Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Idaho, 39574-39579 [06-6125]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39574
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
PART 52—[AMENDED]
§ 52.2020
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:
I
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
State effective
date
Name of source
Permit No.
*
Koppers Industry, Inc.
*
OP–41–0008 ............
*
*
Lycoming ..................
*
*
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:
*
*
*
County
[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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
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 https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air
Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
3/30/99
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.
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
7/13/06 ..........................................
I. Background Information
Frm 00062
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
EPA approval date
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
PO 00000
*
Additional explanation/§ 52.2063
citation
*
52.2020(d)(1)(s).
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.
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39575
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
39577
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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.
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:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N—Idaho
2. Section 52.670 is amended as
follows:
I a. In paragraph (c) by adding the
following entries to the end of the table.
I b. In paragraph (d) by adding the
following entries to the end of the table.
I
§ 52.670
PART 52—[AMENDED]
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
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
State effective
date
Title/subject
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
City of Pocatello Ordinance
2726.
Revised air quality curtailment
levels.
09/18/03
City of Chubbuck Ordinance
403.
Residential wood combustion
curtailment ordinance.
11/23/93
City of Chubbuck Ordinance
582.
Revised air quality curtailment
levels.
12/9/03
*
*
*
*
*
07/13/06 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
07/13/06 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
07/13/2006 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
07/13/06 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan).
(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan).
(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan).
(Portneuf Valley Nonattainment Area Plan and Maintenance Plan).
(d) * * *
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1
Name of source
Permit number
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
*
*
*
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho
Air Pollution Operating Permit
No. T1–9507–114–1; Facility Number No. 077–00006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
State effective
date
*
04/5/2004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
*
*
07/13/2006 [Insert page num- The following conditions:
ber where the document
Cover page, facility identificabegins].
tion 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),
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
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
State effective
date
Permit number
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho
Compliance Agreement &
Voluntary Order Idaho
Code 39–116A.
04/16/2004
EPA approval date
Explanation
07/13/2006 [Insert page number where the document
begins].
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.
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.
1 EPA 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.
*
*
*
*
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,
I
PART 81—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
part of (Pocatello). State Lands-Portneuf
Valley Area’’ to read as follows:
§ 81.313
*
*
Idaho.
*
*
*
IDAHO—PM–10
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Eastern Idaho IntraState
AQCR 61:
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
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Type
08/14/06
*
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
PO 00000
Type
Attainment.
*
Jkt 208001
Date
*
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
*
13JYR1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
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.
*
[FR Doc. 06–6125 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
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 https://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 https://
DATES:
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
Industry .......................................................
331111
Federal government ...................................
State/local/tribal government ......................
....................
....................
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
1 North
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:
Examples of regulated
entities
NAICS
code 1
Category
39579
Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic
oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops.
Not affected.
Not affected.
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: https://
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),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:17 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39574-39579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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 https://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.
[[Page 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 over-predicted 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
[[Page 39576]]
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
[[Page 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.
0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
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. Section 52.670 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c) by adding the following entries to the end of the
table.
0
b. In paragraph (d) by adding the following entries to the end of the
table.
Sec. 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
State citation Title/subject 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 01/12/94 07/13/06 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
combustion page number where Nonattainment Area
curtailment the document Plan and
ordinance. begins]. Maintenance Plan).
City of Pocatello Ordinance 2726. Revised air quality 09/18/03 07/13/06 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
curtailment levels. page number where Nonattainment Area
the document Plan and
begins]. Maintenance Plan).
City of Chubbuck Ordinance 403... Residential wood 11/23/93 07/13/2006 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
combustion page number where Nonattainment Area
curtailment the document Plan and
ordinance. begins]. Maintenance Plan).
City of Chubbuck Ordinance 582... Revised air quality 12/9/03 07/13/06 [Insert (Portneuf Valley
curtailment levels. page number where Nonattainment Area
the document Plan and
begins]. Maintenance Plan).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit number effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
J.R. Simplot, Pocatello, Idaho... Air Pollution 04/5/2004 07/13/2006 [Insert The following
Operating Permit page number where conditions:
No. T1-9507-114-1; the document Cover page,
Facility Number begins]. facility
No. 077-00006. 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),
[[Page 39578]]
.............. 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 04/16/2004 07/13/2006 [Insert The following
Agreement & page number where conditions:
Voluntary Order the document No. 300 Sulfuric
Idaho Code 39-116A. begins]. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA 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]
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--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:
Sec. 81.313 Idaho.
* * * * *
Idaho--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39579]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6125 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
