Air Plan Approval; ID: Idaho Portion of the Logan UT-ID 2006 24-Hour PM2.5, 55100-55103 [2019-22438]

Download as PDF 55100 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules Quality Models revised as of July 1, 2017. The Alaska SIP incorporates the EPA’s revisions and additions to appendix W promulgated on January 17, 2017 (82 FR 5182). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) directs SIPs to require each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit. State submission: The submission states that ADEC’s statutory authority to assess and collect permit fees is established in AS 46.14.240 Permit administration fees and AS 46.14.250 Emission fees. The permit fees for stationary sources are assessed and collected by the Air Permits Program according to 18 AAC 50, Article 4. ADEC is required to evaluate emission fee rates at least every four years and provide a written evaluation of the findings (AS 46.14.250(g); 18 AAC 50.410). EPA analysis: The EPA fullyapproved Alaska’s title V program on July 26, 2001 (66 FR 38940). While Alaska’s operating permit program is not formally approved into the SIP, it is a legal mechanism the State can use to ensure that ADEC has sufficient resources to support the air program, consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before the EPA can grant full title V approval, a state must demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. The Alaska title V program included a demonstration the State will collect a fee from title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). In addition, Alaska SIP-approved regulations at 18 AAC 50.306(d)(2) and 18 AAC 50.311(d)(2) require fees for purposes of major new source permitting as specified in 18 AAC 50, Article 4. Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Alaska has satisfied the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. State submission: The submission states that ADEC has authority to consult and cooperate with officials and representatives of any organization in the State; and persons, organization, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Oct 11, 2019 Jkt 250001 groups, public and private using, served by, interested in, or concerned with the environment of the State. The submission refers to AS 46.030.020 Powers of the department paragraphs (3) and (8) which provide authority to ADEC to consult and cooperate with affected State and local entities. EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the Alaska provisions cited above provide for local and regional authorities to participate and consult in the SIP development process. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. V. Proposed Action We are proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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). In addition, the SIP is not 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 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). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 27, 2019. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2019–22327 Filed 10–11–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R10–OAR–2018–0597; FRL–10001– 10–Region 10] Air Plan Approval; ID: Idaho Portion of the Logan UT–ID 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area; Moderate Plan Elements Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 31, 2018. Idaho’s submission addresses specific Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the Idaho portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (Logan UT–ID area). The submission fulfills Idaho’s commitment to submit Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestone attainment plan elements and updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets to the EPA. If this proposed approval is finalized, the EPA’s prior conditional approval will be removed and these elements will become fully approved. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– OAR–2018–0597, 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 electronically submit 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: Matthew Jentgen, (206) 553–0340, jentgen.matthew@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Table of Contents I. Background II. Analysis of the State’s Submission III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated a portion of Franklin County, Idaho nonattainment for the 2006 24- VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Oct 11, 2019 Jkt 250001 hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). This designation, as part of the cross-state Logan, Utah-Idaho area, required Idaho to prepare and submit an attainment plan to meet current statutory and regulatory requirements.1 On December 14, 2012, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted an attainment plan for the Idaho portion of the Logan UT–ID area. The plan addressed specific required elements, including but not limited to the following elements: Emissions inventory, Reasonably Available Control Measures/Technology (RACM/RACT), attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs). The EPA approved the baseline emissions inventory on July 18, 2014 (79 FR 41904) and the control measures on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16201). However, the EPA limited its approval of the submitted control measures 2 in light of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, holding that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant only to the general implementation requirements of Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 of the CAA rather than also the requirements specific to PM10 in Title I, Part D, Subpart 4.3 In response to the litigation, Idaho made a supplemental submission on December 24, 2014. The December 14, 2012 and December 24, 2014 submissions are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Idaho attainment plan. The EPA responded to the Court’s decision, in part, by retracting the March 2012 guidance on SIP requirements for meeting the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standards 4 and promulgating the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016). The 2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule clarified how states should meet the statutory SIP requirements under Subpart 1 and Subpart 4 that apply to areas designated as nonattainment for any PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on the 1 See part D of title I of the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007). 2 The control measures were incorporated into the Idaho SIP, but the EPA did not make a determination that the control measures satisfy the requirement to adopt and implement RACM under CAA Sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1009. 3 NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (DC Cir. 2013). 4 Memorandum of March 2, 2012 (withdrawn June 6, 2013), from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the EPA Regional Air Directors, Region I–X, ‘‘Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 55101 requirements of Subparts 1 and 4 and the 2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, on January 4, 2017, we approved Idaho’s control measures as meeting RACM/ RACT, disapproved contingency measures, and deferred action on the attainment demonstration, RFP, QM, and MVEB requirements (82 FR 729). Following our January 4, 2017, action, in an April 25, 2017 letter, Idaho committed to make a SIP submission that would further address the RFP, QM, and MVEB requirements. Because Idaho committed to address these requirements within one year, in specific ways that the EPA considered appropriate, the EPA conditionally approved the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements of the Idaho attainment plan on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 37025). In that same action, we also finalized approval of the Idaho attainment demonstration and the 2014 MVEBs as early progress budgets. Based on quality-assured, quality-controlled data for the period 2015–2017 showing that the area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, on October 19, 2018, the EPA finalized a determination of attainment by the attainment date and clean data determination for the Logan UT–ID area (83 FR 52983). Finalization of the clean data determination suspended the requirements for a nonattainment area to submit an RFP plan, MVEB for the attainment year, and other SIP requirements related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. By virtue of the EPA’s October 19, 2018 clean data determination, the obligation to submit any attainment-related SIP revisions, including an RFP Plan, quantitative milestones, and an MVEB for the attainment year for the Logan, UT–ID area are not applicable so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.1015(a). As we stated in our October 19, 2018, action, the clean data determination does not preclude the state from submitting, nor the EPA from acting on, the suspended attainment plan elements. See 83 FR 52983, 52985. II. Analysis of the State’s Submission On July 31, 2018, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to further address the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements that EPA conditionally approved on August 8, 2017 (Cache SIP Amendment or submission). The submission can be found in the docket for this action. An RFP plan or analysis must include four components, summarized as follows: (1) An implementation schedule for control measures on sources in the nonattainment area; (2) RFP projected emissions for each applicable quantitative milestone year; (3) an E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 55102 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules analysis that presents the schedule of control measures and estimated emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year and (4) an analysis that demonstrates sufficient progress on an annual basis toward attainment between the applicable baseline year to the attainment year. See 40 CFR 51.1012. Idaho’s submission addresses each of the four components required by 40 CFR 51.1012. First, the submission includes an implementation schedule for each of the three control measures. Second, the submission includes RFP projected emissions for each applicable quantitative milestone year. These measures, which were relied upon in the Idaho attainment plan, supported the attainment determination for the Logan UT–ID area based on 2015–2017 monitoring data.5 Third, Idaho provided an analysis of emissions reductions achieved for each of the control measures. The first control measure discussed in Idaho’s submission, residential wood combustion (RWC) ordinances, were adopted within Franklin County and all six Idaho cities on the Idaho side of the Logan UT–ID area (Franklin, Preston, Weston, Dayton, Clifton, and Oxford). Key elements in the current RWC ordinances include mandatory burn bans issued when PM2.5 has reached or is forecasted to reach 75 on the Air Quality Index (AQI). This AQI value corresponds to a PM2.5 concentration of 23.5 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ m3) and aligns with the RWC ordinances applicable within Cache County on the Utah side of the Logan UT–ID area. All RWC ordinances effective in Franklin County prohibit both open burning and the use of specified devices when an air quality alert is issued. The ordinances also prohibit the installation of non-EPAcertified devices. As stated in the submission, these Idaho cities and counties have implemented the ordinances and mandatory burn bans since 2012.6 Therefore, we have determined the submission demonstrates full implementation of this control measure. Idaho estimated that maximum reductions for this measure are 0.06 tons per day (tpd) direct PM2.5, 0.009 tpd nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 0.078 tpd volatile organic compounds (VOC).7 Idaho also implemented three wood stove change-out programs on the Idaho side of the Logan UT–ID area. These 5 Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date and Clean Data Determination for the Logan, UT–ID area, October 19, 2018 (83 FR 52983). 6 Cache SIP Amendment, Section 4.2 and Appendix B. 7 Cache SIP Amendment, Section 4.1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Oct 11, 2019 Jkt 250001 programs were conducted in 2006–2007, 2011–2012, and 2013–2014. Accordingly, Idaho demonstrated in the submission that a total of 209 uncertified RWC devices have been changed-out since 2006. In addition, 39 stoves were removed and destroyed through Idaho’s Alternative Energy Device tax deduction program. In total, 256 wood stoves have been changed out on the Idaho side of the Logan UT–ID area since 2006. As described in the submission (applying the appropriate temporal profile to convert to tons per day), Idaho stated these change-outs have led to reductions of 0.05 tpd direct PM2.5, 0.003 tpd NOX, and 0.13 tpd VOC.8 The final control measure implemented on the Idaho side of the Logan UT–ID area is road sanding agreements. Franklin County Road and Bridge, the City of Preston, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) entered into road sanding agreements which were submitted to the EPA and approved into the Idaho SIP on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16201). According to records submitted to Idaho and summarized in the submission, ITD used salt in 2014 (409 tons), 2015 (340 tons), and 2016 (109 tons) and did not use sand. Franklin County Road and Bridge historically used a 10:1 ratio of sand and salt; however, in the Idaho attainment plan, Franklin County committed to use a 4:1 ratio of sand and salt when anti-skid treatment is required. Franklin County also agreed to apply brine when temperatures are above 22°F, a measure that further reduces the amount of sand required by approximately 50%. The City of Preston now uses a 2:1 ratio of sand and salt at an average of 700 tons total per year. Finally, in Section 4.5 of the Cache SIP Amendment, Idaho provided an analysis that demonstrates sufficient progress on an annual basis toward attainment between the applicable baseline year to the attainment year. The analysis demonstrates that Idaho achieved emissions reductions consistent with RFP. Idaho’s RFP analysis is supported by EPA’s October 19, 2018 determination of attainment (83 FR 52983). Therefore, we propose to approve the RFP element submitted by Idaho as part of its Moderate area plan for the Logan UT–ID area. With respect to QMs, EPA regulations require that the attainment plan contain quantitative milestones to be achieved by the milestone dates that provide for objective evaluation of reasonable further progress toward timely attainment. See 40 CFR 51.1013. For 8 Cache PO 00000 SIP Amendment, Section 4.1. Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, such as the Logan UT–ID area, quantitative milestones are required no later than 3 years after December 31, 2014 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). Thus, 2017 is the first year the Logan, UT–ID area must include quantitative milestones. The 2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule states that the quantitative milestones contained in the attainment plan for a Moderate nonattainment area should be constructed such that they can be tracked, quantified and/or measured adequately in order for a state to meet its milestone reporting obligations, which are due 90 days after a given milestone date.9 The EPA suggested possible metrics that ‘‘support and demonstrate how the overall quantitative milestones identified for an area may be met, such as percent implementation of control strategies, percent compliance with implemented control measures, and adherence to a compliance schedule.’’ 10 This list was not exclusive or exhaustive but reflected the EPA’s view that the purpose of the quantitative milestone requirement is to provide an objective way to determine whether the area is making the necessary progress towards attainment by the applicable attainment date, i.e., to verify that the separate RFP requirement is met.11 Idaho’s submission includes a detailed implementation schedule, estimated emissions reductions, and 2017 QM reporting metrics for the control measures discussed above. For the wood combustion ordinances, Idaho included in the submission a summary of the wood stove and open burning curtailment days issued per year since 2012 as a means of demonstrating implementation of this measure. The objective measure to determine the progress of implementation of the wood stove change-out program is the total number of wood stove change-outs completed. For road sanding agreements, the objective metrics used to track progress are tons of sand and salt used and changes in the sand-salt ratio. On March 7, 2018, Idaho submitted a Quantitative Milestone Report to demonstrate that all emission reduction measures have been implemented, and Idaho has achieved milestones demonstrating progress toward attainment.12 The EPA responded on September 7, 2018 stating 9 40 CFR 51.1013(b). PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR 58010, 58064). 11 Id. 12 Idaho’s March 7, 2018 Quantitative Milestone Report is included in the docket for this action. 10 2016 E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules the submittal adequately met the Quantitative Mileston reporting requirements.13 Therefore, we propose to approve Idaho’s QMs as meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s implementing regulations. Lastly, with respect to MVEBs, an attainment plan must include in its RFP submission an inventory of on-road mobile source emissions in the nonattainment area for each milestone year.14 The Idaho attainment plan projected 2014 emission budgets. On August 8, 2017, the EPA approved the submitted 2014 MVEBs as early progress budgets and conditionally approved Idaho’s commitment to submit MVEBs for the 2015 attainment year (82 FR 37025). In the submission, Idaho modeled 2015 and 2017 on-road vehicle emissions. Growth in vehicle mile traveled (VMT) was estimated using automatic traffic recorder, and population growth was estimated using census data. The revised MVEBs were determined for direct PM2.5, NOX, and VOC emissions, pollutants that contribute to on-road mobile source emissions of primary and secondary particulates in the area. Idaho noted that, although ammonia (NH3) contributes to secondary aerosol formation, the region is NH3 rich, so the minimal mobile source NH3 emissions (less than 0.12 tons per day) are not considered in MVEBs. In addition, although originally thought by the state to be a primary contributor to direct PM2.5 concentrations, Idaho determined, based on the MVEB analysis, that direct PM2.5 emissions from paved road dust are not considered significant (1% of total wintertime contributions) and therefore were not included in the MVEBs. The MVEB is comprised of on-road mobile sources and vehicle emissions (exhaust, tire, and brake wear). The EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model was used to develop vehicle emissions estimates for the MVEB (Idaho used the most current version of MOVES available at the time, MOVES 2014a, for its analysis). The MVEB will apply when the EPA determines the budget is adequate for transportation conformity. According to the EPA’s conformity rule, the emissions budget acts as a ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is defined or until a SIP revision modifies the budget. Based on the analysis, Idaho set the following emissions budgets for 2015, applicable to the Idaho side of the 13 The EPA’s September 7, 2018, reply letter and supporting document are included in the docket for this action. 14 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Oct 11, 2019 Jkt 250001 Logan UT–ID area: 0.033 tpd direct PM2.5, 0.676 tpd NOX, and 0.554 tpd VOC. In the submission, Idaho included a MVEB for the 2017 RFP year that sets the following emissions budgets: 0.029 tpd direct PM2.5, 0.544 tpd NOX, and 0.467 tpd VOC. We find that Idaho has evaluated the appropriate pollutants in its MVEB analysis and included MVEBs for the appropriate milestone years. According to the EPA’s conformity rule, ammonia is a pollutant that is not required to be included in a PM2.5 nonattainment area’s MVEB unless it is determined to be a significant contributor to PM2.5 formation in the area (40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). Paved road dust can also be excluded from an area’s MVEB for similar reasons (40 CFR 93.102(b)(3)). Neither IDEQ or the EPA Regional Administrator have made a finding that transportation-related emissions of ammonia or re-entrained paved road dust are a significant contributor to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem. Therefore, we propose to approve Idaho’s MVEBs as meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s implementing regulations. III. Proposed Action Based on Idaho’s submission and our evaluation discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve the RFP and QM elements and revised MVEBs in the Cache SIP Amendment. If this proposed approval is finalized, the EPA’s prior conditional approval will be removed and these elements will become fully approved. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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; PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 55103 • 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). In addition, the SIP is not 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 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). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: October 2, 2019. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2019–22438 Filed 10–11–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55100-55103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22438]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0597; FRL-10001-10-Region 10]


Air Plan Approval; ID: Idaho Portion of the Logan UT-ID 2006 24-
Hour PM2.5 Nonattainment Area; Moderate Plan Elements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve

[[Page 55101]]

revisions to the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on 
July 31, 2018. Idaho's submission addresses specific Clean Air Act 
(CAA) requirements for the Idaho portion of the Logan, Utah-Idaho fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (Logan UT-ID 
area). The submission fulfills Idaho's commitment to submit Reasonable 
Further Progress and Quantitative Milestone attainment plan elements 
and updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets to the EPA. If this 
proposed approval is finalized, the EPA's prior conditional approval 
will be removed and these elements will become fully approved.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2018-0597, 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 electronically submit 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: Matthew Jentgen, (206) 553-0340, 
[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. Analysis of the State's Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated a portion of Franklin 
County, Idaho nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
(74 FR 58688). This designation, as part of the cross-state Logan, 
Utah-Idaho area, required Idaho to prepare and submit an attainment 
plan to meet current statutory and regulatory requirements.\1\ On 
December 14, 2012, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 
submitted an attainment plan for the Idaho portion of the Logan UT-ID 
area. The plan addressed specific required elements, including but not 
limited to the following elements: Emissions inventory, Reasonably 
Available Control Measures/Technology (RACM/RACT), attainment 
demonstration, contingency measures, and Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets (MVEBs). The EPA approved the baseline emissions inventory on 
July 18, 2014 (79 FR 41904) and the control measures on March 25, 2014 
(79 FR 16201). However, the EPA limited its approval of the submitted 
control measures \2\ in light of the District of Columbia Circuit Court 
of Appeal's decision in NRDC v. EPA, holding that EPA erred in 
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant only to the 
general implementation requirements of Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 of 
the CAA rather than also the requirements specific to PM10 
in Title I, Part D, Subpart 4.\3\ In response to the litigation, Idaho 
made a supplemental submission on December 24, 2014. The December 14, 
2012 and December 24, 2014 submissions are hereinafter collectively 
referred to as the Idaho attainment plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See part D of title I of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's 
Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 
State Implementation Plan Requirements (72 FR 20586, April 25, 
2007).
    \2\ The control measures were incorporated into the Idaho SIP, 
but the EPA did not make a determination that the control measures 
satisfy the requirement to adopt and implement RACM under CAA 
Sections 172(c) and 189(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1009.
    \3\ NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (DC Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA responded to the Court's decision, in part, by retracting 
the March 2012 guidance on SIP requirements for meeting the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standards \4\ and promulgating the Fine 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State 
Implementation Plan Requirements (81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016). The 
2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule clarified how states should 
meet the statutory SIP requirements under Subpart 1 and Subpart 4 that 
apply to areas designated as nonattainment for any PM2.5 
NAAQS. Based on the requirements of Subparts 1 and 4 and the 2016 
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, on January 4, 2017, we approved 
Idaho's control measures as meeting RACM/RACT, disapproved contingency 
measures, and deferred action on the attainment demonstration, RFP, QM, 
and MVEB requirements (82 FR 729).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Memorandum of March 2, 2012 (withdrawn June 6, 2013), from 
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, to the EPA Regional Air Directors, Region I-X, 
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following our January 4, 2017, action, in an April 25, 2017 letter, 
Idaho committed to make a SIP submission that would further address the 
RFP, QM, and MVEB requirements. Because Idaho committed to address 
these requirements within one year, in specific ways that the EPA 
considered appropriate, the EPA conditionally approved the RFP, QM, and 
MVEB elements of the Idaho attainment plan on August 8, 2017 (82 FR 
37025). In that same action, we also finalized approval of the Idaho 
attainment demonstration and the 2014 MVEBs as early progress budgets. 
Based on quality-assured, quality-controlled data for the period 2015-
2017 showing that the area attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, on October 19, 2018, the EPA finalized a determination of 
attainment by the attainment date and clean data determination for the 
Logan UT-ID area (83 FR 52983). Finalization of the clean data 
determination suspended the requirements for a nonattainment area to 
submit an RFP plan, MVEB for the attainment year, and other SIP 
requirements related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
By virtue of the EPA's October 19, 2018 clean data determination, the 
obligation to submit any attainment-related SIP revisions, including an 
RFP Plan, quantitative milestones, and an MVEB for the attainment year 
for the Logan, UT-ID area are not applicable so long as the area 
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 
51.1015(a). As we stated in our October 19, 2018, action, the clean 
data determination does not preclude the state from submitting, nor the 
EPA from acting on, the suspended attainment plan elements. See 83 FR 
52983, 52985.

II. Analysis of the State's Submission

    On July 31, 2018, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to further address 
the RFP, QM, and MVEB elements that EPA conditionally approved on 
August 8, 2017 (Cache SIP Amendment or submission). The submission can 
be found in the docket for this action. An RFP plan or analysis must 
include four components, summarized as follows: (1) An implementation 
schedule for control measures on sources in the nonattainment area; (2) 
RFP projected emissions for each applicable quantitative milestone 
year; (3) an

[[Page 55102]]

analysis that presents the schedule of control measures and estimated 
emissions changes to be achieved by each milestone year and (4) an 
analysis that demonstrates sufficient progress on an annual basis 
toward attainment between the applicable baseline year to the 
attainment year. See 40 CFR 51.1012. Idaho's submission addresses each 
of the four components required by 40 CFR 51.1012. First, the 
submission includes an implementation schedule for each of the three 
control measures. Second, the submission includes RFP projected 
emissions for each applicable quantitative milestone year. These 
measures, which were relied upon in the Idaho attainment plan, 
supported the attainment determination for the Logan UT-ID area based 
on 2015-2017 monitoring data.\5\ Third, Idaho provided an analysis of 
emissions reductions achieved for each of the control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date and Clean 
Data Determination for the Logan, UT-ID area, October 19, 2018 (83 
FR 52983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first control measure discussed in Idaho's submission, 
residential wood combustion (RWC) ordinances, were adopted within 
Franklin County and all six Idaho cities on the Idaho side of the Logan 
UT-ID area (Franklin, Preston, Weston, Dayton, Clifton, and Oxford). 
Key elements in the current RWC ordinances include mandatory burn bans 
issued when PM2.5 has reached or is forecasted to reach 75 
on the Air Quality Index (AQI). This AQI value corresponds to a 
PM2.5 concentration of 23.5 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\) and aligns with the RWC ordinances applicable within Cache 
County on the Utah side of the Logan UT-ID area. All RWC ordinances 
effective in Franklin County prohibit both open burning and the use of 
specified devices when an air quality alert is issued. The ordinances 
also prohibit the installation of non-EPA-certified devices.
    As stated in the submission, these Idaho cities and counties have 
implemented the ordinances and mandatory burn bans since 2012.\6\ 
Therefore, we have determined the submission demonstrates full 
implementation of this control measure. Idaho estimated that maximum 
reductions for this measure are 0.06 tons per day (tpd) direct 
PM2.5, 0.009 tpd nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 0.078 tpd 
volatile organic compounds (VOC).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Cache SIP Amendment, Section 4.2 and Appendix B.
    \7\ Cache SIP Amendment, Section 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho also implemented three wood stove change-out programs on the 
Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area. These programs were conducted in 
2006-2007, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014. Accordingly, Idaho demonstrated in 
the submission that a total of 209 uncertified RWC devices have been 
changed-out since 2006. In addition, 39 stoves were removed and 
destroyed through Idaho's Alternative Energy Device tax deduction 
program. In total, 256 wood stoves have been changed out on the Idaho 
side of the Logan UT-ID area since 2006. As described in the submission 
(applying the appropriate temporal profile to convert to tons per day), 
Idaho stated these change-outs have led to reductions of 0.05 tpd 
direct PM2.5, 0.003 tpd NOX, and 0.13 tpd VOC.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cache SIP Amendment, Section 4.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final control measure implemented on the Idaho side of the 
Logan UT-ID area is road sanding agreements. Franklin County Road and 
Bridge, the City of Preston, and the Idaho Transportation Department 
(ITD) entered into road sanding agreements which were submitted to the 
EPA and approved into the Idaho SIP on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16201). 
According to records submitted to Idaho and summarized in the 
submission, ITD used salt in 2014 (409 tons), 2015 (340 tons), and 2016 
(109 tons) and did not use sand. Franklin County Road and Bridge 
historically used a 10:1 ratio of sand and salt; however, in the Idaho 
attainment plan, Franklin County committed to use a 4:1 ratio of sand 
and salt when anti-skid treatment is required. Franklin County also 
agreed to apply brine when temperatures are above 22[deg]F, a measure 
that further reduces the amount of sand required by approximately 50%. 
The City of Preston now uses a 2:1 ratio of sand and salt at an average 
of 700 tons total per year.
    Finally, in Section 4.5 of the Cache SIP Amendment, Idaho provided 
an analysis that demonstrates sufficient progress on an annual basis 
toward attainment between the applicable baseline year to the 
attainment year. The analysis demonstrates that Idaho achieved 
emissions reductions consistent with RFP. Idaho's RFP analysis is 
supported by EPA's October 19, 2018 determination of attainment (83 FR 
52983). Therefore, we propose to approve the RFP element submitted by 
Idaho as part of its Moderate area plan for the Logan UT-ID area.
    With respect to QMs, EPA regulations require that the attainment 
plan contain quantitative milestones to be achieved by the milestone 
dates that provide for objective evaluation of reasonable further 
progress toward timely attainment. See 40 CFR 51.1013. For areas 
designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, such as 
the Logan UT-ID area, quantitative milestones are required no later 
than 3 years after December 31, 2014 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4). Thus, 2017 
is the first year the Logan, UT-ID area must include quantitative 
milestones. The 2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule states that 
the quantitative milestones contained in the attainment plan for a 
Moderate nonattainment area should be constructed such that they can be 
tracked, quantified and/or measured adequately in order for a state to 
meet its milestone reporting obligations, which are due 90 days after a 
given milestone date.\9\ The EPA suggested possible metrics that 
``support and demonstrate how the overall quantitative milestones 
identified for an area may be met, such as percent implementation of 
control strategies, percent compliance with implemented control 
measures, and adherence to a compliance schedule.'' \10\ This list was 
not exclusive or exhaustive but reflected the EPA's view that the 
purpose of the quantitative milestone requirement is to provide an 
objective way to determine whether the area is making the necessary 
progress towards attainment by the applicable attainment date, i.e., to 
verify that the separate RFP requirement is met.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 40 CFR 51.1013(b).
    \10\ 2016 PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (81 FR 58010, 
58064).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho's submission includes a detailed implementation schedule, 
estimated emissions reductions, and 2017 QM reporting metrics for the 
control measures discussed above. For the wood combustion ordinances, 
Idaho included in the submission a summary of the wood stove and open 
burning curtailment days issued per year since 2012 as a means of 
demonstrating implementation of this measure. The objective measure to 
determine the progress of implementation of the wood stove change-out 
program is the total number of wood stove change-outs completed. For 
road sanding agreements, the objective metrics used to track progress 
are tons of sand and salt used and changes in the sand-salt ratio. On 
March 7, 2018, Idaho submitted a Quantitative Milestone Report to 
demonstrate that all emission reduction measures have been implemented, 
and Idaho has achieved milestones demonstrating progress toward 
attainment.\12\ The EPA responded on September 7, 2018 stating

[[Page 55103]]

the submittal adequately met the Quantitative Mileston reporting 
requirements.\13\ Therefore, we propose to approve Idaho's QMs as 
meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Idaho's March 7, 2018 Quantitative Milestone Report is 
included in the docket for this action.
    \13\ The EPA's September 7, 2018, reply letter and supporting 
document are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, with respect to MVEBs, an attainment plan must include in 
its RFP submission an inventory of on-road mobile source emissions in 
the nonattainment area for each milestone year.\14\ The Idaho 
attainment plan projected 2014 emission budgets. On August 8, 2017, the 
EPA approved the submitted 2014 MVEBs as early progress budgets and 
conditionally approved Idaho's commitment to submit MVEBs for the 2015 
attainment year (82 FR 37025). In the submission, Idaho modeled 2015 
and 2017 on-road vehicle emissions. Growth in vehicle mile traveled 
(VMT) was estimated using automatic traffic recorder, and population 
growth was estimated using census data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised MVEBs were determined for direct PM2.5, 
NOX, and VOC emissions, pollutants that contribute to on-
road mobile source emissions of primary and secondary particulates in 
the area. Idaho noted that, although ammonia (NH3) 
contributes to secondary aerosol formation, the region is 
NH3 rich, so the minimal mobile source NH3 
emissions (less than 0.12 tons per day) are not considered in MVEBs. In 
addition, although originally thought by the state to be a primary 
contributor to direct PM2.5 concentrations, Idaho 
determined, based on the MVEB analysis, that direct PM2.5 
emissions from paved road dust are not considered significant (1% of 
total wintertime contributions) and therefore were not included in the 
MVEBs.
    The MVEB is comprised of on-road mobile sources and vehicle 
emissions (exhaust, tire, and brake wear). The EPA's Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model was used to develop vehicle emissions 
estimates for the MVEB (Idaho used the most current version of MOVES 
available at the time, MOVES 2014a, for its analysis). The MVEB will 
apply when the EPA determines the budget is adequate for transportation 
conformity. According to the EPA's conformity rule, the emissions 
budget acts as a ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is 
defined or until a SIP revision modifies the budget. Based on the 
analysis, Idaho set the following emissions budgets for 2015, 
applicable to the Idaho side of the Logan UT-ID area: 0.033 tpd direct 
PM2.5, 0.676 tpd NOX, and 0.554 tpd VOC. In the 
submission, Idaho included a MVEB for the 2017 RFP year that sets the 
following emissions budgets: 0.029 tpd direct PM2.5, 0.544 
tpd NOX, and 0.467 tpd VOC.
    We find that Idaho has evaluated the appropriate pollutants in its 
MVEB analysis and included MVEBs for the appropriate milestone years. 
According to the EPA's conformity rule, ammonia is a pollutant that is 
not required to be included in a PM2.5 nonattainment area's 
MVEB unless it is determined to be a significant contributor to 
PM2.5 formation in the area (40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). Paved 
road dust can also be excluded from an area's MVEB for similar reasons 
(40 CFR 93.102(b)(3)). Neither IDEQ or the EPA Regional Administrator 
have made a finding that transportation-related emissions of ammonia or 
re-entrained paved road dust are a significant contributor to the 
PM2.5 nonattainment problem. Therefore, we propose to 
approve Idaho's MVEBs as meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
implementing regulations.

III. Proposed Action

    Based on Idaho's submission and our evaluation discussed above, the 
EPA is proposing to approve the RFP and QM elements and revised MVEBs 
in the Cache SIP Amendment. If this proposed approval is finalized, the 
EPA's prior conditional approval will be removed and these elements 
will become fully approved.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
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).
    In addition, the SIP is not 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 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 2, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2019-22438 Filed 10-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P