada County/Boise PM<INF>10 Air Quality Improvement 
Plan; Appendix C-1, Supplemental Control Strategy Documentation, 
Northern Ada County/Boise PM<INF>10 Air Quality Improvement Plan, 
adopted December 30, 1994, with the following attachments: Garden City 
Ordinances #514 (May 14, 1987), #533 (January 10, 1989) and #624 
(September 13, 1994); Meridian Ordinance #667 (August 16, 1994); Eagle 
Ordinance #245 (April 26, 1994); Ada County Ordinance #254 (November 3, 
1992); and Table Ordinance-1 (December 30, 1994).
[FR Doc. 96-12888 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P