Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval of Fine Particulate Matter Control Measures; Franklin County, 78315-78318 [2013-30857]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area and the EPA is therefore approving this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated October 18, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 12, 2013. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2013–30878 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Dec 24, 2013 Jkt 232001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0002; FRL–9904–53– Region 10] Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval of Fine Particulate Matter Control Measures; Franklin County Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: On December 14, 2012, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the Idaho portion (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Franklin County’’) of the cross border Logan, Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (Logan UT– ID). The EPA is proposing a limited approval of PM2.5 control measures contained in the December 2012 submittal because incorporation of these measures would strengthen the Idaho SIP and reduce sources of PM2.5 emissions in Franklin County that contribute to violations of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area. Consequently, the EPA is not acting on the entire contents of the December 2012 SIP submission revision at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2013–0002, by any of the following methods: • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: R10Public_Comments@epa.gov. • Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. • Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT– 107. 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–2013– 0002. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 78315 personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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 www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101. Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206) 553– 0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. Background II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5 Control Measures III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 78316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS I. Background The 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), set forth at 40 CFR 50.13, effective December 18, 2006, include 24-hour standards of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006). Effective December 14, 2009, the EPA designated the Logan UT–ID area (cross state, partial county designation) as a nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 2009). The EPA included a portion of Franklin County, Idaho within the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area because emissions from sources in Idaho contribute to violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan, UT–ID area as a whole.1 In March 2012, the EPA issued guidance to states for implementation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (March 2012 Implementation Guidance).2 In this guidance, the EPA recommended that states submit SIP revisions to meet the nonattainment area planning requirements of the CAA within three years of the effective date of the nonattainment area designation. The EPA also recommended in the guidance that states make submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with the substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (Provisions for Implementation of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 51.1000 et seq.). Accordingly, in December 2012, IDEQ submitted a SIP revision intended to address the nonattainment planning requirements for the Franklin County portion of the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area (also referred to as ‘‘Cache Valley’’). On January 4, 2013, however, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia remanded to the EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ which forms the basis of the 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z nonattainment planning requirements in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court concluded that the EPA had improperly based the implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely upon the requirements of part D, subpart 1 of the CAA, and had failed to address the requirements of part D, subpart 4. As a result of the Court’s 1 Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) Designations, Sections 4.8.2 and 4.10.2 (Dec. 2008). 2 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Dec 24, 2013 Jkt 232001 decision with respect to the statutory implementation requirements for PM2.5 nonattainment areas the EPA withdrew its March 2012 Implementation Guidance because it was based largely on the remanded rule promulgated to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.3 The EPA is currently engaged in rulemaking to address the remand from the Court. In the interim, however, the EPA believes that it may still be appropriate to take certain actions on SIP submissions from states intended to address nonattainment planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. IDEQ’s December 2012 SIP submission presented the state’s evaluation of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the area. IDEQ explained that the Franklin County portion of the overall Logan UT–ID nonattainment area is rural and sparsely populated, containing only 10% of the overall Logan UT–ID nonattainment population base. Franklin County contains no major point sources of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors, defined by IDEQ for purposes of this SIP revision as a facility with the potential to emit annual emissions of 100 tons or more. Additionally, IDEQ stated that Franklin County accounts for roughly one-tenth of the overall mobile source emissions from cars and trucks and generally small area source contributions in the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area. Because the majority of emission sources impacting the nonattainment area are located outside Franklin County, IDEQ’s December 2012 SIP submittal acknowledged that control measures either already promulgated or required as part of the Utah SIP are necessary to demonstrate attainment for the entire Logan UT–ID area. As part of its December 2012 submission, IDEQ included a modeled attainment test conducted by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). This modeled attainment test predicted the Logan UT–ID area would attain by the end of 2014 based solely on control measures adopted in the Utah portion of the area, with the Idaho controls providing additional reductions. Because the Idaho submission relies on the Utah control measures in demonstrating attainment, however, the EPA must also complete a comprehensive review of Utah’s SIP submission for the Logan UT–ID area before the EPA can act on the entire SIP 3 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Withdrawal of Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6, 2013). PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 submission for the Franklin County portion of the area. Moreover, the EPA’s evaluation of the SIP submissions from both states would need to include the emissions inventory, approach to PM2.5 precursors, analysis and adoption of reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control technology (RACM and RACT), reasonable further progress (RFP) and quantitative milestones, contingency measures, and the attainment demonstration. The EPA will need to evaluate these submissions against the statutory requirements of part D, subpart 4. In light of the court’s decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, and the need to evaluate the IDEQ submission in conjunction with the SIP submission for the Utah portion of the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area, the EPA is not at this time making a determination whether IDEQ’s December 2012 SIP submission satisfies all of the statutory nonattainment planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, the EPA’s proposed action on IDEQ’s December 2012 SIP revision is limited to approving specific control measures included in the submission that are expected to strengthen the SIP. These measures independently meet requirements for control measures in attainment plans and the emissions reductions they achieve will contribute to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan UT–ID area. Despite the limited nature of this proposed approval, the EPA believes that approval and incorporation of the control measures in the December 2012 SIP submission strengthen the Idaho SIP and provide important PM2.5 emission reductions. II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5 Control Measures IDEQ, in close coordination with UDAQ, completed an emissions inventory for directly emitted PM2.5 (primary PM2.5) and the PM2.5 precursors sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia. An analysis of the baseline year emissions inventory indicated that sources in Franklin County contribute about onefifth of the overall area primary PM2.5 emissions during wintertime episodes when the area is most likely to violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The important source categories identified for this contribution of primary PM2.5 consist of 70% reintrained dust from winter road sanding, 14% residential wood burning emissions, and 6% mobile source primary PM2.5 emissions. E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules It is important to note that the EPA is not in this action evaluating whether IDEQ’s or UDAQ’s evaluation of which PM2.5 precursors should be controlled within Franklin County, or within the entire Logan UT–ID area, is correct and consistent with the statutory requirements of part D, subpart 4. Nevertheless, the EPA agrees with IDEQ’s determination that control of direct PM2.5 emissions in this area is a necessary and appropriate step that will contribute to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area. To reduce the contribution of primary PM2.5 from reentrained dust on paved roads, IDEQ entered into road sanding agreements with Franklin County Road and Bridge and the Idaho Transportation Department as part of the SIP. The Franklin County Road and Bridge agreement reduces the amount of sand used on paved roads by substituting a brine solution when appropriate. For those times when antiskid treatment is required, Franklin County Road and Bridge agreed to use a 4-to-1 sand to salt ratio instead of the 10-to-1 ratio used in past years. Similarly, the Idaho Transportation Department agreed to use straight salt and liquid salt brine throughout Franklin County, except for occasional extenuating circumstances that warrant additional anti-skid materials. IDEQ used the EPA’s AP–42 road dust emission estimation methodology in calculating future PM2.5 reductions and found that the road sanding agreements would reduce primary PM2.5 emissions from 0.47 tons per day in an uncontrolled scenario to 0.37 tons per day by 2014, for a typical winter weekday. Although the road sanding agreements are expected to reduce emissions of PM2.5, they are not directly enforceable. However, the road sanding agreements are similar to agreements previously approved by the EPA as voluntary measures in the Idaho SIP (70 FR 29247), and consistently implemented by the relevant state, county and municipal governments. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to approve the road sanding agreements as voluntary measures in accordance with existing guidance.4 IDEQ also worked with local jurisdictions in Franklin County to establish residential woodstove ordinances to control primary PM2.5 and VOC emissions from non-EPA certified devices during mandatory burn ban days. IDEQ’s Air Quality Index (AQI) program supports the local jurisdictions by calling mandatory burn bans for uncertified woodstoves when PM2.5 concentration levels are at or forecasted 78317 to reach 25.4 mg/m3. The ordinances also ban open burning of any kind during burn ban days. Lastly, the ordinances prohibit the sale or installation of non-EPA certified devices in new or existing buildings, and prohibit the construction of any building for which a solid fuel burning device is the sole source of heat. Because the residential woodstove burn ban program for Franklin County was newly launched in the 2012–2013 heating season, to estimate the PM2.5 reductions are difficult and were not included in the emission reduction modeling runs. Lastly, IDEQ conducted two woodstove change-out programs in 2006 and 2011 replacing a total of 152 uncertified residential wood combustion devices in Franklin County. In developing the emissions inventory for Franklin County, IDEQ calculated an estimated 5.78 tons per year of primary PM2.5 emissions reductions from these change-out programs. The recently enacted woodstove ordinances prohibit the sale or installation of uncertified devices which will help to assure that the 2006, 2011, and any future changeout programs will continue to provide lasting emissions reductions benefits over time. TABLE 1—FRANKLIN COUNTY PM2.5 CONTROL MEASURES State or local effective date Title tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Letter of Intent PM2.5 Reduction, Franklin County Road Department to Department of Environmental Quality (Voluntary Measure). Road Sanding Agreement, Idaho Transportation Department to Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Voluntary Measure). Ordinance No. 120, City of Clifton, Idaho ........................................................................................................................... Ordinance No. 287, City of Dayton, Idaho ......................................................................................................................... Franklin City Ordinance, Solid Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012–9–12 ......................................................................... Franklin County Ordinance, Solid Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012–6–25 .................................................................... Memorandum of Understanding, Solid Fuel Heating Appliances, City of Oxford, Idaho ................................................... Ordinance No. 2012–1, City of Preston, Idaho .................................................................................................................. Ordinance No. 2012–01, City of Weston, Idaho ................................................................................................................. III. Proposed Action The EPA proposes to approve and incorporate into the SIP the specific control measures submitted by IDEQ on December 14, 2012. These control measures are listed in Table 1 and full copies are included in Appendix E of Idaho’s SIP revision and in the docket for this proposed action. If finally approved by the EPA, these specific control measures will become part of the Idaho SIP for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As described above, at this time the EPA is not making a determination that these control measures satisfy RACM or any other statutory nonattainment area planning requirements under part D, subpart 4. However, the control measures adopted by IDEQ in the Franklin County portion of the Logan UT–ID area provide important PM2.5 reductions that strengthen the existing Idaho SIP. Due to the cross-state nature of the Logan UT–ID nonattainment area, the EPA will act on the remainder of Idaho’s December 2012 SIP submission 17:18 Dec 24, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 October 25, 2012. August 11, 2012. August 8, 2012. September 12, 2012. June 25, 2012. October 22, 2012. June 11, 2012. August 1, 2012. following a complete review of the corresponding Utah SIP submission. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action 4 Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (Sept. 2004). VerDate Mar<15>2010 July 16, 2012. E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1 78318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS merely proposes to approve state law as 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); • 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, 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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 Dec 24, 2013 Jkt 232001 Dated: December 13, 2013. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Adminstrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2013–30857 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 13–302, RM–11709; DA 13– 2391] Television Broadcasting Services; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by Family Broadcasting Group, Inc. (‘‘Family Broadcasting’’), the licensee of station KSBI(TV), channel 51, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, requesting the substitution of channel 23 for channel 51 at Oklahoma City. While the Commission instituted a freeze on the acceptance of full power television rulemaking petitions requesting channel substitutions in May 2011, it subsequently announced that it would lift the freeze to accept such petitions for rulemaking seeking to relocate from channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary relocation agreement with Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees. Family Broadcasting has entered into such a voluntary relocation agreement with U.S. Cellular Corporation and states that operation on channel 23 would eliminate potential interference to and from wireless operations in the adjacent Lower 700 MHZ A Block. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 10, 2014, and reply comments on or before January 27, 2014. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: John W. Bagwell, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC, 2000 K Street NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Bernstein, Joyce.Bernstein@ fcc.gov, Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 13–302, adopted December 16, 2013, and released December 16, 2013. The full text of this document is available for SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC’s Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http:// www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 800–478–3160 or via email www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see §§ 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Television. Federal Communications Commission. Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Proposed Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78315-78318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30857]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0002; FRL-9904-53-Region 10]


Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval of Fine 
Particulate Matter Control Measures; Franklin County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 14, 2012, the Idaho Department of Environmental 
Quality (IDEQ) submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) to address Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the Idaho portion 
(hereafter referred to as ``Franklin County'') of the cross border 
Logan, Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
nonattainment area (Logan UT-ID). The EPA is proposing a limited 
approval of PM2.5 control measures contained in the December 
2012 submittal because incorporation of these measures would strengthen 
the Idaho SIP and reduce sources of PM2.5 emissions in 
Franklin County that contribute to violations of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan UT-ID nonattainment area. 
Consequently, the EPA is not acting on the entire contents of the 
December 2012 SIP submission revision at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0002, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
     Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. 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-
2013-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
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 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information, 
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 
docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle WA, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at telephone number: (206) 
553-0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 
this preamble.

I. Background
II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5 Control 
Measures
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 78316]]

I. Background

    The 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS), set forth at 40 CFR 50.13, effective December 18, 2006, 
include 24-hour standards of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) 
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 
concentrations (71 FR 61144, Oct. 17, 2006). Effective December 14, 
2009, the EPA designated the Logan UT-ID area (cross state, partial 
county designation) as a nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 2009). The EPA 
included a portion of Franklin County, Idaho within the Logan UT-ID 
nonattainment area because emissions from sources in Idaho contribute 
to violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Logan, 
UT-ID area as a whole.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Technical Support for State and Tribal Air Quality 24-Hour 
Fine Particulate (PM2.5) Designations, Sections 4.8.2 and 
4.10.2 (Dec. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2012, the EPA issued guidance to states for implementation 
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (March 2012 Implementation 
Guidance).\2\ In this guidance, the EPA recommended that states submit 
SIP revisions to meet the nonattainment area planning requirements of 
the CAA within three years of the effective date of the nonattainment 
area designation. The EPA also recommended in the guidance that states 
make submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with 
the substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z (Provisions 
for Implementation of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, 40 CFR 51.1000 et seq.). Accordingly, in December 2012, IDEQ 
submitted a SIP revision intended to address the nonattainment planning 
requirements for the Franklin County portion of the Logan UT-ID 
nonattainment area (also referred to as ``Cache Valley'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Implementation Guidance for 
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (Mar. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 4, 2013, however, the Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia remanded to the EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule'' which forms the basis of the 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart Z nonattainment planning requirements in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court 
concluded that the EPA had improperly based the implementation rule for 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS solely upon the requirements of part D, 
subpart 1 of the CAA, and had failed to address the requirements of 
part D, subpart 4. As a result of the Court's decision with respect to 
the statutory implementation requirements for PM2.5 
nonattainment areas the EPA withdrew its March 2012 Implementation 
Guidance because it was based largely on the remanded rule promulgated 
to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The EPA is currently 
engaged in rulemaking to address the remand from the Court. In the 
interim, however, the EPA believes that it may still be appropriate to 
take certain actions on SIP submissions from states intended to address 
nonattainment planning requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Withdrawal of 
Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Jun. 6, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEQ's December 2012 SIP submission presented the state's 
evaluation of the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the area. 
IDEQ explained that the Franklin County portion of the overall Logan 
UT-ID nonattainment area is rural and sparsely populated, containing 
only 10% of the overall Logan UT-ID nonattainment population base. 
Franklin County contains no major point sources of PM2.5 or 
PM2.5 precursors, defined by IDEQ for purposes of this SIP 
revision as a facility with the potential to emit annual emissions of 
100 tons or more. Additionally, IDEQ stated that Franklin County 
accounts for roughly one-tenth of the overall mobile source emissions 
from cars and trucks and generally small area source contributions in 
the Logan UT-ID nonattainment area. Because the majority of emission 
sources impacting the nonattainment area are located outside Franklin 
County, IDEQ's December 2012 SIP submittal acknowledged that control 
measures either already promulgated or required as part of the Utah SIP 
are necessary to demonstrate attainment for the entire Logan UT-ID 
area.
    As part of its December 2012 submission, IDEQ included a modeled 
attainment test conducted by the Utah Department of Environmental 
Quality Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). This modeled attainment test 
predicted the Logan UT-ID area would attain by the end of 2014 based 
solely on control measures adopted in the Utah portion of the area, 
with the Idaho controls providing additional reductions. Because the 
Idaho submission relies on the Utah control measures in demonstrating 
attainment, however, the EPA must also complete a comprehensive review 
of Utah's SIP submission for the Logan UT-ID area before the EPA can 
act on the entire SIP submission for the Franklin County portion of the 
area. Moreover, the EPA's evaluation of the SIP submissions from both 
states would need to include the emissions inventory, approach to 
PM2.5 precursors, analysis and adoption of reasonably 
available control measures and reasonably available control technology 
(RACM and RACT), reasonable further progress (RFP) and quantitative 
milestones, contingency measures, and the attainment demonstration. The 
EPA will need to evaluate these submissions against the statutory 
requirements of part D, subpart 4.
    In light of the court's decision in Natural Resources Defense 
Council v. EPA, and the need to evaluate the IDEQ submission in 
conjunction with the SIP submission for the Utah portion of the Logan 
UT-ID nonattainment area, the EPA is not at this time making a 
determination whether IDEQ's December 2012 SIP submission satisfies all 
of the statutory nonattainment planning requirements for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, the EPA's proposed action on IDEQ's 
December 2012 SIP revision is limited to approving specific control 
measures included in the submission that are expected to strengthen the 
SIP. These measures independently meet requirements for control 
measures in attainment plans and the emissions reductions they achieve 
will contribute to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 
Logan UT-ID area. Despite the limited nature of this proposed approval, 
the EPA believes that approval and incorporation of the control 
measures in the December 2012 SIP submission strengthen the Idaho SIP 
and provide important PM2.5 emission reductions.

II. Description of the Franklin County PM2.5 Control 
Measures

    IDEQ, in close coordination with UDAQ, completed an emissions 
inventory for directly emitted PM2.5 (primary 
PM2.5) and the PM2.5 precursors sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), and ammonia. An analysis of the baseline year 
emissions inventory indicated that sources in Franklin County 
contribute about one-fifth of the overall area primary PM2.5 
emissions during wintertime episodes when the area is most likely to 
violate the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The important source 
categories identified for this contribution of primary PM2.5 
consist of 70% reintrained dust from winter road sanding, 14% 
residential wood burning emissions, and 6% mobile source primary 
PM2.5 emissions.

[[Page 78317]]

It is important to note that the EPA is not in this action evaluating 
whether IDEQ's or UDAQ's evaluation of which PM2.5 
precursors should be controlled within Franklin County, or within the 
entire Logan UT-ID area, is correct and consistent with the statutory 
requirements of part D, subpart 4. Nevertheless, the EPA agrees with 
IDEQ's determination that control of direct PM2.5 emissions 
in this area is a necessary and appropriate step that will contribute 
to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area.
    To reduce the contribution of primary PM2.5 from 
reentrained dust on paved roads, IDEQ entered into road sanding 
agreements with Franklin County Road and Bridge and the Idaho 
Transportation Department as part of the SIP. The Franklin County Road 
and Bridge agreement reduces the amount of sand used on paved roads by 
substituting a brine solution when appropriate. For those times when 
antiskid treatment is required, Franklin County Road and Bridge agreed 
to use a 4-to-1 sand to salt ratio instead of the 10-to-1 ratio used in 
past years. Similarly, the Idaho Transportation Department agreed to 
use straight salt and liquid salt brine throughout Franklin County, 
except for occasional extenuating circumstances that warrant additional 
anti-skid materials. IDEQ used the EPA's AP-42 road dust emission 
estimation methodology in calculating future PM2.5 
reductions and found that the road sanding agreements would reduce 
primary PM2.5 emissions from 0.47 tons per day in an 
uncontrolled scenario to 0.37 tons per day by 2014, for a typical 
winter weekday. Although the road sanding agreements are expected to 
reduce emissions of PM2.5, they are not directly 
enforceable. However, the road sanding agreements are similar to 
agreements previously approved by the EPA as voluntary measures in the 
Idaho SIP (70 FR 29247), and consistently implemented by the relevant 
state, county and municipal governments. Accordingly, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the road sanding agreements as voluntary measures 
in accordance with existing guidance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State 
Implementation Plan (Sept. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEQ also worked with local jurisdictions in Franklin County to 
establish residential woodstove ordinances to control primary 
PM2.5 and VOC emissions from non-EPA certified devices 
during mandatory burn ban days. IDEQ's Air Quality Index (AQI) program 
supports the local jurisdictions by calling mandatory burn bans for 
uncertified woodstoves when PM2.5 concentration levels are 
at or forecasted to reach 25.4 [mu]g/m\3\. The ordinances also ban open 
burning of any kind during burn ban days. Lastly, the ordinances 
prohibit the sale or installation of non-EPA certified devices in new 
or existing buildings, and prohibit the construction of any building 
for which a solid fuel burning device is the sole source of heat. 
Because the residential woodstove burn ban program for Franklin County 
was newly launched in the 2012-2013 heating season, to estimate the 
PM2.5 reductions are difficult and were not included in the 
emission reduction modeling runs. Lastly, IDEQ conducted two woodstove 
change-out programs in 2006 and 2011 replacing a total of 152 
uncertified residential wood combustion devices in Franklin County. In 
developing the emissions inventory for Franklin County, IDEQ calculated 
an estimated 5.78 tons per year of primary PM2.5 emissions 
reductions from these change-out programs. The recently enacted 
woodstove ordinances prohibit the sale or installation of uncertified 
devices which will help to assure that the 2006, 2011, and any future 
change-out programs will continue to provide lasting emissions 
reductions benefits over time.

             Table 1--Franklin County PM2.5 Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                    State or local effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of Intent PM2.5 Reduction,   July 16, 2012.
 Franklin County Road Department
 to Department of Environmental
 Quality (Voluntary Measure).
Road Sanding Agreement, Idaho       October 25, 2012.
 Transportation Department to
 Idaho Department of Environmental
 Quality (Voluntary Measure).
Ordinance No. 120, City of          August 11, 2012.
 Clifton, Idaho.
Ordinance No. 287, City of Dayton,  August 8, 2012.
 Idaho.
Franklin City Ordinance, Solid      September 12, 2012.
 Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012-
 9-12.
Franklin County Ordinance, Solid    June 25, 2012.
 Fuel Heating Appliances, No. 2012-
 6-25.
Memorandum of Understanding, Solid  October 22, 2012.
 Fuel Heating Appliances, City of
 Oxford, Idaho.
Ordinance No. 2012-1, City of       June 11, 2012.
 Preston, Idaho.
Ordinance No. 2012-01, City of      August 1, 2012.
 Weston, Idaho.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve and incorporate into the SIP the 
specific control measures submitted by IDEQ on December 14, 2012. These 
control measures are listed in Table 1 and full copies are included in 
Appendix E of Idaho's SIP revision and in the docket for this proposed 
action. If finally approved by the EPA, these specific control measures 
will become part of the Idaho SIP for purposes of the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. As described above, at this time the EPA is not 
making a determination that these control measures satisfy RACM or any 
other statutory nonattainment area planning requirements under part D, 
subpart 4. However, the control measures adopted by IDEQ in the 
Franklin County portion of the Logan UT-ID area provide important 
PM2.5 reductions that strengthen the existing Idaho SIP. Due 
to the cross-state nature of the Logan UT-ID nonattainment area, the 
EPA will act on the remainder of Idaho's December 2012 SIP submission 
following a complete review of the corresponding Utah SIP submission.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action

[[Page 78318]]

merely proposes to approve state law as 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);
     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 the EPA with the discretionary authority 
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible 
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Adminstrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-30857 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P