Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Idaho; Regional Haze Progress Report, 13582-13587 [2019-06739]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13582
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(iii) The travel burden on covered
veterans based upon their medical
conditions and the geographic location
of eligible transplant centers.
(iv) The timeliness of transplant
center evaluations and management.
(3) This paragraph (d) applies to
covered veterans who meet one or more
conditions of eligibility under
§ 17.4010(a) and:
(i) Require an organ or bone marrow
transplant as determined by VA based
upon generally-accepted medical
criteria; and
(ii) Have, in the opinion of the
primary care provider of the veteran, a
medically compelling reason, as
determined in consideration of the
factors described in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section, to travel outside the region
of the Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network in which the
veteran resides, to receive such
transplant.
[FR Doc. 2019–06730 Filed 4–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0571; FRL–9991–69–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Idaho; Regional
Haze Progress Report
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Table of Contents
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Idaho’s Regional Haze Progress Report
(‘‘progress report’’ or ‘‘report’’),
submitted by the State of Idaho on June
28, 2016, as a revision to the Idaho
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP). Idaho submitted its progress
report and a negative declaration stating
that further revision of the existing
Regional Haze SIP is not needed at this
time. The progress report addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and the federal Regional Haze Rule that
require states to submit periodic reports
describing progress made toward
achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and
a determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing plan addressing regional
haze.
DATES: Comments are due no later than
May 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Apr 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
OAR–2017–0571 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and
Waste (OAW–150), EPA, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101; (206) 553–1185;
chi.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background
II. Context for Understanding Idaho’s
Progress Report
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
B. Data Sources for Idaho’s Progress Report
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Idaho’s Progress
Report
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
SIP
1. BART-Level Controls
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)/Major New Source Review (NSR)
3. Smoke Management
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy
D. Summary of Emissions Reductions
E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR
51.308 (h))
F. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (40 CFR 51.308 (i))
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Idaho submitted its initial Regional
Haze SIP to the EPA on October 25,
2010, for the first regional haze planning
period ending in 2018, which the EPA
approved on June 22, 2011, and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
November 8, 2012.1 Five years after
submittal of the initial regional haze
plan, states were required to submit
progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each mandatory
Class I Federal area 2 (Class I area)
within the state and in each Class I area
outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. 40
CFR 51.308(g). States were also required
to submit, at the same time as the
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On June
28, 2016, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
submitted, as a SIP revision, a report on
the progress made in the first
implementation period towards the
RPGs for Class I areas. EPA is proposing
to approve Idaho’s progress report on
the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also
propose to find that Idaho’s progress
report demonstrates that the state’s longterm strategy and emission control
measures in the existing Regional Haze
SIP are sufficient to enable Idaho to
meet all established RPGs for 2018.
II. Context for Understanding Idaho’s
Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of
Idaho’s progress report as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of it, this section
provides background on the regional
haze program in Idaho.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for
determining visibility conditions at
Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview
index,’’ which is measured in
deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301.
The deciview index is calculated using
monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (‘‘IMPROVE’’)
network monitors. Idaho has five Class
I areas: Hells Canyon Wilderness,
Sawtooth Wilderness, Craters of the
Moon National Monument, Yellowstone
National Park, and Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness. Both Hells Canyon
Wilderness and Yellowstone National
Park have portions within Idaho, but the
majority of the land masses for both of
these Class I areas are in other states.
For this reason, Idaho set the RPGs for
Hells Canyon Wilderness, Sawtooth
1 See 76 FR 36329 (Jun. 22, 2011) and 77 FR
66929 (Nov. 8, 2012).
2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for a list
of Class I areas.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Wilderness, and Craters of the Moon
National Monument and the 5-year
Progress Report analyzes progress
towards the RPGs at these three Class I
areas.
In developing its initial Regional Haze
SIP as part of the Western Regional Air
Partnership (‘‘WRAP’’), Idaho
determined, and the EPA in its approval
agreed, that implementation of best
available retrofit technology (‘‘BART’’)
and other existing measures in the
State’s regional haze plan was sufficient
to address the visibility impact of
sources in Idaho on Class I areas in
other states. See 77 FR 66929, 66933.
Therefore, Idaho’s progress report does
not address the visibility impact of
Idaho sources on Class I areas in other
states.
Under the Regional Haze Rule, a
state’s initial Regional Haze SIP must
establish two RPGs for each of its Class
I areas: One for the 20-percent least
impaired days and one for the 20percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in
visibility on the 20-percent most
impaired days and ensure no
degradation in visibility on the 20percent least impaired days, as
compared to visibility conditions during
the baseline period. In establishing the
RPGs, a state must consider the uniform
rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064
and the emission reductions measures
needed to achieve it. Idaho set the RPGs
for the Hells Canyon Wilderness,
Sawtooth Wilderness, and the Craters of
the Moon National Monument Class I
areas. In setting the RPGs for these three
Class I areas, Idaho used atmospheric air
quality modeling based on projected
emission reductions from control
strategies in Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP,
as well as emission reductions expected
to result from other federal, state, and
local air quality programs.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Data Sources for Idaho’s Progress
Report
Idaho relied on the WRAP technical
data and analyses in a report titled
‘‘Western Regional Air Partnership
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress
Summary Report’’ (‘‘WRAP Report’’),
dated June 28, 2013, included as an
appendix to the progress report. The
WRAP Report analyzes monitoring data
collected in Idaho during the 2005–2009
period, and it relies on emission data
reported to the EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) up until
2011. Idaho then supplemented the
information in the WRAP report with
more current 2007–2011 visibility data
for its Class I areas as part of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Apr 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
progress report adopted by the state in
2015.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Idaho’s
Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Idaho’s progress report and the EPA’s
evaluation of the report, as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of the determination of
adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h)
and the requirement for state and
Federal Land Manager (FLM)
coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
SIP
In its progress report, Idaho provided
a description of the control measures in
the state’s Regional Haze SIP that the
state relied on to implement the regional
haze program. Idaho relied in its
Regional Haze SIP upon, among other
things, BART controls, its Prevention of
Significant Deterioration/New Source
Review permitting program, and its
smoke management programs for
agricultural and forestry burning to
achieve the RPGs it established for its
Class I areas. Idaho included a
description of these programs in the
progress report, which is summarized
below.
1. BART-Level Controls
Idaho’s original Regional Haze SIP
imposed BART-level controls on two
sources, the #5 Rotary Kiln at the P4
Production (formerly Monsanto) Soda
Springs facility and the Riley Boiler at
The Amalgamated Sugar Company
(TASCO), Nampa facility. In 2005, P4
Production underwent a Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) review and
installed a lime-concentrated dual-alkali
(LCDA) scrubber on the #5 Rotary Kiln
to control sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions. Idaho determined, and EPA
in its approval agreed, that BART for the
#5 Rotary Kiln was an emission limit of
143 pounds per hour of SO2 achieved
through application of the LCDA
scrubber. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun.
22, 2011).3 Idaho also concluded that
existing controls were BART for the
nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate
matter (PM) emissions from the #5
Rotary Kiln. EPA also approved this
determination. See 76 FR 36329, 36339
(Jun. 22, 2011). The emission limits are
embodied in federally enforceable
permits that Idaho continues to
administer.
For TASCO, Idaho determined that
flue gas desulfurization and low NOX
3 The SO emissions limit is embodied in Idaho
2
Permit T2–2009.0109, which is included in the
Docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13583
burners with over-fire air were the
appropriate control technologies for the
BART-eligible Riley Boiler. EPA
approved BART for the Riley Boiler on
May 22, 2012 (77 FR 66929).
Subsequently, Idaho submitted
revisions to its Regional Haze SIP that
included a revised BART determination
for the TASCO Nampa facility.
Specifically, Idaho’s revised BART
determination included a more stringent
NOX emission limit, a more stringent
PM emission limit, and a BART
alternative to replace the SO2 BART
determination. In addition to the more
stringent NOX and PM emission limits
for the Riley Boiler, the BART
alternative relied on control of NOX
emissions from two non-BART eligible
boilers at the TASCO Nampa facility, as
well as taking into account the emission
reductions resulting from the permanent
shutdown of three coal-fired pulp
dryers. EPA approved Idaho’s revised
BART determination for the TASCO
Nampa facility on April 28, 2014. See 79
FR 23273, 23277. The BART emissions
limits are embodied in a federally
enforceable permit that went into effect
on December 23, 2011. Idaho continues
to administer this permit.
2. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)/Major New Source
Review (NSR)
Idaho’s progress report states that a
key regulatory program for addressing
visibility impairment from new or
modified industrial stationary sources is
the state’s PSD/NSR program. This
program protects visibility in Class I
areas from impacts from new major or
modified major stationary sources.
According to the progress report,
Idaho’s PSD program requires new or
major modifications to model the
emissions impacts on Class I areas
within 300 kilometers to determine if
the change in visibility above natural
levels is significant. According to the
progress report, Idaho continues to
implement the PSD/NSR program.
3. Smoke Management
In addition, Idaho continues to
implement its crop residue and burning
program. EPA published its approval of
Idaho’s SIP revisions relating to open
burning and crop residue disposal
requirements on August 1, 2008 (73 FR
44915, 44919), March 19, 2013 (78 FR
16760, 16791), and most recently on
June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28382, 28385). The
compliance rate has improved through
education and outreach, and Idaho DEQ
has hired a meteorologist to guide burn
decisions. There have also been
improvements in the prescribed burning
(forestry) program. Specifically, Idaho
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
13584
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DEQ is working closely with the Idaho
and Montana Airshed group, and Idaho
DEQ’s smoke manager and
meteorologist are involved in the day to
day burn decisions. Both the crop
residue and burning and the prescribed
burning programs have improved
through cooperative agreements with
the Idaho Department of Lands and the
burn permits now have specific
language requiring burners to comply
with Idaho open burning rules.
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
In addition to the evaluation of
control measures, Idaho documented
the differences between the visibility
conditions during the baseline period
(2000–2004), the first progress period
(2005–2009), and the most current fiveyear averaging period (2010–2014).
Idaho used data available at the time
Idaho developed the progress report in
2015. As part of our review, the EPA
supplemented this information with
current 2012–2016 data, as shown in
Table 1.4
TABLE 1—IDAHO CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20-PERCENT MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAY
IMPROVE
monitor
Baseline
(2001–2004)
(dv) 5
Class I area
First
progress
period
(2005–2009)
(dv)
Progress
report update
(2010–2014)
(dv)
Most
recent data
(2012–2016)
(dv)
2018
reasonable
progress goal
(dv)
20-percent Most Impaired Days
CRMO1 ..........
SWAT1 ..........
SULA1 ...........
Craters of the Moon NM ...................
Sawtooth Wilderness ........................
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness ...........
14.0
13.8
13.4
13.6
14.8
17.0
14.1
15.7
15.0
14.1
15.2
11.3
13.06
13.22
12.94
3.0
3.0
1.7
2.8
2.5
1.5
3.9
3.8
2.5
20-percent Least Impaired Days
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
CRMO1 ..........
SWAT1 ..........
SULA1 ...........
Craters of the Moon NM ...................
Sawtooth Wilderness ........................
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness ...........
4.3
4
2.6
3.4
3.8
2.5
As shown in Table 1, all Class I areas
experienced improvements in visibility
for the 20-percent least impaired days
between the baseline (2000–2004) and
the most recent (2012–2016) visibility
periods. According to Idaho’s progress
report, all Class I areas are meeting the
RPGs for the 20-percent least impaired
days. Idaho’s progress report included
an analysis of progress and
impediments to progress. Regarding the
20-percent most impaired days,
according to the most recent monitoring
data (2012–2016), the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness (SULA1 monitor) is meeting
the RPG for the 20-percent most
impaired days. However, according to
the 2012–2016 data, visibility in the
Sawtooth Wilderness (SWAT1 monitor)
and the Craters of the Moon NM
(CRMO1 monitor) is not meeting the
2018 RPGs for the 20-percent most
impaired days.
According to the progress report,
visibility has not improved in the
Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the
Moon NM due to smoke from episodic
wildfires in the area. Figures 6, 7, and
8 in the progress report show that SO2
and NOX emissions have decreased
since 2000. In contrast, coarse PM
emissions have increased during the
same period. Figure 14, Figure 15, and
Appendix D of the progress report show
that, even though there has been a
steady reduction in ammonium sulfate
formation since 2000, indicative of a
reduction in anthropogenic
contributions to visibility impairment,
particulate organic mass has
consistently remained the dominant
contributor to light extinction. The
Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the
Moon NM experienced a notable spike
in light extinction caused by particulate
organic mass emissions in 2012, which
likely contributed to the areas not
meeting their RPGs. The 2012 fires
potentially impacting the Sawtooth
Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM
include the Halstead Fire (181,000
acres), Mustang Complex (340,600
acres), and the Trinity Ridge Fire
(146,800 acres).6
4 See document entitled ‘‘visibility data trends’’
included in the Docket for this action.
5 For all Idaho Class I monitoring sites,
monitoring began in late 2000; therefore, only three
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Apr 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy
The progress report also contained a
review of Idaho’s visibility monitoring
strategy. Idaho concluded that the
IMPROVE network continues to comply
with the monitoring requirements in the
Regional Haze Rule and that no
modifications to Idaho’s visibility
monitoring strategy are necessary at this
time.
D. Summary of Emissions Reductions
The Idaho progress report also
included a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the
state from the control measures
discussed above. Specifically, Idaho
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
identified emissions reductions
achieved through emissions controls on
Idaho BART-eligible sources, including
the P4 Production and the TASCO
Nampa facilities. According to Idaho,
implementation of BART caused
significant reductions in emissions at
both facilities. Installation of the LCDA
scrubber on the P4 Production facility
reduced SOX emissions by 11,000 tons
per year. NOX emissions at the TASCO
Nampa facility have also declined due
to compliance with the BART
requirements, namely implementation
of low NOX burners, switching to
natural gas, and the permanent
shutdown of pulp dryers. Specifically,
the BART alternative for the TASCO
Nampa Facility achieved NOX emissions
reductions of 221 tons per year, SO2
emissions reductions of 20.6 tons per
year, and PM emissions reductions of
113 tons per year (78 FR 38872).
The progress report also discussed
improvements in Idaho’s smoke
management programs made during the
first planning period, as noted above.
The progress report summarized
changes in emission inventories for all
major visibility impairing pollutants
from point, area, on-road mobile, offroad mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and
road dust, and anthropogenic fire source
categories in the state. For these
summaries, emissions during the
baseline years are represented using a
complete years of monitoring data, 2002–2004,
define their baselines.
6 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/201213.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
13585
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
2002 inventory, which was developed
with support from the WRAP for use in
the original Regional Haze SIP
development. Differences between
inventories are represented as the
differences between the 2002 inventory,
the 2008 inventory, and the 2011
inventory which leverages recent
inventory development work performed
by the WRAP for the West-wide Jump
Start Air Quality Modeling Study
(WestJumpAQMS) and Deterministic &
Empirical Assessment of Smoke’s
Contribution to Ozone Project
(DEASCO3) modeling projects.
The progress report also included an
analysis tracking the change in
emissions since the first progress period
and the most recent progress period.
Specifically, Idaho states that there has
been a substantial reduction in
anthropogenic sources of both SO2 and
NOX. Estimated emissions reductions
for SO2 and NOX are summarized in
Table 2 and Table 3, below. These
reductions are primarily attributed to
the BART controls and the Tier II
reductions in sulfur content of fuels and
NOX vehicle emission standards. We
note that the other visibility impairing
pollutants (primary organic aerosols,
elemental carbon) also generally
declined as detailed in Chapter 2.3 of
the progress report. As shown in Table
4 below, emissions increased for fine
and coarse particulate matter because of
a major change to the fugitive road dust
calculations between 2008 and 2011.7
TABLE 2—SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year)
2002
2008
2011
Anthropogenic Sources
Point .............................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Fugitive and Road Dust ...............................................................................................................
Anthropogenic Fire ......................................................................................................................
17,613
3,280
1,662
3,702
4
895
7,490
9,068
339
281
25
2,499
6,954
2,070
198
122
95
2,460
Total Anthropogenic .............................................................................................................
27,156
19,702
11,899
Natural Fire ..................................................................................................................................
Biogenic .......................................................................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .........................................................................................................................
12,008
0
0
852
0
0
3,005
0
0
Total Natural .........................................................................................................................
12,008
852
3,005
39,164
20,554
14,904
Natural Sources
All Sources
Total Emissions ....................................................................................................................
TABLE 3—NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
Nitrogen oxides emissions (tons/year)
2002
2008
2011
Anthropogenic Sources
Point .............................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Fugitive and Road Dust ...............................................................................................................
Anthropogenic Fire ......................................................................................................................
11,487
30,318
44,611
27,922
5
3,461
12,671
19,892
44,556
14,132
13
11,368
11,591
6,205
45,575
20,900
50
6,122
Total Anthropogenic .............................................................................................................
117,804
102,632
90,443
Natural Fire ..................................................................................................................................
Biogenic .......................................................................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .........................................................................................................................
39,401
16,982
0
3,815
4,806
0
7,878
4,459
0
Total Natural .........................................................................................................................
56,383
8,621
12,337
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Natural Sources
7 Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the
windblown dust inventory comparisons and
increased for the combined fugitive/road dust
inventories. Idaho noted that large variability in
changes in windblown dust was observed for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Apr 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
contiguous WRAP states, which was likely due in
large part to enhancements in dust inventory
methodology, rather than changes in actual
emissions. For most parameters, especially primary
organic aerosols, volatile organic compounds, and
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire
estimates increased.
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
13586
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY—Continued
Nitrogen oxides emissions (tons/year)
2002
2008
2011
All Sources
Total Emissions ....................................................................................................................
174,187
111,253
102,780
TABLE 4—FINE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
Fine particulate emissions (tons/year)
2002
2008
2011
Anthropogenic Sources
Point .............................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Fugitive and Road Dust ...............................................................................................................
Anthropogenic Fire ......................................................................................................................
305
4,749
0
0
4,839
1,536
0
2,364
175
46
12,564
8,358
246
408
185
0
44,037
18
Total Anthropogenic .............................................................................................................
11,429
23,507
44,894
Natural Fire ..................................................................................................................................
Biogenic .......................................................................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .........................................................................................................................
3,013
0
5,050
2,780
0
5,286
18
0
11,068
Total Natural .........................................................................................................................
8,063
8,066
11,086
19,492
31,573
55,980
Natural Sources
All Sources
Total Emissions ....................................................................................................................
In its progress report, Idaho
concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving
visibility as a result of actions identified
in the Regional Haze SIP, as well as
actions taken by adjoining states, the
federal government, the WRAP, and the
Western States Air Resources Council.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR
51.308(h))
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1), if the state determines that
the existing implementation plan
requires no further substantive revision
in order to achieve established goals for
visibility improvement and emissions
reductions, the state must provide to the
Administrator a negative declaration
that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed at
this time. Within the progress report,
Idaho provided a negative declaration
stating that further revision of the
existing implementation plan is not
needed. The basis for the state’s
negative declaration is the finding that
visibility on the 20-percent least
impaired days has improved from the
baseline period, and the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Class I area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Apr 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
attained its 2018 RPGs at the IMPROVE
monitor. The Sawtooth Wilderness and
the Craters of the Moon NM did not
meet the 2018 RPGs for the 20-percent
most impaired days at their respective
monitors, which Idaho demonstrated
was due to smoke from wildfires in
2012.8
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find
that Idaho adequately addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its
determination that the existing Idaho
Regional Haze SIP requires no
substantive revisions at this time.
F. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i),
the state must provide the FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation, in person
8 EPA acknowledged in its approval of Idaho’s
Regional Haze SIP that the overwhelming amount
of visibility impairment due to fire on the 20percent most impaired days at Idaho’s Class I areas
is due to natural fire. See 77 FR 66929, 66933. In
our approval of Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP, we
agreed with Idaho’s conclusion that no additional
controls on non-BART stationary sources in Idaho
were reasonable for the first planning period
because any visibility improvement expected from
additional controls would likely be minimal due to
the outsized influence of wildfires on visibility
impairment. Id. at 66931.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearings on an implementation
plan (or plan revision). The state must
also include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. The State of Idaho invited the
FLMs to comment on its draft progress
report on January 28, 2016, for a 60-day
comment period ending March 28, 2016,
prior to releasing the report for public
comment. Idaho included the FLM
comment and a description of how it
addressed the comment in Appendix E
of the progress report.
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho
has addressed the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(i). Idaho provided a 60-day
period for the FLMs to comment on the
progress report, which was at least 60
days before seeking public comments,
and provided a summary of these
comments and responses to these
comments in the progress report.
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Idaho Regional Haze Progress Report
submitted to the EPA on June 28, 2016,
as meeting the applicable requirements
of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA
proposes to find that the existing
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Regional Haze SIP is adequate to meet
the state’s visibility goals and requires
no substantive revision at this time, as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We
propose to find that Idaho fulfilled the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i)
regarding state coordination with FLMs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
it does not involve technical standards;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:17 Apr 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The proposed SIP would not be
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility,
and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 27, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019–06739 Filed 4–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–0033;
FXES111300000900000 178 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018–BC65
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population
of the California Condor in the Pacific
Northwest
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
supplemental information.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
propose to establish a nonessential
experimental population (NEP) of the
California condor (Gymnogyps
californianus) in the Pacific Northwest,
under section 10(j) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Establishment of this NEP will facilitate
reintroduction of California condors to
the region and provide for allowable
legal incidental taking of the California
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13587
condor within a defined NEP area. The
geographic boundaries of the NEP
would include northern California,
northwest Nevada, and Oregon. The best
available data indicate that
reintroduction of the California condor
into the Pacific Northwest is
biologically feasible and will promote
the conservation of the species. We are
seeking comments on this proposal and
on our joint FWS–National Park Service
environmental assessment (EA),
prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended, which analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed reintroduction and
designation of a nonessential
experimental population.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
June 4, 2019. Please note that if you are
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES), the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit
comments by one of the following
methods:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2018–
0033, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking. Then, click the Search
button. On the resulting page, in the
Search panel on the left side of the
screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the box next to
Proposed Rules to locate this document.
You may submit a comment by clicking
on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2018–
0033, Division of Policy, Performance,
and Management Programs, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS; BPHC; 5275
Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Copies of documents: This proposed
rule is available on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2018–0033. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8339.
You may obtain copies of the EA and
submit comments on that document at:
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/redwood.
Information regarding public meetings
E:\FR\FM\05APP1.SGM
05APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13582-13587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06739]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0571; FRL-9991-69-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Idaho;
Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Idaho's Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or
``report''), submitted by the State of Idaho on June 28, 2016, as a
revision to the Idaho Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Idaho submitted its progress report and a negative declaration stating
that further revision of the existing Regional Haze SIP is not needed
at this time. The progress report addresses requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and the federal Regional Haze Rule that require states to
submit periodic reports describing progress made toward achieving
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing
regional haze.
DATES: Comments are due no later than May 6, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0571 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of
Air and Waste (OAW-150), EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 553-1185; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Context for Understanding Idaho's Progress Report
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
B. Data Sources for Idaho's Progress Report
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Idaho's Progress Report
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the
Regional Haze SIP
1. BART-Level Controls
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Major New
Source Review (NSR)
3. Smoke Management
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy
D. Summary of Emissions Reductions
E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308 (h))
F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308 (i))
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Idaho submitted its initial Regional Haze SIP to the EPA on October
25, 2010, for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018,
which the EPA approved on June 22, 2011, and November 8, 2012.\1\ Five
years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan, states were
required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the
RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I area) within
the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be
affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States
were also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report,
a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On June 28, 2016, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted, as a SIP revision, a report on
the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs
for Class I areas. EPA is proposing to approve Idaho's progress report
on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We
also propose to find that Idaho's progress report demonstrates that the
state's long-term strategy and emission control measures in the
existing Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable Idaho to meet all
established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 76 FR 36329 (Jun. 22, 2011) and 77 FR 66929 (Nov. 8,
2012).
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D for a list of Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Context for Understanding Idaho's Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of Idaho's progress report as
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on
the regional haze program in Idaho.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (``IMPROVE'')
network monitors. Idaho has five Class I areas: Hells Canyon
Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, Craters of the Moon National Monument,
Yellowstone National Park, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Both Hells
Canyon Wilderness and Yellowstone National Park have portions within
Idaho, but the majority of the land masses for both of these Class I
areas are in other states. For this reason, Idaho set the RPGs for
Hells Canyon Wilderness, Sawtooth
[[Page 13583]]
Wilderness, and Craters of the Moon National Monument and the 5-year
Progress Report analyzes progress towards the RPGs at these three Class
I areas.
In developing its initial Regional Haze SIP as part of the Western
Regional Air Partnership (``WRAP''), Idaho determined, and the EPA in
its approval agreed, that implementation of best available retrofit
technology (``BART'') and other existing measures in the State's
regional haze plan was sufficient to address the visibility impact of
sources in Idaho on Class I areas in other states. See 77 FR 66929,
66933. Therefore, Idaho's progress report does not address the
visibility impact of Idaho sources on Class I areas in other states.
Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state's initial Regional Haze SIP
must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20-
percent least impaired days and one for the 20-percent most impaired
days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20-
percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on
the 20-percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility
conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a
state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions
measures needed to achieve it. Idaho set the RPGs for the Hells Canyon
Wilderness, Sawtooth Wilderness, and the Craters of the Moon National
Monument Class I areas. In setting the RPGs for these three Class I
areas, Idaho used atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected
emission reductions from control strategies in Idaho's Regional Haze
SIP, as well as emission reductions expected to result from other
federal, state, and local air quality programs.
B. Data Sources for Idaho's Progress Report
Idaho relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report
titled ``Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable
Progress Summary Report'' (``WRAP Report''), dated June 28, 2013,
included as an appendix to the progress report. The WRAP Report
analyzes monitoring data collected in Idaho during the 2005-2009
period, and it relies on emission data reported to the EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) up until 2011. Idaho then supplemented the
information in the WRAP report with more current 2007-2011 visibility
data for its Class I areas as part of the progress report adopted by
the state in 2015.
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Idaho's Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Idaho's progress report and
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager (FLM) coordination in 40
CFR 51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP
In its progress report, Idaho provided a description of the control
measures in the state's Regional Haze SIP that the state relied on to
implement the regional haze program. Idaho relied in its Regional Haze
SIP upon, among other things, BART controls, its Prevention of
Significant Deterioration/New Source Review permitting program, and its
smoke management programs for agricultural and forestry burning to
achieve the RPGs it established for its Class I areas. Idaho included a
description of these programs in the progress report, which is
summarized below.
1. BART-Level Controls
Idaho's original Regional Haze SIP imposed BART-level controls on
two sources, the #5 Rotary Kiln at the P4 Production (formerly
Monsanto) Soda Springs facility and the Riley Boiler at The Amalgamated
Sugar Company (TASCO), Nampa facility. In 2005, P4 Production underwent
a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review and installed a lime-
concentrated dual-alkali (LCDA) scrubber on the #5 Rotary Kiln to
control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Idaho determined,
and EPA in its approval agreed, that BART for the #5 Rotary Kiln was an
emission limit of 143 pounds per hour of SO2 achieved
through application of the LCDA scrubber. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun.
22, 2011).\3\ Idaho also concluded that existing controls were BART for
the nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM)
emissions from the #5 Rotary Kiln. EPA also approved this
determination. See 76 FR 36329, 36339 (Jun. 22, 2011). The emission
limits are embodied in federally enforceable permits that Idaho
continues to administer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The SO2 emissions limit is embodied in Idaho
Permit T2-2009.0109, which is included in the Docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For TASCO, Idaho determined that flue gas desulfurization and low
NOX burners with over-fire air were the appropriate control
technologies for the BART-eligible Riley Boiler. EPA approved BART for
the Riley Boiler on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 66929). Subsequently, Idaho
submitted revisions to its Regional Haze SIP that included a revised
BART determination for the TASCO Nampa facility. Specifically, Idaho's
revised BART determination included a more stringent NOX
emission limit, a more stringent PM emission limit, and a BART
alternative to replace the SO2 BART determination. In
addition to the more stringent NOX and PM emission limits
for the Riley Boiler, the BART alternative relied on control of
NOX emissions from two non-BART eligible boilers at the
TASCO Nampa facility, as well as taking into account the emission
reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown of three coal-fired
pulp dryers. EPA approved Idaho's revised BART determination for the
TASCO Nampa facility on April 28, 2014. See 79 FR 23273, 23277. The
BART emissions limits are embodied in a federally enforceable permit
that went into effect on December 23, 2011. Idaho continues to
administer this permit.
2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Major New Source
Review (NSR)
Idaho's progress report states that a key regulatory program for
addressing visibility impairment from new or modified industrial
stationary sources is the state's PSD/NSR program. This program
protects visibility in Class I areas from impacts from new major or
modified major stationary sources. According to the progress report,
Idaho's PSD program requires new or major modifications to model the
emissions impacts on Class I areas within 300 kilometers to determine
if the change in visibility above natural levels is significant.
According to the progress report, Idaho continues to implement the PSD/
NSR program.
3. Smoke Management
In addition, Idaho continues to implement its crop residue and
burning program. EPA published its approval of Idaho's SIP revisions
relating to open burning and crop residue disposal requirements on
August 1, 2008 (73 FR 44915, 44919), March 19, 2013 (78 FR 16760,
16791), and most recently on June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28382, 28385). The
compliance rate has improved through education and outreach, and Idaho
DEQ has hired a meteorologist to guide burn decisions. There have also
been improvements in the prescribed burning (forestry) program.
Specifically, Idaho
[[Page 13584]]
DEQ is working closely with the Idaho and Montana Airshed group, and
Idaho DEQ's smoke manager and meteorologist are involved in the day to
day burn decisions. Both the crop residue and burning and the
prescribed burning programs have improved through cooperative
agreements with the Idaho Department of Lands and the burn permits now
have specific language requiring burners to comply with Idaho open
burning rules.
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Idaho documented
the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline
period (2000-2004), the first progress period (2005-2009), and the most
current five-year averaging period (2010-2014). Idaho used data
available at the time Idaho developed the progress report in 2015. As
part of our review, the EPA supplemented this information with current
2012-2016 data, as shown in Table 1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See document entitled ``visibility data trends'' included in
the Docket for this action.
Table 1--Idaho Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20-Percent Most and Least Impaired Day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First progress Progress Most recent 2018
Baseline (2001- period (2005- report update data (2012- reasonable
IMPROVE monitor Class I area 2004) (dv) \5\ 2009) (dv) (2010-2014) 2016) (dv) progress goal
(dv) (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-percent Most Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRMO1................................. Craters of the Moon NM...... 14.0 13.6 14.1 14.1 13.06
SWAT1................................. Sawtooth Wilderness......... 13.8 14.8 15.7 15.2 13.22
SULA1................................. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 13.4 17.0 15.0 11.3 12.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-percent Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRMO1................................. Craters of the Moon NM...... 4.3 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.9
SWAT1................................. Sawtooth Wilderness......... 4 3.8 3.0 2.5 3.8
SULA1................................. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 2.6 2.5 1.7 1.5 2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, all Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility for the 20-percent least impaired days between the baseline
(2000-2004) and the most recent (2012-2016) visibility periods.
According to Idaho's progress report, all Class I areas are meeting the
RPGs for the 20-percent least impaired days. Idaho's progress report
included an analysis of progress and impediments to progress. Regarding
the 20-percent most impaired days, according to the most recent
monitoring data (2012-2016), the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SULA1
monitor) is meeting the RPG for the 20-percent most impaired days.
However, according to the 2012-2016 data, visibility in the Sawtooth
Wilderness (SWAT1 monitor) and the Craters of the Moon NM (CRMO1
monitor) is not meeting the 2018 RPGs for the 20-percent most impaired
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For all Idaho Class I monitoring sites, monitoring began in
late 2000; therefore, only three complete years of monitoring data,
2002-2004, define their baselines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the progress report, visibility has not improved in
the Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM due to smoke from
episodic wildfires in the area. Figures 6, 7, and 8 in the progress
report show that SO2 and NOX emissions have
decreased since 2000. In contrast, coarse PM emissions have increased
during the same period. Figure 14, Figure 15, and Appendix D of the
progress report show that, even though there has been a steady
reduction in ammonium sulfate formation since 2000, indicative of a
reduction in anthropogenic contributions to visibility impairment,
particulate organic mass has consistently remained the dominant
contributor to light extinction. The Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of
the Moon NM experienced a notable spike in light extinction caused by
particulate organic mass emissions in 2012, which likely contributed to
the areas not meeting their RPGs. The 2012 fires potentially impacting
the Sawtooth Wilderness and Craters of the Moon NM include the Halstead
Fire (181,000 acres), Mustang Complex (340,600 acres), and the Trinity
Ridge Fire (146,800 acres).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/201213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Visibility Monitoring Strategy
The progress report also contained a review of Idaho's visibility
monitoring strategy. Idaho concluded that the IMPROVE network continues
to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule
and that no modifications to Idaho's visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary at this time.
D. Summary of Emissions Reductions
The Idaho progress report also included a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the state from the control measures
discussed above. Specifically, Idaho identified emissions reductions
achieved through emissions controls on Idaho BART-eligible sources,
including the P4 Production and the TASCO Nampa facilities. According
to Idaho, implementation of BART caused significant reductions in
emissions at both facilities. Installation of the LCDA scrubber on the
P4 Production facility reduced SOX emissions by 11,000 tons
per year. NOX emissions at the TASCO Nampa facility have
also declined due to compliance with the BART requirements, namely
implementation of low NOX burners, switching to natural gas,
and the permanent shutdown of pulp dryers. Specifically, the BART
alternative for the TASCO Nampa Facility achieved NOX
emissions reductions of 221 tons per year, SO2 emissions
reductions of 20.6 tons per year, and PM emissions reductions of 113
tons per year (78 FR 38872).
The progress report also discussed improvements in Idaho's smoke
management programs made during the first planning period, as noted
above. The progress report summarized changes in emission inventories
for all major visibility impairing pollutants from point, area, on-road
mobile, off-road mobile, oil and gas, fugitive and road dust, and
anthropogenic fire source categories in the state. For these summaries,
emissions during the baseline years are represented using a
[[Page 13585]]
2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use
in the original Regional Haze SIP development. Differences between
inventories are represented as the differences between the 2002
inventory, the 2008 inventory, and the 2011 inventory which leverages
recent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the West-
wide Jump Start Air Quality Modeling Study (WestJumpAQMS) and
Deterministic & Empirical Assessment of Smoke's Contribution to Ozone
Project (DEASCO3) modeling projects.
The progress report also included an analysis tracking the change
in emissions since the first progress period and the most recent
progress period. Specifically, Idaho states that there has been a
substantial reduction in anthropogenic sources of both SO2
and NOX. Estimated emissions reductions for SO2
and NOX are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3, below. These
reductions are primarily attributed to the BART controls and the Tier
II reductions in sulfur content of fuels and NOX vehicle
emission standards. We note that the other visibility impairing
pollutants (primary organic aerosols, elemental carbon) also generally
declined as detailed in Chapter 2.3 of the progress report. As shown in
Table 4 below, emissions increased for fine and coarse particulate
matter because of a major change to the fugitive road dust calculations
between 2008 and 2011.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Fine soil and coarse mass decreased for the windblown dust
inventory comparisons and increased for the combined fugitive/road
dust inventories. Idaho noted that large variability in changes in
windblown dust was observed for the contiguous WRAP states, which
was likely due in large part to enhancements in dust inventory
methodology, rather than changes in actual emissions. For most
parameters, especially primary organic aerosols, volatile organic
compounds, and elemental carbon, natural fire emission inventory
estimates decreased, and anthropogenic fire estimates increased.
Table 2--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur dioxide emissions (tons/year)
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2008 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 17,613 7,490 6,954
Area............................................................ 3,280 9,068 2,070
On-Road Mobile.................................................. 1,662 339 198
Off-Road Mobile................................................. 3,702 281 122
Fugitive and Road Dust.......................................... 4 25 95
Anthropogenic Fire.............................................. 895 2,499 2,460
-----------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......................................... 27,156 19,702 11,899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire.................................................... 12,008 852 3,005
Biogenic........................................................ 0 0 0
Wind Blown Dust................................................. 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Natural............................................... 12,008 852 3,005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions............................................. 39,164 20,554 14,904
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Nitrogen Oxides Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen oxides emissions (tons/year)
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2008 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 11,487 12,671 11,591
Area............................................................ 30,318 19,892 6,205
On-Road Mobile.................................................. 44,611 44,556 45,575
Off-Road Mobile................................................. 27,922 14,132 20,900
Fugitive and Road Dust.......................................... 5 13 50
Anthropogenic Fire.............................................. 3,461 11,368 6,122
-----------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......................................... 117,804 102,632 90,443
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire.................................................... 39,401 3,815 7,878
Biogenic........................................................ 16,982 4,806 4,459
Wind Blown Dust................................................. 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total Natural............................................... 56,383 8,621 12,337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13586]]
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions............................................. 174,187 111,253 102,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Fine Particulate Emissions by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine particulate emissions (tons/year)
-----------------------------------------------
2002 2008 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 305 0 246
Area............................................................ 4,749 2,364 408
On-Road Mobile.................................................. 0 175 185
Off-Road Mobile................................................. 0 46 0
Fugitive and Road Dust.......................................... 4,839 12,564 44,037
Anthropogenic Fire.............................................. 1,536 8,358 18
-----------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic......................................... 11,429 23,507 44,894
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Fire.................................................... 3,013 2,780 18
Biogenic........................................................ 0 0 0
Wind Blown Dust................................................. 5,050 5,286 11,068
-----------------------------------------------
Total Natural............................................... 8,063 8,066 11,086
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions............................................. 19,492 31,573 55,980
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its progress report, Idaho concluded that the state is making
adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of actions
identified in the Regional Haze SIP, as well as actions taken by
adjoining states, the federal government, the WRAP, and the Western
States Air Resources Council.
E. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines
that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive
revision in order to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the
Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the
progress report, Idaho provided a negative declaration stating that
further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The
basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding that
visibility on the 20-percent least impaired days has improved from the
baseline period, and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Class I area
attained its 2018 RPGs at the IMPROVE monitor. The Sawtooth Wilderness
and the Craters of the Moon NM did not meet the 2018 RPGs for the 20-
percent most impaired days at their respective monitors, which Idaho
demonstrated was due to smoke from wildfires in 2012.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA acknowledged in its approval of Idaho's Regional Haze
SIP that the overwhelming amount of visibility impairment due to
fire on the 20-percent most impaired days at Idaho's Class I areas
is due to natural fire. See 77 FR 66929, 66933. In our approval of
Idaho's Regional Haze SIP, we agreed with Idaho's conclusion that no
additional controls on non-BART stationary sources in Idaho were
reasonable for the first planning period because any visibility
improvement expected from additional controls would likely be
minimal due to the outsized influence of wildfires on visibility
impairment. Id. at 66931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Idaho adequately
addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination
that the existing Idaho Regional Haze SIP requires no substantive
revisions at this time.
F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60
days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or
plan revision). The state must also include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The State of Idaho invited
the FLMs to comment on its draft progress report on January 28, 2016,
for a 60-day comment period ending March 28, 2016, prior to releasing
the report for public comment. Idaho included the FLM comment and a
description of how it addressed the comment in Appendix E of the
progress report.
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho has addressed the requirements
in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Idaho provided a 60-day period for the FLMs to
comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days before
seeking public comments, and provided a summary of these comments and
responses to these comments in the progress report.
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the Idaho Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on June 28, 2016, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing
[[Page 13587]]
Regional Haze SIP is adequate to meet the state's visibility goals and
requires no substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(h). We propose to find that Idaho fulfilled the requirements in
40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with FLMs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; 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 proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 27, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-06739 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
