Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0582-0041
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Idaho; Pinehurst PM10 Redesignation, Limited Maintenance Plan; West Silver Valley 2012 Annual PM2.5 Emission Inventory
Posted Date: 2018-09-11T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45830-45835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19600]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0582; FRL-9983-53--Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; ID, Pinehurst PM10 Redesignation, 
Limited Maintenance Plan; West Silver Valley 2012 Annual 
PM2.5 Emission Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the redesignation request and limited 
maintenance plan for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard developed for the City of Pinehurst PM10 
Nonattainment Area and the Pinehurst PM10 Expansion 
Nonattainment Area. This redesignation will change the status of both 
areas from nonattainment to attainment. The limited maintenance plan 
for these contiguous nonattainment areas addresses maintenance of the 
PM10 standard for a ten-year period beyond redesignation. 
Related to this action, the EPA is taking final agency action on the 
September 15, 2013, high wind exceptional event at the Pinehurst 
monitoring station. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing approval of the 
emissions inventory for the West Silver Valley 2012 annual 
PM2.5 nonattainment area.

DATES: This action is effective on October 11, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0582. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure 
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please 
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact 
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Spenillo at (206) 553-6125, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On May 11, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the redesignation 
request and limited maintenance plan (LMP) submitted by the Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on September 29, 2017, for 
the City of Pinehurst PM10 Nonattainment Area and the 
Pinehurst PM10 Expansion Nonattainment Area, collectively 
referred to as the Pinehurst PM10 Nonattainment Area 
(Pinehurst PM10 NAA).
    Related to this action, the EPA is taking final agency action on 
the EPA's concurrence with the IDEQ's request for

[[Page 45831]]

exclusion of data measured on September 15, 2013, as a high wind 
exceptional event at the Pinehurst monitoring station, as set forth in 
the March 2, 2017 letter to the IDEQ, included in the docket. The Clean 
Air Act (CAA) allows for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data 
from design value calculations when there are exceedances caused by 
events, such as wildfires or high wind events, that meet the criteria 
for an exceptional event identified in the EPA's implementing 
regulations, the Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14 and 
51.930. In 2013, emissions from a high wind event entrained dust and 
impacted PM10 concentrations recorded at the Pinehurst 
monitor. The EPA evaluated the IDEQ's exceptional event demonstration 
for the flagged values of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for 
September 15, 2013, at the monitor in Pinehurst, Idaho, with respect to 
the requirements of the EPA's Exceptional Events Rule and determined 
that IDEQ met the rule requirements.
    Separately, the EPA also proposed approval of the base year 
emissions inventory for the West Silver Valley (WSV) PM2.5 
Nonattainment Area (NAA). Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state 
with an area designated as nonattainment to submit a ``comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the 
relevant pollutant'' for the NAA. The IDEQ developed a 2013 base year 
emissions inventory for the WSV annual PM2.5 NAA. The base 
year emissions inventory includes data from 2013 and 2014 and in large 
part was extracted from the 2014 periodic emissions inventory which is 
used to populate the EPA's National Emissions Inventory. The 2013 base 
year inventory is one of the three years used to designate the area as 
nonattainment. This base year inventory presents direct 
PM2.5 emissions (condensable and filterable) and emissions 
of all PM2.5 precursors (NOX, VOCs, 
NH3, and SO2) to meet the emissions inventory 
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1). The EPA 
has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the WSV 
Annual PM2.5 NAA base year emissions inventory. The EPA 
determined that the 2013 base year emissions inventory for the WSV 
annual PM2.5 NAA met the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.1008(a)(1).
    An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the 
submittal, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking (83 FR 21976), and will not be 
restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended 
on June 11, 2018. The EPA received adverse comments on the proposal.

II. Response to Comments

    The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) submitted adverse comments on 
our proposed approval of the Pinehurst PM10 NAA 
redesignation request and LMP. Within this section, we have summarized 
the adverse comments and provided our responses. A full copy of 
comments received is available in the docket for this final action.

Comment--Permanent and Enforceable Emissions Reductions

    Summary--The ICL comment letter asserts the ``EPA must reject Idaho 
DEQ's request for redesignation of the Pinehurst NAA'' because the 
state has not met the redesignation requirements in CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii). The ICL cites the EPA's September 4, 1992, guidance, 
which, among other things, addresses emissions reductions based on 
permanent and enforceable measures (Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests 
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni Memo)). The ICL comment 
letter provides examples of nonattainment areas redesignated for 
PM10 and ozone in Ohio, Colorado, and Idaho, which use local 
rules, laws, and ordinances to provide for permanent and enforceable 
emissions reductions. The comment letter states that the IDEQ and City 
of Pinehurst were aware of the need for permanent and enforceable 
measures, citing discussion notes taken during a 2016 advisory 
committee session for the West Silver Valley PM2.5 NAA, an 
overlapping area designated nonattainment for the 2012 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The ICL comment letter concludes that the 
control measures and associated emissions reductions are not permanent 
nor enforceable.
    Response--We disagree with the commenter. Measures to attain the 
24-hour PM10 NAAQS were submitted by IDEQ on April 14, 1992, 
and approved into the SIP on August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43745). In the 
August 25, 1994 action, the EPA evaluated the IDEQ's submittal with 
respect to the CAA section 172 requirements, including the Reasonably 
Available Control Measures and their enforceability. The EPA approved 
the control measures into the SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart N as 
meeting CAA requirements and making them, along with the attainment 
plan itself, federally enforceable (59 FR 43745). Once approved, the 
state is subject to CAA section 179(a)(4), which provides that a state 
can be subject to federal sanctions for not implementing any 
requirement of an approved plan or part of an approved plan, unless the 
deficiency is corrected within 18 months.
    Reviewing the specific plan measures, the IDEQ has implemented 
woodstove replacements and home weatherization since the early 1990s in 
the Pinehurst PM10 NAA. As identified in Table 9 of the IDEQ 
submittal, the woodstove changeout program resulted in 76 uncertified 
woodstoves being replaced by 1994, with an additional 87 between 1995 
and 2014 and 40 more between 2015 and 2017. These measures have been 
implemented through a variety of programs and agencies. Changeouts of 
uncertified woodstoves were completed through a combined Federal 
assistance grant and state and local loan program. This combined 
program was administered by the Northern Idaho Community Action Agency. 
The home weatherization program was run through the Idaho Economic 
Opportunity Office with loan and grant funding supplied by the Idaho 
Department of Water Resources, Farmers Home Administration, Washington 
Water Power, and North Idaho Community Action Agency. In terms of 
emissions reductions, when comparing the emissions inventories from 
residential wood combustion from 1988 to 2013, they dropped 80.25 lb/
day (27.45%) during the winter season when particulate matter emissions 
are often the highest (Table 8 of the IDEQ submittal). These reductions 
are permanent in that both the woodstove replacement and the reduced 
energy needs from improved home energy efficiency via weatherization 
generally last and extend throughout the life of the home.\1\ Any 
subsequent home modification would likely improve, if not maintain, 
emissions reductions, and benefits are expected to be net positive 
given that emissions of EPA-certified stoves are estimated to be on 
average three to four times lower than uncertified stoves.\2\ The 
remaining measures, including the public awareness campaign focused on 
clean burning practices and the voluntary woodsmoke curtailment 
programs are all helpful in supporting the reduction of woodsmoke 
emissions in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Department of Energy Weatherization Program, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/06/f52/EERE_WAP_Fact%20Sheet-v2.pdf.
    \2\ See EPA Burnwise Program, https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/burn-wise-energy-efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA recently awarded IDEQ a 2015 Targeted Airshed

[[Page 45832]]

Grant for the West Silver Valley PM2.5 NAA. As a condition 
of the grant agreement with the EPA, the IDEQ committed to replace 183 
uncertified wood heating devices and provide the associated emissions 
reductions. Each homeowner receiving a changeout must sign a 
certification document to ensure that they will remove an uncertified 
wood heating device from their home and agree to have two follow-up 
home inspections on the new certified device, commit to proper wood 
burning practices, and commit to not replacing the device with another 
solid fuel burning device. All removed stoves are rendered permanently 
and irreversibly inoperable and are properly disposed. We believe the 
grant terms and conditions and the homeowner certifications provide 
additional enforceability for purposes of maintaining the 
PM10 standard in the area.
    While not specifically taken credit for in the original attainment 
plan nor the LMP, road dust control has played an important part in the 
area. It is the second largest source of pollution according to the 
emissions inventory, and the area has taken measures to reduce 
emissions through paving roads, maintenance of roads, and adjusting 
street sweeping to reduce particulate matter. With respect to 
permanence of road controls, once paved their associated emissions will 
be reduced and road maintenance will ensure lasting emissions 
reductions. We received clarification from the IDEQ that since 2016, 
the majority of roads (over 10 miles in a city roughly 1 square mile) 
in the Pinehurst area have been rebuilt or sealed.
    We have reviewed monitoring data for the area with respect to the 
permanence of the emissions reductions. In Table 2 of the IDEQ 
submittal, monitoring data is provided from 1986 through 2015. From 
1986 through 1993, the Pinehurst PM10 NAA was regularly 
recording values above 100 [micro]g/m\3\, and exceeded the 3-year 
expected exceedances design value of 1.0. From 1994 through 2015, Table 
2 shows that the area has consistently met the 24-hour PM10 
standard, and the EPA has reviewed and confirmed the data. As noted in 
the submittal, the area came into attainment in the same timeframe as 
the IDEQ's completion of the first batch of woodstove changeouts (76 by 
1994). The area has continued to meet the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 
design value since 1994, and it has also shown a continued decrease in 
maximum annual 24-hr PM10 concentrations. Additionally, the 
EPA has determined that the Pinehurst PM10 NAA meets the 5-
year average design value for LMP qualification as identified in the 
proposal.
    Since the proposal, the IDEQ has submitted and the EPA has reviewed 
and concurred on the IDEQ's demonstration that elevated PM10 
concentrations on three days in September 2017 were attributable to 
wildfire exceptional events and qualify for exclusion under EPA's 
Exceptional Events Rule. The August 24, 2018 concurrence letter to the 
IDEQ is included in the docket. With the exceptional event days 
excluded, the area continues to meet the LMP average design value for 
the most recent 5-year period, through 2017. The EPA intends to propose 
final agency action on these 2017 exceptional events in a forthcoming 
action.
    Based on the IDEQ PM10 LMP submission and the EPA's 
review of air quality monitoring data, it is reasonable to conclude 
that the measures to reduce PM10 in the Pinehurst 
PM10 NAA have contributed to permanent emissions reductions. 
Emissions reductions in the area have been maintained since 1994, and 
enforceable control measures remain in place as approved into the SIP. 
We therefore conclude that the area has met its obligations with regard 
to permanent and enforceable measures to maintain the 24-hour 
PM10 standard and that no further action is required.

Comment--Annual PM10 NAAQS

    Summary--The ICL requests that the EPA explain why the LMP and the 
EPA's subsequent analysis only evaluated the 24-hour PM10 
LMP design value and not the annual PM10 LMP design value. 
The commenter asserts that both are required.
    Response--On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined 
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memorandum 
from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies 
Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option Memo)). Section IV of 
the LMP Option Memo discusses LMP qualification and qualifying design 
values specifically. It states that ``[t]he area should be attaining 
the NAAQS and the average PM10 design value for the area, 
based on the most recent 5 years of air quality data at all monitors in 
the area, should be at or below 40 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual 
PM10 NAAQS and 98 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hr PM10 
NAAQS with no violations at any monitor in the nonattainment area.''
    To qualify for the LMP option, the area must meet the design value 
test with respect to the standard for which the area was designated 
nonattainment.\3\ The Pinehurst PM10 NAA was designated 
nonattainment for the 24-hr PM10 NAAQS and therefore the 
appropriate statistical test is with respect to the 98 [micro]g/m\3\ 5-
year average design value. The EPA has confirmed that the area meets 
the 5-year average design value of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. We believe that 
the IDEQ has met the requirements of the LMP with regards to the 24-hr 
PM10 standard and the IDEQ does not need to address the 
annual PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See LMP Option Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment--Federal Clean Air Deregulation

    Summary--The ICL states that they are concerned about recent 
actions and statements by federal agencies that may affect vehicle 
emissions reductions in the future, and how that may affect the 
Pinehurst PM10 NAA ability to attain and its permanence. The 
ICL comment letter specifically points to the IDEQ's reference to Tier 
3 vehicle standards and the EPA's proposal to reduce Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The comment then requests that the EPA 
``identify any and all of its models and analyses that may be impacted 
by current and proposed deregulation of vehicle emissions. Furthermore, 
we request that any vehicle emission model or emission factor for 
PM10 be revised such that the models and factors are not 
based on any federal emission regulation currently under judicial or 
administrative review.''
    Response--We do not agree with the commenter's assertion regarding 
the impact of current or proposed changes to motor vehicle emissions 
standards on the proposed action, because the Pinehurst PM10 
NAA does not rely on motor vehicle emissions reductions for attainment 
or its continued maintenance of the NAAQS. Additionally, there are no 
proposed changes to Tier 3 vehicle standards and proposed CAFE 
standards have minimal effect on criteria pollutants, their focus 
instead being on greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
    When reviewing the submitted Pinehurst PM10 2013 
Emissions Inventory in Table 7 of the IDEQ's submittal, the primary 
source of PM10 is residential wood combustion at 17.75 tons 
per year (TPY), which is 44.5% of the PM10 emissions in the 
area. Road dust, paved and unpaved, is the next largest contributor at 
a cumulative 8.91 TPY, or 22.3% of emissions. Cumulatively, residential 
wood combustion and road dust make up

[[Page 45833]]

66.8% of the emissions inventory. During winter days when particulate 
matter levels are often higher, residential wood combustion is 212.05 
lb/day, which is 82.17% of the PM10 emissions in the area 
(Table 8). Paved road dust (unpaved is no longer part of the emissions 
inventory), is the next largest contributor at a 25.38 lb/day, or 9.83% 
of emissions. Residential wood combustion currently makes up the 
majority of the emissions inventory. Motor vehicle emissions by 
comparison make up a very small portion of the emissions inventory at 
1.84 TPY(annual) and 11.09 lb/day(winter), or less than 5% of both the 
annual and winter emissions inventories. This is expected as motor 
vehicle emissions do not contribute large quantities of 
PM10.
    As described in section 3.4 Control Measures and section 3.2.2 
Emissions Inventory Results and Adequacy Determination, the Pinehurst 
PM10 LMP focuses primarily on the reduction of 
PM10 emissions from residential woodsmoke and from road dust 
from paved and unpaved roads. The Pinehurst PM10 LMP itself 
does not take credit for emissions reductions from motor vehicle 
emissions reductions nor does it rely on it for continued attainment of 
the PM10 NAAQS.
    As mentioned in the proposal, the Pinehurst area has met the 
PM10 3-year design value of expected exceedance of 1.0 or 
less since 1994. Additionally, the Pinehurst area has only recorded one 
value (in 2010) above 98 [micro]g/m\3\ since 1999 that was not the 
result of an exceptional event. The area has demonstrated, and EPA has 
confirmed, that the 3-yr and 5-yr design values qualify for the LMP 
option. Additionally, the area has demonstrated that it meets the LMP 
motor vehicle regional analysis, which assesses increases in emissions 
based on the area's growth rate as applied to paved road dust 
emissions, unpaved road dust emissions, and mobile source emissions. It 
is this last category where the ICL comment questions if any changes in 
federal emissions requirements would affect the area's ability to 
attain. As explained above, motor vehicle emissions in the Pinehurst 
NAA are not expected to affect the areas ability to continue to attain 
as they are less than 5% and were not taken credit for in the 
attainment plan, nor the redesignation request and LMP.
    While we do not believe that any changes to motor vehicle emissions 
are relevant to the area's ability to attain, we did a basic evaluation 
to determine if the area would continue to meet the LMP motor vehicle 
regional analysis. The only portion of the calculation that would 
change would be the on-road mobile source. Currently, that value is 
calculated using the formula in the LMP Option Memo: DV mobile * VMT 
paved, where the DV mobile provides a 3.6509 [mu]g/m\3\ contribution to 
the design value and VMT paved is the 0.0166 percent growth rate 
(3.6509 * 0.0166 = 0.06 [mu]g/m\3\ contribution). Given that the growth 
rate in Pinehurst is very small, any potential changes to the emissions 
standards would have a small effect on the design value. Taking a 
conservative assumption and doubling the DV mobile from 3.6509 [mu]g/
m\3\ to 7.3018 [mu]g/m\3\, and applying the 0.0166 growth rate would 
only increase the mobile contribution from 0.06 [micro]g/m\3\ 
contribution to 0.12 [micro]g/m\3\ contribution and the Pinehurst area 
would still be able meet the motor vehicle regional analysis test. 
Given the small contribution of motor vehicle emissions and low growth 
rate in the Pinehurst area, we believe the Pinehurst PM10 
NAA LMP is sufficient and no further action is required.
    The ICL's request that the EPA identify and revise all of its 
models, analyses, and emissions factors that may be impacted by current 
or proposed changes to vehicle emissions standards is outside of the 
scope of this action.

Comment--Emission Factors

    Summary--The ICL requested that the EPA confirm that all woodstoves 
replaced were ``Phase II,'' and to require that the IDEQ revise 
calculations in the case that any of the replacements were not Phase 
II. The ICL asserts that the IDEQ used incorrect emissions factors 
based on a comparison of AP-42 emissions factors to those used by IDEQ 
in the Pinehurst PM10 LMP, and requests an explanation for 
this or revision, whichever is more appropriate.
    Response--We disagree that the IDEQ used incorrect emissions 
factors and do not believe that any further calculations are needed. In 
1988, the EPA finalized the residential wood heaters new source 
performance standards (NSPS) that required performance standards for 
woodstoves. These performance standards were released in two phases; 
Phase I went into effect immediately in 1988, and Phase II went into 
effect in 1990. The Phase II performance standards required that 
catalytic stoves have an emission rate of 4.1g/hr or less and non-
catalytic stoves have an emissions rate of 7.5 g/hr or less. All stoves 
that have been replaced in Pinehurst occurred after Phase II standards 
were in place. Additionally, we have received confirmation from IDEQ 
that these changeouts were completed and that they were Phase II EPA 
certified stoves.
    With regard to the ICL's request for explanation of the emissions 
factors used, we reviewed the emissions factors (EFs) for residential 
wood combustion that IDEQ used and found them consistent with the EPA 
EFs and methodology used in the 2014 National Emissions Inventory. The 
IDEQ used EFs derived from EPA's Residential Wood Combustion Emissions 
Estimation Tool version 3.1 (October 2016) that are more up to date 
than the EFs in AP-42, which were last updated in 1996 for this source 
category. We have included in the docket the documentation for v3.1 and 
3.2 of the Residential Wood Combustion Emissions Estimation Tool, which 
has the emissions factors used and the references for those EFs. Both 
versions of the tool use the same EFs.
    In response to the comment, we have confirmed with the IDEQ that 
the changeouts were with phase II or better EPA certified stoves. We 
have also confirmed that the IDEQ emissions inventory assumptions and 
calculations are correct and that the appropriate EFs were used.

Comment--Contingency Plan

    Summary--The ICL requested that the EPA further explain how the 
IDEQ's Contingency Plan is compliant with section 175A of the CAA. The 
comment provides a summary with references to CAA section 175A, the 
Calcagni Memo that provides guidance for maintenance plans, and the LMP 
Option Memo that provides guidance for LMPs.
    Response--While the commenter correctly identifies that CAA section 
175A provides the statutory requirements for maintenance plan 
requirements, and that the LMP Option Memo provides guidance for 
contingency provisions under the LMP option, the ICL's contention that 
contingency provisions \4\ must be fully adopted and take effect within 
one year and without further legislative action is incorrect. These 
requirements do not appear in the CAA section 175A requirements nor the 
LMP Option Memo, and are contradicted by the Calcagni Memo, EPA's long-
standing interpretation of redesignation and maintenance plan 
requirements. There, it states, ``For the purposes of section 175A, a 
State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that 
will take effect without further action by the State in order for the 
maintenance

[[Page 45834]]

plan to be approved.'' Calcagni Memo at 12; see also Greenbaum v. EPA, 
370 F.3d 527, 541 (6th Cir. 2004) (upholding this portion of the 
Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The IDEQ submittal and ICL comment letter use the 
terminology ``contingency measures,'' when referring to the CAA 
section 175A ``contingency provisions'' requirements. ``Contingency 
measures'' are associated with attainment planning and have 
different requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 175A(d) and EPA's interpretation of that provision as 
set out in the Calcagni Memo and the LMP Option Memo provide the 
standards by which the EPA must evaluate contingency plans. Section 
175A(d) states that ``[e]ach plan revision submitted under this section 
shall contain such contingency provisions as the Administrator deems 
necessary to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation 
of the standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area. Such provisions shall include a requirement that the 
State will implement all measures with respect to the control of the 
air pollutant concerned which were contained in the State 
implementation plan for the area before redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area.'' The Calcagni Memo and the LMP Option memo further 
elaborate that ``Section 175A of the Act states that a maintenance plan 
must include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct 
any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the 
area to attainment. These contingency measures do not have to be fully 
adopted at the time of redesignation. However, the contingency plan is 
considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and the State should 
ensure that the contingency measures are adopted as soon as possible 
once they are triggered by a specific event. The contingency plan 
should identify the measures to be adopted, and provide a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation of the measures if they are 
required. Normally, the implementation of contingency measures is 
triggered by a violation of the NAAQS but the State may wish to 
establish other triggers to prevent a violation of the NAAQS, such as 
an exceedance of the NAAQS.''
    The EPA has determined that the IDEQ's contingency plan meets the 
requirements of Section 175A(d) and the EPA's guidance memos. Section 
3.5 of the IDEQ's submittal confirms that all measures relied upon for 
attainment, including woodstove changeouts, voluntary curtailment 
program, home weatherization, and public awareness campaign continue to 
be in place and will be strengthened if the PM10 standard is 
exceeded. If the Pinehurst area exceeds the standard, Section 3.5.1 
identifies the Annual Network Plan monitoring data as the triggering 
mechanism for contingency provisions. A violation cited in the Annual 
Network Plan would trigger a schedule and process for IDEQ to examine 
the data, assess the source of the problem, and identify which 
contingency provision to adopt and implement. The submitted plan lists 
potential provisions focused on control of woodsmoke and road dust, the 
two primary sources of PM10 in the nonattainment area. The 
submitted contingency provisions meet the CAA section 175A requirement 
to continue implementing measures relied upon for attainment. There is 
an automatic process on a set schedule by which the Pinehurst area's 
design value is evaluated annually (i.e., the Annual Network Plan 
submittal-review-approval), and a violation would trigger the state to 
be required to evaluate, identify, adopt, and implement contingency 
provisions best suited towards bringing the area back into attainment. 
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing approval of the IDEQ's plan as meeting 
the requirements of section 175A.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the Pinehurst PM10 NAA LMP 
submitted by the IDEQ and concurrently redesignating the area to 
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. Related to this action, the 
EPA is taking final agency action on the September 15, 2013, high wind 
exceptional event at the Pinehurst monitoring station. Additionally, 
the EPA is approving the West Silver Valley annual PM2.5 
base year emissions inventory as meeting CAA section 172(c)(3) 
requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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 Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
rule does not have tribal implications and it 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).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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

[[Page 45835]]

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2018. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: August 30, 2018.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 
are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry at the end of the table for ``Pinehurst PM10 Limited 
Maintenance Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                   nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pinehurst PM10 Limited            Shoshone County;          9/29/2017  9/11/2018,........  .....................
 Maintenance Plan.                 Pinehurst                           [Insert Federal
                                   Expansion Area and                   Register
                                   City of Pinehurst.                   citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.313, the table entitled ``Idaho-PM-10'' is amended by 
revising the entry for ``Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho Interstate 
AQCR 62 (Idaho portion):'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.313  Idaho.

* * * * *

                                                                       Idaho PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                                             Classification
           Designated area           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Date                         Type                         Date                         Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Eastern Washington-Northern Idaho
 Interstate AQCR 62 (Idaho portion):
    Shoshone County: Pinehurst        October 11, 2018...........  Attainment.................  ...........................  ...........................
     Expansion Area Northwest
     quarter of the Northwest
     quarter, Section 8, Township 48
     North, Range 2 East; Southwest
     quarter of the Northwest
     quarter, Section 8, Township
     48, North, Range 2 East;
     Northwest quarter of the
     Southwest quarter, Section 8,
     Township 48 North, Range 2
     East; Southwest quarter,
     Section 8, Township 48 North,
     Range 2 East; Southwest quarter
     of the Southwest quarter,
     Section 48 North, Range 2 East,
     Boise Base (known as
     ``Pinehurst expansion area'').
    City of Pinehurst...............  October 11, 2018...........  Attainment.................  ...........................  ...........................
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-19600 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P