Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Idaho, Northern Ada County PM10, 59435-59438 [2014-23365]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Idaho, Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: July 25, 2014. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(442) to read as follows: ■ Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (442) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on February 10, 2014 by the Governor’s Designee. (i) Incorporation by Reference. (A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 101, ‘‘Definitions,’’ revised on October 22, 2013. (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 1020, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended on February 21, 2013. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–23400 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 [EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0247; FRL–9917–38– Region 10] Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan submitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on March 11, 2013, for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to ten micrometers (PM10). Northern Ada County was identified as an area of concern for PM10 with the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 1987, and was formally designated as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area upon passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments. In October 2003, the EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 Maintenance Plan and redesignated the area to attainment for PM10. This revised Maintenance Plan addresses maintenance of the PM10 standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation through 2023, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation conformity budgets. The EPA is also approving the February 15– 16, 2011 high wind exceptional event at the Boise Fire Station monitor, as well as contingency measures for the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality Improvement Plan. The EPA is approving the second ten-year PM10 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County and the Pinehurst PM10 contingency measures pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. The EPA is approving the February 2011 exceptional event pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14. The EPA received one set of adverse comments focused primarily on proposed coal export terminals that may be built in Oregon and Washington that may affect Northern Ada County. DATES: This final rule is effective on November 3, 2014. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 2013–0247. All documents in the docket are listed on the https:// SUMMARY: Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: § 52.220 40 CFR Part 52 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 59435 www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Edmondson at (360)753–9082 or Edmondson.lucy@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Northern Ada County was identified as an area of concern for PM10 with the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 1987, and was formally designated as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area upon passage of the 1990 CAA amendments. Idaho developed a state implementation plan (SIP) and submitted it to the EPA in November 1991, later submitting revisions in December 1994 and July 1995. The EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 SIP on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27019). Idaho submitted a maintenance plan and a request to redesignate the area to attainment on September 27, 2002, and provided supplemental information on July 10 and 21, 2003. On October 27, 2003, the EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 Maintenance Plan and redesignated the area to attainment status for PM10 (68 FR 61106). In actions dated August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43475) and May 26, 1995 (60 FR 27891), the EPA conditionally approved the SIP for the Pinehurst, Idaho PM10 nonattainment area. The conditional approval concluded that IDEQ had not satisfied the requirement for contingency measures for both the City E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations of Pinehurst and the Pinehurst Expansion area. The EPA set a deadline of July 20, 1995 for IDEQ to submit the required contingency measures. IDEQ met the established deadline with its submission ‘‘Contingency Measures for the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality Improvement Plan,’’ dated July 13, 1995. On September 23, 2013, IDEQ submitted documentation in accordance with the Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) to demonstrate that the monitored PM10 values on February 15– 16, 2011 at the Boise monitor were due to a high wind event and resulting dust storm that originated in Nevada. The EPA proposed approval of this maintenance plan and the Pinehurst Contingency Measures on February 20, 2014 (79 FR 9697). rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES II. Response to Comments On March 24, 2014, the EPA received one set of comments opposing the EPA’s proposed approval of Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan (Ada County PM10 plan). The comments were focused on the potential impact that possible coal export terminals, proposed to be built in the Pacific Northwest, could have on PM10 concentrations in the maintenance area. These comments are similar to comments previously submitted on February 22, 2013, related to emissions impacts of locomotive coal transport in the emissions inventory for the Tacoma fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment area (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013) and comments submitted on March 10, 2014, related to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan (79 FR 49239, August 20, 2014). The EPA responded to these comments in the May 29, 2013 and August 20, 2014 final rulemakings. Due to the specific focus of today’s action, the EPA is only addressing those comments directly relevant to the Ada County PM10 plan. A. Calculating Growth in Locomotive Traffic Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA disapprove the Ada County PM10 plan because the plan relied on general growth factors in estimating future railroad traffic without consideration of future growth associated with proposed coal export terminals that may be built in Oregon and Washington. Response: The EPA guidance regarding development of emissions inventories requires states to consider reasonably anticipated growth in emission sources such as increased vehicle miles traveled, population VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 growth, and possible emissions growth at permitted stationary sources.1 None of the projects in question are far enough along in their development that the scope or impact of their emissions can be estimated with any degree of certainty. In this case, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for coal export proposals cited in the March 24, 2014 letter are ongoing. It is not known whether the facilities will be constructed, and if they are constructed, the size and scope of operations that would be authorized. In addition, as the commenter notes, there are several possible rail routes that could be used in the future and it is not known whether locomotive traffic associated with coal shipments would traverse or bypass the Ada County maintenance area or, as may be the case, whether routes would constantly vary based on decisions by the rail operator. Given the range of uncertainty surrounding the proposed terminals, including whether the terminals will be constructed, the location (s) of such terminals and decisions of terminal and railway operators that would affect rail routes, the EPA believes it would be unreasonable to disapprove the Ada County PM10 plan on the basis that the emissions inventory did not estimate potential future events that may or may not impact the maintenance area. Should any of these coal export facilities be built in the future, both the EPA and the State have the authority under the EPA’s longstanding guidance regarding contingency measures to reexamine emissions inventories and establish additional control measures if a noticeable impact on PM10 levels in Ada County were to occur.2 B. Calculating Fugitive Dust Impacts From Coal Export Locomotive Traffic Comment: The commenter noted Washington State’s Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan submittal which included a calculation of estimated fugitive coal dust emissions as part of the 2011 baseline emissions inventory for that area (Docket No. EPA–R10– OAR–2013–0713)(Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 plan). The commenter 1 Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations—EPA–454/ R–05–001. August, 2005, updated November 2005 (hereafter ‘‘emissions inventory guidance’’ or ‘‘guidance’’). 2 Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division to Regional Air Directors, September 4, 1992. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 requested that the EPA disapprove the Ada County PM10 plan because it did not contain a comparable estimate of fugitive coal dust emissions. Response: A key difference between the Washington and Idaho plans is that there is already coal-related locomotive activity through the Washington maintenance areas on the way to export through Canada, captured as part of the 2011 baseline emissions inventory. The commenter provides no compelling evidence to suggest that Ada County experiences similar Canadian export traffic like Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma. Instead the commenter’s focus is on proposed export terminals that may or may not be built in Oregon and Washington. As noted above, consideration of potential, future impacts of projects that may or may not be built is not a reasonable basis for disapproving the Ada County PM10 plan. The EPA also notes that the commenter raised several issues specific to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10 plan fugitive dust estimation methodology which are not germane to the Ada County PM10 plan and therefore not addressed here. Comment: The Commenter noted that modeling conducted by the Sierra Club of the potential impacts of the proposed Ambre Energy Coyote Island Terminal in Morrow predicts elevated PM2.5 emissions. The commenter indicates that results for PM2.5 could be assumed to be PM10 and that this information is enough to conclude that there would be high levels of PM10 emissions that could result in exceedances in Ada County. Response: The Tran Modeling analysis evaluated potential emissions from the proposed Ambre Energy Coyote Island Terminal in Morrow, Oregon and calculated emissions near the facility at values above the NAAQS. Given the uncertainty surrounding the proposed Morrow Terminal, including whether the facility will be constructed, the EPA believes it would be unreasonable to disapprove the Ada County PM10 Maintenance Plan on the basis of this modeling analysis. In addition, because the modeling predicts emission levels near the facility in Oregon, the EPA believes it is unreasonable to draw conclusions about how these emissions could affect Ada County, Idaho. Should this facility be built in the future, both the EPA and the state have the authority under the EPA’s longstanding guidance regarding contingency measures to establish additional control measures if a noticeable impact on PM10 levels in Ada County were to occur. E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 59437 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations III. Final Action The EPA is taking final action to approve the Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures. This action approves and incorporates into the SIP the PM10 control measures submitted by IDEQ on March 11, 2013 and July 13, 1995, respectively. The EPA is also approving the February 15– 16, 2011 high wind exceptional event at the Boise Fire Station monitor. Provisions describing state or local enforcement authority are not incorporated into the SIP to avoid potential conflict with the EPA’s independent authorities. 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 Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 1, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 11, 2014. Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart N—Idaho 2. In § 52.670, paragraph (e), the table entitled ‘‘EPA–APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI–REGULATORY MEASURES’’ is amended by adding two new entries at the end of the table. The additions read as follows: ■ § 52.670 * Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date * * * Northern Ada County PM10 Northern Ada County ............. Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan. Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Pinehurst/Shoshone County .. Measures. * 3/11/13 * 10/2/14 [Insert FR citation]. 7/13/95 10/2/14 [Insert FR citation]. rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Name of SIP provision VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 EPA approval date E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 Comments * * 59438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 3. Section 52.672 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows: § 52.672 Approval of plans. * * * * * (e) * * * (2) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan, the Northern Ada County PM10 Second TenYear Maintenance Plan adopted by the State on March 11, 2013. (3) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan, the Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures, adopted by the State on July 13, 1995. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–23365 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 [EPA–R06–RCRA–2012–0793; FRL–9916– 02–Region 6] Arkansas: Final Authorization of StateInitiated Changes and Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: During a review of Arkansas’ regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified a variety of State-initiated changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have determined that these changes are minor and satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization and are authorizing the State-initiated changes through this Direct Final action. The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize States to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA uses the regulations entitled ‘‘Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs’’ to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA’s inspection and enforcement. The rule codifies in the regulations the prior approval of Arkansas’ hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State’s statutes and regulations. rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 This regulation is effective December 1, 2014, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment on the codification of the Arkansas authorized RCRA program by the close of business November 3, 2014. If the EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect. The incorporation by reference of authorized provisions in the Arkansas statutes and regulations contained in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 1, 2014 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2 Email: patterson.alima@epa.gov or banks.julia@epa.gov. 3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 2733. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2012– XXXX. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including 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 email. The Federal https://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 https:// 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 DATES: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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. (For additional information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/ dockets.htm). You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this authorization and codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone number: (214) 665–8533 or (214) 665– 8178. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/ Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Phone numbers: (214) 665–8533 and (214) 665–8178, and Email address: patterson.alima@epa.gov or banks.julia@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authorization of State-Initiated Changes A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary? States which have received Final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. As the Federal program changes, the States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State hazardous waste programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA’s regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. States can also initiate their own E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59435-59438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23365]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0247; FRL-9917-38-Region 10]


Revision to the Idaho State Implementation Plan; Approval and 
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans: Idaho, Northern Ada 
County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst 
PM10 Contingency Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan 
submitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on 
March 11, 2013, for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
less than or equal to ten micrometers (PM10). Northern Ada 
County was identified as an area of concern for PM10 with 
the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 1987, and was formally 
designated as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area upon 
passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments. In October 2003, 
the EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 Maintenance 
Plan and redesignated the area to attainment for PM10. This 
revised Maintenance Plan addresses maintenance of the PM10 
standard for a second ten-year period beyond redesignation through 
2023, extends the horizon years, and contains revised transportation 
conformity budgets. The EPA is also approving the February 15-16, 2011 
high wind exceptional event at the Boise Fire Station monitor, as well 
as contingency measures for the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality 
Improvement Plan. The EPA is approving the second ten-year 
PM10 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County and the 
Pinehurst PM10 contingency measures pursuant to section 110 
of the CAA. The EPA is approving the February 2011 exceptional event 
pursuant to 40 CFR 50.14. The EPA received one set of adverse comments 
focused primarily on proposed coal export terminals that may be built 
in Oregon and Washington that may affect Northern Ada County.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0247. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, 
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, 
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The 
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Edmondson at (360)753-9082 or 
Edmondson.lucy@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Northern Ada County was identified as an area of concern for 
PM10 with the promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 
1987, and was formally designated as a moderate PM10 
nonattainment area upon passage of the 1990 CAA amendments. Idaho 
developed a state implementation plan (SIP) and submitted it to the EPA 
in November 1991, later submitting revisions in December 1994 and July 
1995. The EPA approved the Northern Ada County PM10 SIP on 
May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27019). Idaho submitted a maintenance plan and a 
request to redesignate the area to attainment on September 27, 2002, 
and provided supplemental information on July 10 and 21, 2003. On 
October 27, 2003, the EPA approved the Northern Ada County 
PM10 Maintenance Plan and redesignated the area to 
attainment status for PM10 (68 FR 61106).
    In actions dated August 25, 1994 (59 FR 43475) and May 26, 1995 (60 
FR 27891), the EPA conditionally approved the SIP for the Pinehurst, 
Idaho PM10 nonattainment area. The conditional approval 
concluded that IDEQ had not satisfied the requirement for contingency 
measures for both the City

[[Page 59436]]

of Pinehurst and the Pinehurst Expansion area. The EPA set a deadline 
of July 20, 1995 for IDEQ to submit the required contingency measures. 
IDEQ met the established deadline with its submission ``Contingency 
Measures for the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality Improvement 
Plan,'' dated July 13, 1995.
    On September 23, 2013, IDEQ submitted documentation in accordance 
with the Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) to demonstrate that the 
monitored PM10 values on February 15-16, 2011 at the Boise 
monitor were due to a high wind event and resulting dust storm that 
originated in Nevada. The EPA proposed approval of this maintenance 
plan and the Pinehurst Contingency Measures on February 20, 2014 (79 FR 
9697).

II. Response to Comments

    On March 24, 2014, the EPA received one set of comments opposing 
the EPA's proposed approval of Northern Ada County PM10 
Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan (Ada County PM10 plan). The 
comments were focused on the potential impact that possible coal export 
terminals, proposed to be built in the Pacific Northwest, could have on 
PM10 concentrations in the maintenance area. These comments 
are similar to comments previously submitted on February 22, 2013, 
related to emissions impacts of locomotive coal transport in the 
emissions inventory for the Tacoma fine particulate (PM2.5) 
nonattainment area (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013) and comments submitted 
on March 10, 2014, related to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-
Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan (79 FR 49239, August 20, 
2014). The EPA responded to these comments in the May 29, 2013 and 
August 20, 2014 final rulemakings. Due to the specific focus of today's 
action, the EPA is only addressing those comments directly relevant to 
the Ada County PM10 plan.

A. Calculating Growth in Locomotive Traffic

    Comment: The commenter requested that the EPA disapprove the Ada 
County PM10 plan because the plan relied on general growth 
factors in estimating future railroad traffic without consideration of 
future growth associated with proposed coal export terminals that may 
be built in Oregon and Washington.
    Response: The EPA guidance regarding development of emissions 
inventories requires states to consider reasonably anticipated growth 
in emission sources such as increased vehicle miles traveled, 
population growth, and possible emissions growth at permitted 
stationary sources.\1\ None of the projects in question are far enough 
along in their development that the scope or impact of their emissions 
can be estimated with any degree of certainty. In this case, the 
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and/or the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes for coal export proposals 
cited in the March 24, 2014 letter are ongoing. It is not known whether 
the facilities will be constructed, and if they are constructed, the 
size and scope of operations that would be authorized. In addition, as 
the commenter notes, there are several possible rail routes that could 
be used in the future and it is not known whether locomotive traffic 
associated with coal shipments would traverse or bypass the Ada County 
maintenance area or, as may be the case, whether routes would 
constantly vary based on decisions by the rail operator. Given the 
range of uncertainty surrounding the proposed terminals, including 
whether the terminals will be constructed, the location (s) of such 
terminals and decisions of terminal and railway operators that would 
affect rail routes, the EPA believes it would be unreasonable to 
disapprove the Ada County PM10 plan on the basis that the 
emissions inventory did not estimate potential future events that may 
or may not impact the maintenance area. Should any of these coal export 
facilities be built in the future, both the EPA and the State have the 
authority under the EPA's longstanding guidance regarding contingency 
measures to reexamine emissions inventories and establish additional 
control measures if a noticeable impact on PM10 levels in 
Ada County were to occur.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations--EPA-454/R-
05-001. August, 2005, updated November 2005 (hereafter ``emissions 
inventory guidance'' or ``guidance'').
    \2\ Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment. John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division 
to Regional Air Directors, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Calculating Fugitive Dust Impacts From Coal Export Locomotive 
Traffic

    Comment: The commenter noted Washington State's Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan 
submittal which included a calculation of estimated fugitive coal dust 
emissions as part of the 2011 baseline emissions inventory for that 
area (Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0713)(Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 
PM10 plan). The commenter requested that the EPA disapprove 
the Ada County PM10 plan because it did not contain a 
comparable estimate of fugitive coal dust emissions.
    Response: A key difference between the Washington and Idaho plans 
is that there is already coal-related locomotive activity through the 
Washington maintenance areas on the way to export through Canada, 
captured as part of the 2011 baseline emissions inventory. The 
commenter provides no compelling evidence to suggest that Ada County 
experiences similar Canadian export traffic like Kent, Seattle, and 
Tacoma. Instead the commenter's focus is on proposed export terminals 
that may or may not be built in Oregon and Washington. As noted above, 
consideration of potential, future impacts of projects that may or may 
not be built is not a reasonable basis for disapproving the Ada County 
PM10 plan. The EPA also notes that the commenter raised 
several issues specific to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 
PM10 plan fugitive dust estimation methodology which are not 
germane to the Ada County PM10 plan and therefore not 
addressed here.
    Comment: The Commenter noted that modeling conducted by the Sierra 
Club of the potential impacts of the proposed Ambre Energy Coyote 
Island Terminal in Morrow predicts elevated PM2.5 emissions. 
The commenter indicates that results for PM2.5 could be 
assumed to be PM10 and that this information is enough to 
conclude that there would be high levels of PM10 emissions 
that could result in exceedances in Ada County.
    Response: The Tran Modeling analysis evaluated potential emissions 
from the proposed Ambre Energy Coyote Island Terminal in Morrow, Oregon 
and calculated emissions near the facility at values above the NAAQS. 
Given the uncertainty surrounding the proposed Morrow Terminal, 
including whether the facility will be constructed, the EPA believes it 
would be unreasonable to disapprove the Ada County PM10 
Maintenance Plan on the basis of this modeling analysis. In addition, 
because the modeling predicts emission levels near the facility in 
Oregon, the EPA believes it is unreasonable to draw conclusions about 
how these emissions could affect Ada County, Idaho. Should this 
facility be built in the future, both the EPA and the state have the 
authority under the EPA's longstanding guidance regarding contingency 
measures to establish additional control measures if a noticeable 
impact on PM10 levels in Ada County were to occur.

[[Page 59437]]

III. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the Northern Ada County 
PM10 Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst 
PM10 Contingency Measures. This action approves and 
incorporates into the SIP the PM10 control measures 
submitted by IDEQ on March 11, 2013 and July 13, 1995, respectively. 
The EPA is also approving the February 15-16, 2011 high wind 
exceptional event at the Boise Fire Station monitor. Provisions 
describing state or local enforcement authority are not incorporated 
into the SIP to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent 
authorities.

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 Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 1, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 11, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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


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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. In Sec.  52.670, paragraph (e), the table entitled ``EPA-APPROVED 
IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES'' is 
amended by adding two new entries at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                    EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Northern Ada County PM10 Second    Northern Ada County         3/11/13  10/2/14 [Insert FR
 Ten-Year Maintenance Plan.                                              citation].
Pinehurst PM10 Contingency         Pinehurst/Shoshone          7/13/95  10/2/14 [Insert FR
 Measures.                          County.                              citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 59438]]


0
3. Section 52.672 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding 
paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.672  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation 
Plan, the Northern Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year 
Maintenance Plan adopted by the State on March 11, 2013.
    (3) EPA approves as a revision to the Idaho State Implementation 
Plan, the Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures, adopted by 
the State on July 13, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23365 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.