Determination of Attainment for PM-10; Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area, Idaho, 26898-26904 [2010-11139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26898
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
New Section 101.222
(Demonstrations), except 101.222(h),
101.222(i), and 101.222(j)),
New Section 101.223 (Actions to
Reduce Excessive Emissions).
We are also proposing to disapprove
sections 101.222(h) (Planned
Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown
Activity), 101.222(i) (concerning
effective date of permit applications),
and 101.222(j) (concerning processing of
permit applications) into Texas SIP. The
EPA is proposing to find that these 3
sections (101.222(h), 101.222(i), and
101.222(j)) are not severable from each
other.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. If a portion of the
plan revision meets all the applicable
requirements of this chapter and Federal
regulations, the Administrator may
approve the plan revision in part. 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). If a
portion of the plan revision does not
meet all the applicable requirements of
this chapter and Federal regulations, the
Administrator may then disapprove
portions of the plan revision in part that
does not meet 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, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices that meet
the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove
state choices that do not meet the
criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
proposed action, in part, approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and, in part, disapproves state law as
not meeting Federal requirements; and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
• 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;
• Does not provide 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); and
• This rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 5, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010–11429 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0391; FRL–9149–5]
Determination of Attainment for PM–
10; Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment
Area, Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to determine that
the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area
on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in
Idaho has attained the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 10
microns (PM–10). EPA’s proposed
finding that the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area has attained the 24hour PM–10 NAAQS is based on EPA’s
review of complete, quality-assured
monitored air quality data for the threeyear period ending December 31, 2009.
Preliminary data for 2010 indicate that
the area continues to attain the
standard.
EPA’s proposed determination of
attainment is not equivalent to a
proposed redesignation to attainment
under CAA section 107(d)(3). If this
proposal is finalized, the designation
status for the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area would remain
moderate nonattainment until such time
as the area is redesignated to attainment
as provided in CAA section 107(d)(3).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2008–0391, by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E- Mail: R10–
Public_Comments@epa.gov.
C. Mail: Donna Deneen, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Mail Stop: AWT–107, Seattle, WA
98101.
D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Attn:
Donna Deneen (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington
98101, 9th Floor. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2008–
0391. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, is not
publicly available. 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 in
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy during normal business hours at
the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Deneen, (206) 553–6706 or
deneen.donna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this notice, the words ‘‘we’’,
‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ means the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. PM–10 Standard
B. Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment Area
C. PM–10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM–
10 Nonattainment Area
D. Attainment Date for the Fort Hall PM–
10 Nonattainment Area
E. Reclassification Upon Failure to Attain
F. Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC)
Lawsuit
G. Sierra Club Lawsuit
II. Proposed Attainment Determination
A. What are the Requirements for
Attainment Determinations?
B. What Monitoring Data are Available for
the Area?
C. What Do the Air Quality Data Show for
the Area?
D. Determination of Attainment
III. Proposed Action
A. Proposed Determination of Attainment
B. Withdrawal of June 19, 1998 Proposal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. PM–10 Standard
The NAAQS are levels for certain
ambient air pollutants set by EPA to
protect public health and welfare. PM–
10, or particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers, is among
the ambient air pollutants for which
EPA has established health-based
standards. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR
24634), EPA promulgated two primary
standards for PM–10: a 24-hour
standard of 150 micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m3) and an annual PM–10
standard of 50 μg/m3. EPA also
promulgated secondary PM–10
standards that were identical to the
primary standards.
Effective December 18, 2006, EPA
revoked the annual PM–10 standard but
retained the 24-hour PM–10 standard.
71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24hour PM–10 standard is attained when
the expected number of days per
calendar year with a 24-hour
concentration above 154 μg/m3, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less
than one.1 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part
50, appendix K.
B. Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment Area
On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383),
EPA identified a number of areas across
the country as PM–10 ‘‘Group I’’ areas of
concern, that is, areas with a 95% or
greater likelihood of violating the PM–
10 NAAQS and requiring substantial
planning efforts. What is now known as
the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area
was originally part of a Group I area
called ‘‘Power-Bannock Counties
(Pocatello).’’ In accordance with section
188(a) and (c)(1) of the CAA, at the time
of designation all PM–10 nonattainment
areas were initially classified as
‘‘moderate’’ by operation of law, with an
attainment date of December 31, 1994.
See also 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991).
This original nonattainment area has
gone through two boundary changes.
First, on June 12, 1995, EPA corrected
the ‘‘Power-Bannock Counties
(Pocatello)’’ boundaries to more closely
represent the air shed in which the City
of Pocatello is located. 61 FR 29667.
Second, on November 5, 1998, EPA
1 An exceedance is defined as a daily value that
is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/
m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e.
values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up).
Thus, a recorded value of 154 μg/m3 would not be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150μ/
m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 μg/m3 would
be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160
μ/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26899
granted a request from the State of Idaho
to divide the nonattainment area (as
corrected) into two areas separated by
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation
boundary. 63 FR 59722. The area
consisting of land under State
jurisdiction that was previously part of
the Power-Bannock Counties
nonattainment area was renamed as the
Portneuf Valley nonattainment area. The
Portneuf Valley nonattainment area was
redesignated to attainment on July 13,
2006 (71 FR 39574). The area consisting
of land within the exterior boundary of
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation that
was previously part of the PowerBannock Counties nonattainment area is
now identified as the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.313.
Today’s proposal applies only to the
Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area.
C. PM–10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM–
10 Nonattainment Area
In the early 1990s, EPA, the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes), and
the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) began to work together
to prepare the technical elements
needed to bring the area into attainment
with the PM–10 NAAQS. Air quality
and other information from the 1980s
and 1990s indicated that the elemental
phosphorous facility located on fee
lands within the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area and owned and
operated by FMC Corporation (FMC
facility) 2 was the primary cause of the
PM–10 nonattainment problem in the
Fort Hall nonattainment area. To
address this nonattainment problem,
EPA promulgated a Federal
Implementation Plan for PM–10
emissions from the FMC facility in
August 2000 (FMC FIP) under the
authority of section 301(a) and (d)(4) of
the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a). See 65 FR
51412 (August 23, 2000). The FMC FIP
contained PM–10 emission limits and
work practice, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements designed to
reduce PM–10 emissions from the FMC
facility to a level that would attain the
PM–10 standard.
In December 2001, after operating
under the FMC FIP for approximately
one year, the FMC facility ceased
producing elemental phosphorous from
phosphate ore. The buildings and
process equipment on the property have
since been decontaminated and
demolished and the construction debris
has been taken off-site. Removal of all
point sources identified in the FMC FIP
was completed in November 2006. The
storage piles specifically identified in
2 The property on which the FMC was located is
now owned by FMC Idaho, LLC (FMC).
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
26900
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the FIP have been taken off-site or
placed below grade and planted over. In
a letter dated November 1, 2007, EPA
advised the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
of EPA’s view that there no longer are
any sources subject to the FMC FIP
because the FMC FIP applies to the
owner or operator of an ‘‘elemental
phosphorous facility’’ and because there
is no longer an ‘‘elemental phosphorous
facility’’ located on the FMC property.
All sources in the Fort Hall
nonattainment area, however, are
subject to the Federal Air Rules for
Reservations (FARR) for Indian
reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington, which are air quality
regulations designed to protect health
and welfare on Indian reservations
located in the Pacific Northwest,
including the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. See 67 FR 18074 (April 8,
2005) (codified at 40 CFR 49.121 to
49.139).
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Attainment Date for the Fort Hall
PM–10 Nonattainment Area
As discussed above, the original
attainment date for the Fort Hall
nonattainment area was December 31,
1994. Section 188(d) authorizes the EPA
Administrator to grant up to two oneyear extensions of the moderate area
attainment date, provided certain
requirements are met. Because the area
was not attaining the PM–10 NAAQS at
the time of the December 31, 1994
attainment date, and finding that the
area met the requirements for an
extension, EPA granted a request for a
one-year extension and extended the
attainment date to December 31, 1995.
See 61 FR 20730 (May 8, 1996). The area
continued to violate the 24-hour PM–10
standard through December 31, 1995.
After finding that the area met the
requirements for a second extension,
EPA granted a second one-year
extension of the attainment date to
December 31, 1996. See 61 FR 66602
(December 18, 1996).3
the CAA states that EPA shall publish
a notice in the Federal Register within
six months after the applicable
attainment date identifying those areas
that failed to attain the standard and
that have been reclassified to serious by
operation of law.
F. Portneuf Environmental Council
(PEC) Lawsuit
On November 20, 1997, the Portneuf
Environmental Council (PEC) filed a
lawsuit against EPA, alleging that EPA
had failed to make a finding regarding
whether the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area 4 had attained the
PM–10 NAAQS by the December 31,
1996, extended attainment date, as
required by CAA section 188(b)(2)(A).
Subsequently, EPA published a Federal
Register notice on June 18, 1998, in
which EPA proposed to find that the
Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area
had failed to attain the PM–10 NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 1996. See 63 FR 33605
(June 19, 1998).
As part of a subsequent settlement
with PEC, PEC agreed to dismiss its
lawsuit against EPA provided that EPA
promulgated no later than July 31, 2000
a Federal Implementation Plan to
control PM–10 in the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area. EPA fulfilled its
obligation to promulgate the FMC FIP,
and did not take final action on the June
19, 1998 proposal regarding the
attainment status for the area.
E. Reclassification Upon Failure to
Attain
Section 188(b)(2) of the CAA requires
EPA to determine within six months of
the applicable attainment date whether
PM–10 nonattainment areas attained the
PM–10 NAAQS by the attainment date.
Under Section 188(b)(2)(A), a moderate
PM–10 nonattainment area is
reclassified as serious by operation of
law if EPA finds that the area was not
in attainment by the applicable
attainment date. Section 188(b)(2)(B) of
G. Sierra Club Lawsuit
On September 14, 2000, Sierra Club
and Group Against Smog and Pollution,
Inc. (jointly referred to as ‘‘Sierra Club’’)
filed suit against EPA alleging that EPA
had failed to carry out its statutory
obligations with respect to certain
nonattainment areas throughout the
United States. The complaint included
a claim that EPA had failed to make a
finding regarding whether the Fort Hall
nonattainment area had attained the
PM–10 NAAQS by the extended
attainment date of December 31, 1996,
as required by CAA section 188(b)(2)(A).
The Sierra Club subsequently agreed in
a Consent Decree in settlement of its
lawsuit to give EPA until July 31, 2004
to determine whether the Fort Hall area
had attained the PM–10 standard. The
Consent Decree provided that if EPA
was not able to determine that the Fort
Hall area had attained the PM–10
standard by July 31, 2004, EPA had to
determine that the area had not attained
the standard by December 31, 1996 (the
3 At the time of the extensions, the Fort Hall PM–
10 nonattainment area was still part of the PowerBannock County nonattainment area.
4 At the time of the lawsuit, the Fort Hall PM–
10 nonattainment area was still part of the PowerBannock County nonattainment area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
extended attainment date for the area),
which would result in reclassification of
the area to serious nonattainment. EPA
expected that the FMC FIP, which was
promulgated just prior to the Sierra
Club’s lawsuit, would be effective in
bringing the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area into attainment of
the PM–10 NAAQS.
Subsequent amendments to the
Consent Decree gave EPA additional
time to make a determination of
attainment or nonattainment for the
area. Under the terms of the most recent
amendment to the Consent Decree with
Sierra Club, EPA is required to sign a
notice for publication in the Federal
Register by August 31, 2010, containing
either EPA’s final determination that the
Fort Hall nonattainment area has
attained the PM–10 NAAQS or EPA’s
final determination that the area did not
attain the PM–10 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of December
31, 1996, and identifying the
appropriate reclassification of the area
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7513(b)(2)(A).
II. Proposed Attainment Determination
A. What are the requirements for
attainment determinations?
Generally, EPA determines whether
an area’s air quality is meeting the PM–
10 NAAQS based upon complete,
quality-assured data gathered at
established state and local air
monitoring stations (SLAMS) and
national air monitoring stations (NAMS)
in the nonattainment areas and entered
into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).
Data from air monitors operated by
state/local/tribal agencies in compliance
with EPA monitoring requirements must
be submitted to AQS. EPA relies
primarily on data in AQS when
determining the attainment status of an
area. See 40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50,
appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part
58, appendix A. EPA will also consider
air quality data from other air
monitoring stations in the
nonattainment area provided that the
stations meet the federal monitoring
requirements for SLAMS, including the
quality assurance and quality control
criteria in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A.
40 CFR 58.14 (2006) and 58.20 (2007); 5
71 FR 61236, 61242 (October 17, 2006).
All valid data are reviewed to determine
the area’s air quality status in
5 EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient
air monitoring regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and
58 on October 17, 2006. See 71 FR 61236. The
requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were
revised and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR
58.20.
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K.
Attainment of the 24-hour PM–10
standard is determined by calculating
the expected number of exceedances of
the standard in a year. The 24-hour
standard is attained when the expected
exceedances averaged over a three-year
period is less than or equal to one.
Generally, three consecutive years of air
quality data are required to show
attainment of the 24-hour PM–10
standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and
appendix K.6
B. What monitoring data are available
for the area?
In 1994 the Tribes requested and EPA
granted the Tribes program support
grant funds to enable the Tribes to
establish their own monitoring station
to collect ambient air quality data
representative of conditions on the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation and to generate
data to support Tribal air quality
planning efforts.7 The first Tribal
monitor, located at the ‘‘Sho-Ban site,’’
was a Federal Reference Monitor (FRM)
that became operational in February
1995. The Sho-Ban site was located
approximately 100 feet north of the
FMC facility across a frontage road.
Because of operational problems, this
monitor did not begin to collect valid
data until October 1996. Also in October
1996, the Tribes initiated monitoring at
two new sites. The ‘‘primary site’’
contained an FRM located
approximately 100 feet north of the
FMC facility across the frontage road,
approximately 600 feet east of the ShoBan site. There were two filter-based
FRMs located at the primary site: The
primary FRM and a co-located audit
FRM for quality assurance purposes.
Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites
were located in the general area of
expected maximum concentrations of
PM–10 in the ambient air at the time the
FMC facility was in operation. The
‘‘background site’’ was an FRM site
located approximately one and one-half
miles southwest of the FMC facility,
upwind of the predominant wind
direction from FMC. All three
monitoring sites met EPA SLAMS
network design and siting requirements
set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices
D and E.
Because the data reported at the
background site over a number of years
remained constant, with no discernible
6 Because the annual PM–10 standard was
revoked effective December 18, 2006, see 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006), this notice discusses only
attainment of the 24-hour PM–10 standard.
7 Prior to this time, the Tribes relied on data from
State-operated samplers on State lands for area
designations and classifications.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
trends, both the Tribes and EPA
determined that background PM–10
concentrations were adequately
characterized. Therefore, to conserve
resources, the Tribes and EPA agreed to
terminate operation of the FRM at the
background site in early 2000. Sampling
ended at the Sho-Ban site at the end of
March 2003 because the FMC facility
had ceased production and, given the
close proximity of the Sho-Ban and
primary monitoring sites, the
comparability of the data between the
two sites, and a continued interest in
conserving resources, a single
monitoring location was considered
sufficient to identify any remaining air
quality concerns in the area. The
primary FRM and the audit FRM at the
primary site remained in operation
through December 31, 2009, with the
primary FRM operating once every three
days and the co-located audit FRM
operating once every six days, or once
every three days, depending on whether
or not additional co-located data were
needed to meet certain federal
monitoring requirements.8
In addition to the primary and audit
filter-based FRMs, from November 1998
through September 2008, a continuous
PM–10 sampler, called a Tapered
Element Oscillating Microbalance
monitor (TEOM), also operated at the
primary site. Whereas it generally takes
a minimum of several weeks to obtain
PM–10 data from a filter-based FRM,9 a
TEOM monitors PM–10 levels on a
continuous basis and provides real-time
data on PM–10 levels in an area. This
TEOM monitor was shut down in
September 2008 because of a bad pump
and other operational problems and
replaced by another type of continuous
sampler, called a Beta Attenuation Mass
monitor (BAM). The BAM was installed
at the primary site at the beginning of
2009, but because of start-up problems,
did not begin to collect valid data until
the fall of 2009.
In 2008, an additional filter-based
PM–10 monitor began operating in the
Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area.
This FRM monitor operates at the
‘‘Ballard site,’’ which is located
approximately 6 miles north of the
primary site and is closer than the
primary site to the population center of
the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment
8 At times a higher sampling frequency may be
needed in order to produce approximately 25 valid
sample pairs per year. 40 CFR part 58 Appendix A,
section 3.3.1.3.
9 FRMs are manual samplers that pull air through
a filter for 24 hours (midnight to midnight). The
filters are then weighed in a lab and a PM
concentration is calculated based on the mass
increase of the filter and the volume of air drawn
through it.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26901
area. The Ballard site was established
because of concerns that the primary
site property might no longer remain
available for monitoring. With those
concerns in mind, a saturation study
was conducted by the Tribes and EPA
prior to the establishment of the Ballard
site to determine the correlation of
monitoring data between the primary
site and several potential alternate sites.
The potential alternate sites represented
locations that were as close to the
primary site as possible and to which
the Tribes had access. Temporary
monitors were placed at these locations
and operated in the late summer and
early fall of 2006. The study showed
that there was good correlation of data
between the primary site and several of
the potential alternate site locations and
that the Ballard site was particularly
desirable because a site pad and deck
were already established at that
location.10 In light of the results from
the study, the relative proximity of the
Ballard site to the population center of
the nonattainment area, and the lack of
access to property closer to the primary
site, the Ballard site was selected as an
alternate site to the primary site. On
April 21, 2008, the primary FRM at the
Ballard site became operational and
continues to collect data on a onceevery-three-day schedule.11 Based on a
review of recent AQS data from April
2008 through January 2010 showing
good correlation between the Ballard
site and the primary site, the fact that
the Ballard site is closer in proximity to
the population center of the
nonattainment area than the primary
site, and the fact that the FMC facility
is no longer operating as an elemental
phosphorous facility, EPA believes that
the Ballard monitoring site is
representative of PM–10 levels in the
Fort Hall nonattainment area.
Data collection at the primary site
ended on December 31, 2009 because
the property owner would not renew the
lease. At the request of the property
owner, all monitoring and associated
equipment was removed from the
primary site, and beginning on January
1, 2010, the Ballard site became the only
PM–10 monitoring site in the
nonattainment area. To meet monitoring
network requirements, one of the FRMs
from the primary site was moved to the
Ballard site and began operating as an
audit FRM in January 2010. The BAM
from the primary site was moved to the
Ballard site and began operating in
10 Memo from Chris Hall to Donna Deneen, dated
January 19, 2007, regarding Fort Hall PM–10
Saturation Study.
11 AQS raw data report for the Ballard site for
2010.
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
26902
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
April 2010. PM–10 monitoring for the
Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area
continues at the Ballard site, with the
PM–10 BAM operating daily, and both
the primary FRM and the audit FRM
collecting data on a once-every-threeday schedule.
C. What do the air quality data show for
the area?
The number of PM–10 exceedances in
the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area
has dropped substantially since the area
was designated nonattainment in the
early 1990s. There were 16 exceedances
recorded at the primary site in 1997, the
first full year of monitoring for the area.
The number of exceedances had
decreased to four in 1999, when FMC
began installing some control
equipment and implementing some
emission reduction measures in
anticipation of promulgation of the FMC
FIP.12 By 2001, the first full year the
FMC FIP was in place and the final year
the FMC facility was fully operational,
there were no exceedances recorded on
the FRMs and three exceedances
recorded on the TEOM. Beginning in
2002, the first year after the FMC facility
ceased production, the FRMs at the
primary site reported one exceedance of
the 24-hour PM–10 standard in 2002
and one in 2006.13 The TEOM at the
primary site, which operated every day,
recorded one exceedance per year in
each of 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and
three in 2008. All of the exceedances
that have been recorded since FMC
ceased production of elemental
phosphorous in December 2001
occurred on days with sustained winds
of more than 20 mph for several hours.
The exceedances in the relevant data
years for this determination are
discussed more fully in section D below.
D. Determination of Attainment
As discussed above, section 188(b)(2)
of the CAA requires EPA to determine
within six months of the applicable
attainment date whether the Fort Hall
PM–10 nonattainment area attained the
PM–10 NAAQS by the extended
attainment date of December 31, 1996.
Under the terms of the most recent
amendment to the Consent Decree with
Sierra Club, EPA is required to sign a
notice for publication in the Federal
Register by August 31, 2010 containing
either EPA’s final determination that the
Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment area has
attained the PM–10 NAAQS or EPA’s
final determination as to whether the
area attained or failed to attain the PM–
10 NAAQS by the extended attainment
date of December 31, 1996 and
identifying the appropriate
reclassification of the area pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 7513(b)(2)(A).
EPA is proposing to determine that
the area has attained the PM–10
standard based on the most recent three
years of complete, quality-assured data
for 2007–2009. Preliminary data for
2010 also indicate that the area
continues to attain the standard. EPA
regulations require that a determination
of attainment be based on three
consecutive years of data that meet the
quality assurance and quality control
requirements of 40 CFR part 58,
appendix A. EPA has confirmed that
complete air quality data in AQS for
2007, 2008, and 2009 meet quality
assurance and quality control
requirements for use in determining
attainment with the 24-hour PM–10
standard.
For calendar years 2007 through 2009,
the data recorded for the Fort Hall PM–
10 nonattainment area show generally
low levels of PM–10, with 99 percent of
the daily average concentrations below
83 μg/m3 (less than two-thirds of the
standard) and annual average PM–10
concentrations of 23 μg/m3, 28 μg/m3
and 19 μg/m3 for 2007, 2008, and 2009,
respectively.14 There were no
exceedances of the standard in 2007,
three exceedances in 2008, and no
exceedances in 2009.
There were no exceedances of the
PM–10 standard measured at the
primary site filter-based FRM monitors
or at the Ballard site. Table 1 identifies
all the monitors that were operating in
the Fort Hall nonattainment area during
the 2007 through 2009 period, and the
number of PM–10 exceedances recorded
at each.
TABLE 1—NUMBER OF EXCEEDANCES OF THE 24-HOUR PM–10 STANDARD IN THE FORT HALL PM–10 NONATTAINMENT
AREA FROM JANUARY 1, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009
Primary site—
Primary FRM
160770011 a (Data
from 01/01/2007
through 12/31/
2009)
Year
Primary site—
Audit FRM
160770011 a (Data
from 01/01/2007
through 12/31/
2009)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2007 .............................................
2008 .............................................
2009 .............................................
Primary site—
TEOM 160770011 b
(Data from 01/01/
2007 through 09/
23/2008)
Primary site—
BAM 160770011 b
(Data from 09/01/
2009 through 12/
31/2009)
0
NA
NA
0
c3
0
Ballard site—
FRM 160050020 a
(Data from 04/21/
2008 through 12/
31/2009)
NA
0
0
a Every-three-day
sampling.
monitor.
wind speeds of more than 26 mph and sustained hourly wind speeds of more than 20 mph for several hours on the day of each
exceedance.
b Continuous
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
c Hourly
The calculated number of expected
exceedances of the PM–10 standard (in
days per year) for 2007–2009 is 0.0 for
the primary site FRMs, 1.0 15 for the
primary site TEOM and BAM,16 and 0.0
for the Ballard site FRM. Because
neither the primary site TEOM and
BAM data nor the Ballard site FRM data
are complete for 2007–2009,17 the data
from these monitors may not be used for
a determination of attainment. The data
from these monitors may, however, be
12 Table dated April 26, 2010, summarizing the
number of exceedances of the 24-hour PM–10
standard in the Fort Hall nonattainment area since
1997.
13 Although EPA believes the data collected at the
FRMs and TEOM from 2004 through 2006 are
generally indicative of air quality in the Fort Hall
PM–10 nonattainment area, they did not meet all
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
requirements and therefore may not be used to
determine whether or not the Fort Hall area is in
attainment with the 24-hour PM–10 standard. See
40 CFR 58.11(a) and 58.20; 71 FR 61242 (October
17, 2006); see also 40 CFR 58.14 (2006).
14 AQS PM–10 raw data report for primary site
and Ballard site, 2007–2009.
15 The value of 1.0 accounts for the three
exceedances that occurred in 2008.
16 The TEOM and BAM data are combined; the
data for these two monitors was submitted under
the same code in AQS and is considered one
monitoring record.
17 The primary site TEOM ceased operations on
September 23, 2008, and the replacement primary
site BAM did not begin collecting valid data until
September 1, 2009. The Ballard site FRM did not
begin operating until April 21, 2008.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
used to determine that an area has not
attained the standard, a showing that is
less stringent than a showing that an
area has attained the standard. In this
case, neither the expected exceedance
rate of 1.0 (for the primary site TEOM
and BAM) nor the exceedance rate of 0.0
(for Ballard site FRM) show that the area
has failed to attain the PM–10 standard,
The data from the primary site FRMs
are complete for 2007–2009 and
therefore may be used for a
determination of attainment. The
expected exceedance rate of 0.0 for the
primary site FRMs is equal to or less
than the expected exceedance rate of 1.0
that is allowed under the PM–10
NAAQS. Because complete data from
the primary site FRMs show an
expected exceedance rate equal to or
below the PM–10 standard, because the
other monitors at the primary and
Ballard sites show expected exceedance
rates equal to or less than the PM–10
standard, and because, based on data
available to date, there have been no
additional exceedances of the PM–10
standard in the nonattainment area in
2010, EPA concludes that the area has
met the standard. EPA therefore
proposes to determine that the Fort Hall
PM–10 nonattainment area has attained
the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS.18
EPA has carefully reviewed the
monitoring data, meteorological data
and other available information
regarding the exceedances that occurred
at the TEOM in 2008. The
meteorological data for this review came
from a meteorological station that was
co-located with the PM–10 monitors at
the primary site. Because each of the
PM–10 exceedances was recorded on a
continuous monitor, it is possible to
compare hourly PM–10 levels on the
day of each exceedance with hourly
wind speed measured at the
meteorological station. On all three days
when exceedances were recorded,
hourly spikes in PM–10 levels
corresponded to increases in hourly
wind speeds.19 Hourly wind speeds of
more than 26 mph and sustained hourly
wind speeds of more than 20 mph for
several hours were measured on all
three days.
All three exceedances were flagged
timely by the Sho-Ban Tribes as high
wind events under EPA’s Exceptional
Events Rule (72 FR 13560, March 22,
2007). Under EPA’s Exceptional Events
Rule, EPA may exclude data from
regulatory determinations related to
exceedances or violations of the NAAQS
if it is adequately demonstrated that an
exceptional event caused the
exceedance or violation. 40 CFR 50.1,
50.14. In this case, EPA need not
determine whether the flagged
exceedances can be considered as
caused by ‘‘exceptional events’’ under
the Exceptional Events Rule. For the
purposes of the current attainment
determination, inclusion of these
exceedances does not affect EPA’s
determination of the area’s attainment
status. In other words, even if EPA
includes all three days of exceedances
monitored at the TEOM in 2008, the
data show that the area attained the
PM–10 standard and under the existing
monitoring record, EPA’s proposed
determination that the area has attained
the standard is not dependent on
whether the 2008 exceedances qualify
for exclusion under the Exceptional
Events Rule. If in the future we
determine that it is appropriate to
evaluate whether the exceedances
qualify as caused by exceptional events
and may be excluded from regulatory
determinations, we will do so at that
time in accordance with the Exceptional
Events Rule.
18 If this proposal is finalized, and EPA
subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the area no longer is attaining the
NAAQS, EPA will publish such determination in
the Federal Register.
19 Memo from Donna Deneen to the Fort Hall
Docket, dated April 26, 2010, regarding PM–10
Exceedances and Wind Speeds on April 15, May 20,
and August 26, 2008.
B. Withdrawal of June 19, 1998 Proposal
It has now been twelve years since
EPA proposed to make a finding of
nonattainment for the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area (63 FR 33605, June
19, 1998). In light of all the changes that
have taken place over that time,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
III. Proposed Action
A. Proposed Determination of
Attainment
EPA is, by this document, proposing
to determine that the Fort Hall
nonattainment area has attained the 24hour PM–10 standard, based on
complete, quality-assured monitoring
data for 2007–2009, and data available
to date for 2010. This proposed finding
of attainment is not a proposed
redesignation to attainment under CAA
section 107(d)(3). If this proposal is
finalized, the designation status in 40
CFR part 81 for the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area would remain
moderate nonattainment until such time
as the area is redesignated to attainment
as provided in CAA section 107(d)(3). If
this proposal is finalized, and EPA
subsequently determines after notice
and comment rulemaking, that the area
is no longer attaining the NAAQS, EPA
will publish such determination in the
Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26903
including the promulgation of the FIP,
the cessation of the production of
elemental phosphorous at FMC, the low
levels of PM–10 recorded in the area,
and the consent decree with Sierra Club
that provides for an attainment
determination for the Fort Hall PM–10
nonattainment area based on 2007–2009
data, EPA is withdrawing its June 19,
1998 proposed rulemaking and issuing
this proposal in its place. Accordingly,
EPA will not be responding to
comments on the June 19, 1998
proposal. Any person who wishes to
comment on EPA’s proposed finding
that the Fort Hall nonattainment area
attained the 24-hour PM–10 standard as
of December 31, 2009 should do so at
this time.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action proposes to make a
determination based on air quality data,
and would, if finalized, not result in the
imposition of any additional Federal
requirements. For that reason, this
proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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 CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
26904
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the
proposed rule merely makes a required
determination based on air quality data
and would neither impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, nor preempt tribal law,
the requirements of sections 5(b) and
5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy,
EPA nonetheless provided a
consultation opportunity to the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in a letter to
the Chairman of the Fort Hall Business
Council, dated January 25, 2010,
offering the Tribes the opportunity to
consult on this determination and have
meaningful and timely input into this
proposed decision. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13175, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and
tribal governments, EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 3, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010–11139 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9150–9]
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases: Notice of Data Availability;
Default Emission Factors for
Semiconductor Manufacturing Refined
Process Categories
cprice-sewell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Data availability and request for
comment.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making available to the
public draft default emission factors for
semiconductor manufacturing refined
process categories. On April 12, 2010
EPA published a proposed rule,
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs (75 FR 18652) which
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:29 May 12, 2010
Jkt 220001
included proposed methods for
monitoring and reporting greenhouse
gases (GHGs) from electronics
manufacturing. More specifically, as one
option for monitoring and reporting,
EPA proposed semiconductor
manufacturers estimate emissions using
default emission factors for nine distinct
process categories. For each default
emission factor, EPA proposed a range
of values differentiated by production
technology generation (i.e., wafer size).
Based on additional information
received since the publication of the
proposed rule, EPA has developed draft
emission factors for the proposed
process categories. EPA is making those
draft emission factors as well as the
underlying data that was used to
develop the draft emission factors
available to the public for review and
comment in the report, Draft Emission
Factors for Refined Semiconductor
Manufacturing Process Categories.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0927 by one of the following
methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail:
GHGReportingFGHG@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention
Docket OAR–2009–0927, Mail code
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket
Center, Public Reading Room, Room
3334, EPA West Building, Attention
Docket OAR–2009–0927, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. This Docket
Facility 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:
Kirsten Cappel, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric
Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 343–9556; fax
number: (202) 343–2202; e-mail address:
cappel.kirsten@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
1. What is today’s action?
2. What information is EPA making available
for review and comment?
3. How does this information relate to the
proposed rule Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs?
4. Where can I get the information?
5. What is EPA taking comment on and what
supporting documentation do I need to
include in my comments?
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26898-26904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0391; FRL-9149-5]
Determination of Attainment for PM-10; Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area, Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to determine
that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation in Idaho has attained the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
of less than or equal to 10 microns (PM-10). EPA's proposed finding
that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area has attained the 24-hour
PM-10 NAAQS is based on EPA's review of complete, quality-assured
monitored air quality data for the three-year period ending December
31, 2009. Preliminary data for 2010 indicate that the area continues to
attain the standard.
EPA's proposed determination of attainment is not equivalent to a
proposed redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). If
this proposal is finalized, the designation status for the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area would remain moderate nonattainment until such
time as the area is redesignated to attainment as provided in CAA
section 107(d)(3).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2008-0391, by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. E- Mail: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
C. Mail: Donna Deneen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop: AWT-107, Seattle, WA
98101.
D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Attn: Donna Deneen (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101, 9th Floor. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2008-0391. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.
[[Page 26899]]
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, is not publicly available. 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 in
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours
at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington
98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, (206) 553-6706 or
deneen.donna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this notice, the words ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' means the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. PM-10 Standard
B. Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
C. PM-10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
D. Attainment Date for the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
E. Reclassification Upon Failure to Attain
F. Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC) Lawsuit
G. Sierra Club Lawsuit
II. Proposed Attainment Determination
A. What are the Requirements for Attainment Determinations?
B. What Monitoring Data are Available for the Area?
C. What Do the Air Quality Data Show for the Area?
D. Determination of Attainment
III. Proposed Action
A. Proposed Determination of Attainment
B. Withdrawal of June 19, 1998 Proposal
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. PM-10 Standard
The NAAQS are levels for certain ambient air pollutants set by EPA
to protect public health and welfare. PM-10, or particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers,
is among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established
health-based standards. On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634), EPA promulgated
two primary standards for PM-10: a 24-hour standard of 150 micrograms
per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and an annual PM-10 standard of 50 [mu]g/
m\3\. EPA also promulgated secondary PM-10 standards that were
identical to the primary standards.
Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM-10 standard
but retained the 24-hour PM-10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17,
2006). The 24-hour PM-10 standard is attained when the expected number
of days per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration above 154 [mu]g/
m\3\, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is
equal to or less than one.\1\ 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix
K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\) after rounding to the
nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e. values ending in 5 or greater are to be
rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\ would not be
an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150[mu]/m\3\ whereas a
recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an exceedance since it
would be rounded to 160 [mu]/m\3\. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K,
section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
On August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), EPA identified a number of areas
across the country as PM-10 ``Group I'' areas of concern, that is,
areas with a 95% or greater likelihood of violating the PM-10 NAAQS and
requiring substantial planning efforts. What is now known as the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area was originally part of a Group I area
called ``Power-Bannock Counties (Pocatello).'' In accordance with
section 188(a) and (c)(1) of the CAA, at the time of designation all
PM-10 nonattainment areas were initially classified as ``moderate'' by
operation of law, with an attainment date of December 31, 1994. See
also 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991).
This original nonattainment area has gone through two boundary
changes. First, on June 12, 1995, EPA corrected the ``Power-Bannock
Counties (Pocatello)'' boundaries to more closely represent the air
shed in which the City of Pocatello is located. 61 FR 29667. Second, on
November 5, 1998, EPA granted a request from the State of Idaho to
divide the nonattainment area (as corrected) into two areas separated
by the Fort Hall Indian Reservation boundary. 63 FR 59722. The area
consisting of land under State jurisdiction that was previously part of
the Power-Bannock Counties nonattainment area was renamed as the
Portneuf Valley nonattainment area. The Portneuf Valley nonattainment
area was redesignated to attainment on July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39574). The
area consisting of land within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation that was previously part of the Power-Bannock
Counties nonattainment area is now identified as the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.313. Today's proposal applies only to
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.
C. PM-10 Planning in the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
In the early 1990s, EPA, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes), and
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) began to work
together to prepare the technical elements needed to bring the area
into attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS. Air quality and other information
from the 1980s and 1990s indicated that the elemental phosphorous
facility located on fee lands within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area and owned and operated by FMC Corporation (FMC facility) \2\ was
the primary cause of the PM-10 nonattainment problem in the Fort Hall
nonattainment area. To address this nonattainment problem, EPA
promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan for PM-10 emissions from the
FMC facility in August 2000 (FMC FIP) under the authority of section
301(a) and (d)(4) of the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a). See 65 FR 51412
(August 23, 2000). The FMC FIP contained PM-10 emission limits and work
practice, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements designed to reduce
PM-10 emissions from the FMC facility to a level that would attain the
PM-10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The property on which the FMC was located is now owned by
FMC Idaho, LLC (FMC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2001, after operating under the FMC FIP for
approximately one year, the FMC facility ceased producing elemental
phosphorous from phosphate ore. The buildings and process equipment on
the property have since been decontaminated and demolished and the
construction debris has been taken off-site. Removal of all point
sources identified in the FMC FIP was completed in November 2006. The
storage piles specifically identified in
[[Page 26900]]
the FIP have been taken off-site or placed below grade and planted
over. In a letter dated November 1, 2007, EPA advised the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of EPA's view that there no longer are any sources
subject to the FMC FIP because the FMC FIP applies to the owner or
operator of an ``elemental phosphorous facility'' and because there is
no longer an ``elemental phosphorous facility'' located on the FMC
property. All sources in the Fort Hall nonattainment area, however, are
subject to the Federal Air Rules for Reservations (FARR) for Indian
reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, which are air quality
regulations designed to protect health and welfare on Indian
reservations located in the Pacific Northwest, including the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation. See 67 FR 18074 (April 8, 2005) (codified at 40 CFR
49.121 to 49.139).
D. Attainment Date for the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area
As discussed above, the original attainment date for the Fort Hall
nonattainment area was December 31, 1994. Section 188(d) authorizes the
EPA Administrator to grant up to two one-year extensions of the
moderate area attainment date, provided certain requirements are met.
Because the area was not attaining the PM-10 NAAQS at the time of the
December 31, 1994 attainment date, and finding that the area met the
requirements for an extension, EPA granted a request for a one-year
extension and extended the attainment date to December 31, 1995. See 61
FR 20730 (May 8, 1996). The area continued to violate the 24-hour PM-10
standard through December 31, 1995. After finding that the area met the
requirements for a second extension, EPA granted a second one-year
extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1996. See 61 FR 66602
(December 18, 1996).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At the time of the extensions, the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area was still part of the Power-Bannock County
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Reclassification Upon Failure to Attain
Section 188(b)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to determine within six
months of the applicable attainment date whether PM-10 nonattainment
areas attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the attainment date. Under Section
188(b)(2)(A), a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area is reclassified as
serious by operation of law if EPA finds that the area was not in
attainment by the applicable attainment date. Section 188(b)(2)(B) of
the CAA states that EPA shall publish a notice in the Federal Register
within six months after the applicable attainment date identifying
those areas that failed to attain the standard and that have been
reclassified to serious by operation of law.
F. Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC) Lawsuit
On November 20, 1997, the Portneuf Environmental Council (PEC)
filed a lawsuit against EPA, alleging that EPA had failed to make a
finding regarding whether the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area \4\
had attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1996, extended
attainment date, as required by CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). Subsequently,
EPA published a Federal Register notice on June 18, 1998, in which EPA
proposed to find that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area had failed
to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 1996. See 63 FR 33605 (June 19, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ At the time of the lawsuit, the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area was still part of the Power-Bannock County
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a subsequent settlement with PEC, PEC agreed to dismiss
its lawsuit against EPA provided that EPA promulgated no later than
July 31, 2000 a Federal Implementation Plan to control PM-10 in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. EPA fulfilled its obligation to
promulgate the FMC FIP, and did not take final action on the June 19,
1998 proposal regarding the attainment status for the area.
G. Sierra Club Lawsuit
On September 14, 2000, Sierra Club and Group Against Smog and
Pollution, Inc. (jointly referred to as ``Sierra Club'') filed suit
against EPA alleging that EPA had failed to carry out its statutory
obligations with respect to certain nonattainment areas throughout the
United States. The complaint included a claim that EPA had failed to
make a finding regarding whether the Fort Hall nonattainment area had
attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the extended attainment date of December
31, 1996, as required by CAA section 188(b)(2)(A). The Sierra Club
subsequently agreed in a Consent Decree in settlement of its lawsuit to
give EPA until July 31, 2004 to determine whether the Fort Hall area
had attained the PM-10 standard. The Consent Decree provided that if
EPA was not able to determine that the Fort Hall area had attained the
PM-10 standard by July 31, 2004, EPA had to determine that the area had
not attained the standard by December 31, 1996 (the extended attainment
date for the area), which would result in reclassification of the area
to serious nonattainment. EPA expected that the FMC FIP, which was
promulgated just prior to the Sierra Club's lawsuit, would be effective
in bringing the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area into attainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS.
Subsequent amendments to the Consent Decree gave EPA additional
time to make a determination of attainment or nonattainment for the
area. Under the terms of the most recent amendment to the Consent
Decree with Sierra Club, EPA is required to sign a notice for
publication in the Federal Register by August 31, 2010, containing
either EPA's final determination that the Fort Hall nonattainment area
has attained the PM-10 NAAQS or EPA's final determination that the area
did not attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 1996, and identifying the appropriate reclassification of
the area pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7513(b)(2)(A).
II. Proposed Attainment Determination
A. What are the requirements for attainment determinations?
Generally, EPA determines whether an area's air quality is meeting
the PM-10 NAAQS based upon complete, quality-assured data gathered at
established state and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and
national air monitoring stations (NAMS) in the nonattainment areas and
entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). Data from air monitors
operated by state/local/tribal agencies in compliance with EPA
monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. EPA relies primarily
on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of an area. See
40 CFR 50.6; 40 CFR part 50, appendix J; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part
58, appendix A. EPA will also consider air quality data from other air
monitoring stations in the nonattainment area provided that the
stations meet the federal monitoring requirements for SLAMS, including
the quality assurance and quality control criteria in 40 CFR part 58,
appendix A. 40 CFR 58.14 (2006) and 58.20 (2007); \5\ 71 FR 61236,
61242 (October 17, 2006). All valid data are reviewed to determine the
area's air quality status in
[[Page 26901]]
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA promulgated amendments to the ambient air monitoring
regulations in 40 CFR parts 53 and 58 on October 17, 2006. See 71 FR
61236. The requirements for Special Purpose Monitors were revised
and moved from 40 CFR 58.14 to 40 CFR 58.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard is determined by
calculating the expected number of exceedances of the standard in a
year. The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected exceedances
averaged over a three-year period is less than or equal to one.
Generally, three consecutive years of air quality data are required to
show attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard. See 40 CFR part 50 and
appendix K.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Because the annual PM-10 standard was revoked effective
December 18, 2006, see 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006), this notice
discusses only attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What monitoring data are available for the area?
In 1994 the Tribes requested and EPA granted the Tribes program
support grant funds to enable the Tribes to establish their own
monitoring station to collect ambient air quality data representative
of conditions on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and to generate data
to support Tribal air quality planning efforts.\7\ The first Tribal
monitor, located at the ``Sho-Ban site,'' was a Federal Reference
Monitor (FRM) that became operational in February 1995. The Sho-Ban
site was located approximately 100 feet north of the FMC facility
across a frontage road. Because of operational problems, this monitor
did not begin to collect valid data until October 1996. Also in October
1996, the Tribes initiated monitoring at two new sites. The ``primary
site'' contained an FRM located approximately 100 feet north of the FMC
facility across the frontage road, approximately 600 feet east of the
Sho-Ban site. There were two filter-based FRMs located at the primary
site: The primary FRM and a co-located audit FRM for quality assurance
purposes. Both the Sho-Ban and primary sites were located in the
general area of expected maximum concentrations of PM-10 in the ambient
air at the time the FMC facility was in operation. The ``background
site'' was an FRM site located approximately one and one-half miles
southwest of the FMC facility, upwind of the predominant wind direction
from FMC. All three monitoring sites met EPA SLAMS network design and
siting requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Prior to this time, the Tribes relied on data from State-
operated samplers on State lands for area designations and
classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the data reported at the background site over a number of
years remained constant, with no discernible trends, both the Tribes
and EPA determined that background PM-10 concentrations were adequately
characterized. Therefore, to conserve resources, the Tribes and EPA
agreed to terminate operation of the FRM at the background site in
early 2000. Sampling ended at the Sho-Ban site at the end of March 2003
because the FMC facility had ceased production and, given the close
proximity of the Sho-Ban and primary monitoring sites, the
comparability of the data between the two sites, and a continued
interest in conserving resources, a single monitoring location was
considered sufficient to identify any remaining air quality concerns in
the area. The primary FRM and the audit FRM at the primary site
remained in operation through December 31, 2009, with the primary FRM
operating once every three days and the co-located audit FRM operating
once every six days, or once every three days, depending on whether or
not additional co-located data were needed to meet certain federal
monitoring requirements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ At times a higher sampling frequency may be needed in order
to produce approximately 25 valid sample pairs per year. 40 CFR part
58 Appendix A, section 3.3.1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the primary and audit filter-based FRMs, from
November 1998 through September 2008, a continuous PM-10 sampler,
called a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance monitor (TEOM), also
operated at the primary site. Whereas it generally takes a minimum of
several weeks to obtain PM-10 data from a filter-based FRM,\9\ a TEOM
monitors PM-10 levels on a continuous basis and provides real-time data
on PM-10 levels in an area. This TEOM monitor was shut down in
September 2008 because of a bad pump and other operational problems and
replaced by another type of continuous sampler, called a Beta
Attenuation Mass monitor (BAM). The BAM was installed at the primary
site at the beginning of 2009, but because of start-up problems, did
not begin to collect valid data until the fall of 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FRMs are manual samplers that pull air through a filter for
24 hours (midnight to midnight). The filters are then weighed in a
lab and a PM concentration is calculated based on the mass increase
of the filter and the volume of air drawn through it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, an additional filter-based PM-10 monitor began operating
in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. This FRM monitor operates at
the ``Ballard site,'' which is located approximately 6 miles north of
the primary site and is closer than the primary site to the population
center of the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The Ballard site was
established because of concerns that the primary site property might no
longer remain available for monitoring. With those concerns in mind, a
saturation study was conducted by the Tribes and EPA prior to the
establishment of the Ballard site to determine the correlation of
monitoring data between the primary site and several potential
alternate sites. The potential alternate sites represented locations
that were as close to the primary site as possible and to which the
Tribes had access. Temporary monitors were placed at these locations
and operated in the late summer and early fall of 2006. The study
showed that there was good correlation of data between the primary site
and several of the potential alternate site locations and that the
Ballard site was particularly desirable because a site pad and deck
were already established at that location.\10\ In light of the results
from the study, the relative proximity of the Ballard site to the
population center of the nonattainment area, and the lack of access to
property closer to the primary site, the Ballard site was selected as
an alternate site to the primary site. On April 21, 2008, the primary
FRM at the Ballard site became operational and continues to collect
data on a once-every-three-day schedule.\11\ Based on a review of
recent AQS data from April 2008 through January 2010 showing good
correlation between the Ballard site and the primary site, the fact
that the Ballard site is closer in proximity to the population center
of the nonattainment area than the primary site, and the fact that the
FMC facility is no longer operating as an elemental phosphorous
facility, EPA believes that the Ballard monitoring site is
representative of PM-10 levels in the Fort Hall nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Memo from Chris Hall to Donna Deneen, dated January 19,
2007, regarding Fort Hall PM-10 Saturation Study.
\11\ AQS raw data report for the Ballard site for 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data collection at the primary site ended on December 31, 2009
because the property owner would not renew the lease. At the request of
the property owner, all monitoring and associated equipment was removed
from the primary site, and beginning on January 1, 2010, the Ballard
site became the only PM-10 monitoring site in the nonattainment area.
To meet monitoring network requirements, one of the FRMs from the
primary site was moved to the Ballard site and began operating as an
audit FRM in January 2010. The BAM from the primary site was moved to
the Ballard site and began operating in
[[Page 26902]]
April 2010. PM-10 monitoring for the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
continues at the Ballard site, with the PM-10 BAM operating daily, and
both the primary FRM and the audit FRM collecting data on a once-every-
three-day schedule.
C. What do the air quality data show for the area?
The number of PM-10 exceedances in the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area has dropped substantially since the area was
designated nonattainment in the early 1990s. There were 16 exceedances
recorded at the primary site in 1997, the first full year of monitoring
for the area. The number of exceedances had decreased to four in 1999,
when FMC began installing some control equipment and implementing some
emission reduction measures in anticipation of promulgation of the FMC
FIP.\12\ By 2001, the first full year the FMC FIP was in place and the
final year the FMC facility was fully operational, there were no
exceedances recorded on the FRMs and three exceedances recorded on the
TEOM. Beginning in 2002, the first year after the FMC facility ceased
production, the FRMs at the primary site reported one exceedance of the
24-hour PM-10 standard in 2002 and one in 2006.\13\ The TEOM at the
primary site, which operated every day, recorded one exceedance per
year in each of 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and three in 2008. All of
the exceedances that have been recorded since FMC ceased production of
elemental phosphorous in December 2001 occurred on days with sustained
winds of more than 20 mph for several hours. The exceedances in the
relevant data years for this determination are discussed more fully in
section D below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Table dated April 26, 2010, summarizing the number of
exceedances of the 24-hour PM-10 standard in the Fort Hall
nonattainment area since 1997.
\13\ Although EPA believes the data collected at the FRMs and
TEOM from 2004 through 2006 are generally indicative of air quality
in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, they did not meet all
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements and therefore
may not be used to determine whether or not the Fort Hall area is in
attainment with the 24-hour PM-10 standard. See 40 CFR 58.11(a) and
58.20; 71 FR 61242 (October 17, 2006); see also 40 CFR 58.14 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Determination of Attainment
As discussed above, section 188(b)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to
determine within six months of the applicable attainment date whether
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the
extended attainment date of December 31, 1996. Under the terms of the
most recent amendment to the Consent Decree with Sierra Club, EPA is
required to sign a notice for publication in the Federal Register by
August 31, 2010 containing either EPA's final determination that the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS or
EPA's final determination as to whether the area attained or failed to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the extended attainment date of December 31,
1996 and identifying the appropriate reclassification of the area
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7513(b)(2)(A).
EPA is proposing to determine that the area has attained the PM-10
standard based on the most recent three years of complete, quality-
assured data for 2007-2009. Preliminary data for 2010 also indicate
that the area continues to attain the standard. EPA regulations require
that a determination of attainment be based on three consecutive years
of data that meet the quality assurance and quality control
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. EPA has confirmed that
complete air quality data in AQS for 2007, 2008, and 2009 meet quality
assurance and quality control requirements for use in determining
attainment with the 24-hour PM-10 standard.
For calendar years 2007 through 2009, the data recorded for the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area show generally low levels of PM-10,
with 99 percent of the daily average concentrations below 83 [mu]g/m\3\
(less than two-thirds of the standard) and annual average PM-10
concentrations of 23 [mu]g/m\3\, 28 [mu]g/m\3\ and 19 [mu]g/m\3\ for
2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively.\14\ There were no exceedances of
the standard in 2007, three exceedances in 2008, and no exceedances in
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ AQS PM-10 raw data report for primary site and Ballard
site, 2007-2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were no exceedances of the PM-10 standard measured at the
primary site filter-based FRM monitors or at the Ballard site. Table 1
identifies all the monitors that were operating in the Fort Hall
nonattainment area during the 2007 through 2009 period, and the number
of PM-10 exceedances recorded at each.
Table 1--Number of Exceedances of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard in the Fort Hall PM-10 Nonattainment Area From January 1, 2007 Through December 31, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary site-- Primary site--
Primary FRM Audit FRM Primary site-- Primary site-- BAM Ballard site-- FRM
160770011 \a\ 160770011 \a\ TEOM 160770011 \b\ 160770011 \b\ 160050020 \a\
Year (Data from 01/01/ (Data from 01/01/ (Data from 01/01/ (Data from 09/01/ (Data from 04/21/
2007 through 12/31/ 2007 through 12/31/ 2007 through 09/23/ 2009 through 12/31/ 2008 through 12/31/
2009) 2009) 2008) 2009) 2009)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007................................................ 0 0 0 NA NA
2008................................................ 0 0 \c\ 3 NA 0
2009................................................ 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Every-three-day sampling.
\b\ Continuous monitor.
\c\ Hourly wind speeds of more than 26 mph and sustained hourly wind speeds of more than 20 mph for several hours on the day of each exceedance.
The calculated number of expected exceedances of the PM-10 standard
(in days per year) for 2007-2009 is 0.0 for the primary site FRMs, 1.0
\15\ for the primary site TEOM and BAM,\16\ and 0.0 for the Ballard
site FRM. Because neither the primary site TEOM and BAM data nor the
Ballard site FRM data are complete for 2007-2009,\17\ the data from
these monitors may not be used for a determination of attainment. The
data from these monitors may, however, be
[[Page 26903]]
used to determine that an area has not attained the standard, a showing
that is less stringent than a showing that an area has attained the
standard. In this case, neither the expected exceedance rate of 1.0
(for the primary site TEOM and BAM) nor the exceedance rate of 0.0 (for
Ballard site FRM) show that the area has failed to attain the PM-10
standard,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The value of 1.0 accounts for the three exceedances that
occurred in 2008.
\16\ The TEOM and BAM data are combined; the data for these two
monitors was submitted under the same code in AQS and is considered
one monitoring record.
\17\ The primary site TEOM ceased operations on September 23,
2008, and the replacement primary site BAM did not begin collecting
valid data until September 1, 2009. The Ballard site FRM did not
begin operating until April 21, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data from the primary site FRMs are complete for 2007-2009 and
therefore may be used for a determination of attainment. The expected
exceedance rate of 0.0 for the primary site FRMs is equal to or less
than the expected exceedance rate of 1.0 that is allowed under the PM-
10 NAAQS. Because complete data from the primary site FRMs show an
expected exceedance rate equal to or below the PM-10 standard, because
the other monitors at the primary and Ballard sites show expected
exceedance rates equal to or less than the PM-10 standard, and because,
based on data available to date, there have been no additional
exceedances of the PM-10 standard in the nonattainment area in 2010,
EPA concludes that the area has met the standard. EPA therefore
proposes to determine that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area has
attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ If this proposal is finalized, and EPA subsequently
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area no
longer is attaining the NAAQS, EPA will publish such determination
in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has carefully reviewed the monitoring data, meteorological data
and other available information regarding the exceedances that occurred
at the TEOM in 2008. The meteorological data for this review came from
a meteorological station that was co-located with the PM-10 monitors at
the primary site. Because each of the PM-10 exceedances was recorded on
a continuous monitor, it is possible to compare hourly PM-10 levels on
the day of each exceedance with hourly wind speed measured at the
meteorological station. On all three days when exceedances were
recorded, hourly spikes in PM-10 levels corresponded to increases in
hourly wind speeds.\19\ Hourly wind speeds of more than 26 mph and
sustained hourly wind speeds of more than 20 mph for several hours were
measured on all three days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Memo from Donna Deneen to the Fort Hall Docket, dated April
26, 2010, regarding PM-10 Exceedances and Wind Speeds on April 15,
May 20, and August 26, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All three exceedances were flagged timely by the Sho-Ban Tribes as
high wind events under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule (72 FR 13560,
March 22, 2007). Under EPA's Exceptional Events Rule, EPA may exclude
data from regulatory determinations related to exceedances or
violations of the NAAQS if it is adequately demonstrated that an
exceptional event caused the exceedance or violation. 40 CFR 50.1,
50.14. In this case, EPA need not determine whether the flagged
exceedances can be considered as caused by ``exceptional events'' under
the Exceptional Events Rule. For the purposes of the current attainment
determination, inclusion of these exceedances does not affect EPA's
determination of the area's attainment status. In other words, even if
EPA includes all three days of exceedances monitored at the TEOM in
2008, the data show that the area attained the PM-10 standard and under
the existing monitoring record, EPA's proposed determination that the
area has attained the standard is not dependent on whether the 2008
exceedances qualify for exclusion under the Exceptional Events Rule. If
in the future we determine that it is appropriate to evaluate whether
the exceedances qualify as caused by exceptional events and may be
excluded from regulatory determinations, we will do so at that time in
accordance with the Exceptional Events Rule.
III. Proposed Action
A. Proposed Determination of Attainment
EPA is, by this document, proposing to determine that the Fort Hall
nonattainment area has attained the 24-hour PM-10 standard, based on
complete, quality-assured monitoring data for 2007-2009, and data
available to date for 2010. This proposed finding of attainment is not
a proposed redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). If
this proposal is finalized, the designation status in 40 CFR part 81
for the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area would remain moderate
nonattainment until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment
as provided in CAA section 107(d)(3). If this proposal is finalized,
and EPA subsequently determines after notice and comment rulemaking,
that the area is no longer attaining the NAAQS, EPA will publish such
determination in the Federal Register.
B. Withdrawal of June 19, 1998 Proposal
It has now been twelve years since EPA proposed to make a finding
of nonattainment for the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area (63 FR
33605, June 19, 1998). In light of all the changes that have taken
place over that time, including the promulgation of the FIP, the
cessation of the production of elemental phosphorous at FMC, the low
levels of PM-10 recorded in the area, and the consent decree with
Sierra Club that provides for an attainment determination for the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area based on 2007-2009 data, EPA is
withdrawing its June 19, 1998 proposed rulemaking and issuing this
proposal in its place. Accordingly, EPA will not be responding to
comments on the June 19, 1998 proposal. Any person who wishes to
comment on EPA's proposed finding that the Fort Hall nonattainment area
attained the 24-hour PM-10 standard as of December 31, 2009 should do
so at this time.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data, and would, if finalized, not result in the imposition of any
additional Federal requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible
[[Page 26904]]
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
proposed rule merely makes a required determination based on air
quality data and would neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law, the requirements
of sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless provided a
consultation opportunity to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in a letter to
the Chairman of the Fort Hall Business Council, dated January 25, 2010,
offering the Tribes the opportunity to consult on this determination
and have meaningful and timely input into this proposed decision. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 3, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010-11139 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
