[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23496]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 22, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ID 1-1-5528; FRL-5076-9]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to take
action on the state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (State or IDEQ) for the purpose
of bringing about the attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) in the Ada
County/Boise area. The SIP was submitted by the State to satisfy
certain Federal requirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment
area PM-10 SIP for Ada County/Boise, Idaho.
In summary, EPA proposes to grant full approval of the emissions
inventory and PM-10 precursor exclusion elements of the SIP because
they are separable and independent elements. EPA proposes limited
approval under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
of the control measures that have been submitted by the State to date.
This limited approval of the control measures is for the limited
purpose of making them federally enforceable and thereby advancing the
Clean Air Act NAAQS-related air quality goals. At the same time, EPA is
proposing to disapprove the control measures as not satisfying the
specific requirement under sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the
CAA to submit a SIP revision that includes provisions to assure that
reasonably available control measures (RACM) are implemented no later
than December 10, 1993 and to disapprove the attainment demonstration
and quantitative milestones and reasonable further progress (RFP)
elements of the Ada County/Boise PM-10 SIP because the State has not
adopted and submitted to EPA the mandatory wood smoke control
ordinances for Eagle, Garden City, Meridian and unincorporated Ada
County.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
October 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Development
Section, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-082, Seattle, Washington, 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Fry, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Development Section, 1200
Sixth Avenue, AT-082, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206) 553-2575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Ada County/Boise, Idaho area was designated nonattainment for
PM-10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a)
of the Clean Air Act, upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990\1\ (see 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.313). The air
quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the Act.\2\ EPA has
issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how
EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions submitted under title I
of the Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM-10
nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing
its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader should refer
to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the
interpretations of title I advanced in this proposal and the supporting
rationale. In today's rulemaking action on the State of Idaho's
moderate PM-10 SIP for the Ada County/Boise nonattainment area, EPA is
proposing to apply its interpretations taking into consideration the
specific factual issues presented. Additional information supporting
EPA's action on this particular area is available for inspection at the
address indicated above. EPA will consider any timely submitted
comments before taking final action on today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or Act).
The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code at 42
U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
\2\Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, subpart 1 and
subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
(those areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)(B) of the
Act) were required to submit, among other things, the following
provisions by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that RACM (including such reductions in
emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through
the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology
(RACT)) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act.
States with initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit a permit program for the construction and operation
of new and modified major stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992
(see section 189(a) of the Act). This permit program element, also
known as the New Source Review (NSR) program, was submitted by the
State of Idaho on May 17, 1994. EPA notified Idaho in a June 10, 1994
letter to the Administrator of the IDEQ that the NSR program submittal
was complete. EPA is currently reviewing Idaho's NSR program submittal
to determine if the program meets the requirements of the CAA. EPA
intends to take action on Idaho's NSR program in a separate document
when EPA has completed its review.
In addition, States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas were required to submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993
which become effective without further action by the State or EPA upon
a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (see
section 172(c)(9) of the Act and 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544).
Contingency measures for the Ada County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment area
have not yet been submitted by IDEQ. A findings letter, dated January
13, 1994, was mailed to the Governor of Idaho which informed him that
the State had failed to make the required PM-10 contingency measures
submittal for Ada County/Boise. The State has until July 13, 1995 to
correct this deficiency for Ada County/Boise, or it will face Federal
highway or offset sanctions (see section 179 of the CAA and 58 FR 51270
(October 1, 1993)). EPA intends to take action on the contingency
measures for the Ada County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment area when this
requirement is submitted or intends to impose sanctions in the event
this deficiency is not corrected.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, as
described below, EPA is proposing to grant full approval of the
emission inventory element and exclusion from the PM-10 precursor
control requirements. These elements of the State's moderate PM-10
nonattainment SIP submittal for Ada County/Boise are separable and
independent of the provisions that the State has not adequately
addressed.
Also as described below, EPA is proposing to grant a limited
approval of the control measures that have been submitted by the State
as of this date. EPA may grant a limited approval of these control
measures under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, in light of EPA's
authority under section 301(a) of the Act to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The proposed
approval of these control measures is limited, however, in that EPA is
not proposing that these control measures satisfy the specific
requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) to implement RACM,
including RACT, in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. EPA believes,
however, that the control measures adopted and submitted as of this
date will achieve PM-10 emissions reductions in the Ada County/Boise
nonattainment area. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve these control
measures for the limited purpose of strengthening the SIP and making
them federally enforceable (see e.g. sections 113 and 302(q) of the
Act).
Finally, because the State has not yet adopted into the SIP and
submitted to EPA certain control measures on which it relies in the SIP
to demonstrate timely attainment and continued maintenance of the PM-10
NAAQS in the Ada County Boise nonattainment area, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the RACM (including RACT) element. In addition, because the
attainment demonstration and quantitative milestones and reasonable
further progress (RFP) elements of the Ada County/Boise PM-10 SIP
depend in part on the control measures which the State has not yet
adopted and submitted to EPA, EPA is also proposing to disapprove these
elements. If this proposed disapproval becomes final, it will begin the
period for the imposition of discretionary sanctions under section
110(m) of the Act and the 18-month sanctions clock for the imposition
of mandatory sanctions under section 179 of the Act. If finalized, this
disapproval will also authorize EPA to issue a Federal implementation
plan as provided in section 110(c)(1) of the Act.
If, however, prior to EPA's final action on this proposal the State
submits the additional control measures on which it relies and, based
on EPA's review, these additional control measures adequately address
the outstanding deficiencies, EPA will consider withdrawing this
limited approval/disapproval and will instead propose full approval of
the PM-10 plan for Ada County/Boise relative to those moderate area PM-
10 SIP requirements which were due November 15, 1991. EPA invites
public comment on its proposed action.
Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.\3\ Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state under the
Act must be adopted by such state after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
of the Act and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to
make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a
submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law
if a completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after
receipt of the submission.
The IDEQ initially held a public hearing on the Ada County/Boise
PM-10 air quality improvement plan on October 11, 1990, and received no
public comments regarding the plan. However, following one 24-hour PM-
10 exceedance on January 7, 1991 and two near exceedances on January 4
and 6, 1991, EPA requested on March 22, 1991 that IDEQ modify the PM-10
plan to better ensure healthful air in the future. IDEQ revised the PM-
10 plan and the State of Idaho subsequently held a public hearing on
the modified Ada County/Boise PM-10 plan on November 4, 1991. Again,
IDEQ received no public comments. The modified PM-10 plan was then
adopted by the State of Idaho on November 14, 1991, and the plan was
submitted to EPA on November 15, 1991 as a proposed revision to the
SIP.
The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after its submittal in accordance with the completeness
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. A letter dated April
27, 1992 was forwarded to the Administrator of the Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality indicating the completeness of the submittal and
the next steps to be taken in the review process.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions
in the area (see e.g. section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act). Because the
submission of such inventories is necessary to an area's attainment
demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably
attain), the emissions inventories must be received with the
demonstration submission (see 57 FR 13539).
The base year emission inventory (1987) developed for Ada County/
Boise identified the major sources of PM-10 concentrations during 24-
hour worst case winter periods as residential wood combustion (71%),
fugitive road dust (15%), industrial (7%) and other sources, including
but not limited to, transportation, construction and open burning (7%).
Annual emissions for 1987 were fugitive road dust (51%), residential
wood combustion (23%), building construction (12%), transportation
(6%), industrial (6%) and other sources (2%).
EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it
generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a
sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment
demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of
sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Clean Air Act.4 Full
approval of this element is appropriate because it is separable and
independent of the deficiency which prevents full approval of the SIP,
namely, the adoption and submission of all control measures on which
the State relies in the SIP. The emissions inventory is a separable
component of the Ada County/Boise PM-10 SIP because it represents an
assessment of PM-10 emissions in the area prior to the adoption of
control measures and will not change as the result of any additional
control measures adopted. For further details, see the Technical
Support Document (TSD) corresponding with this action, which is
available at the EPA address indicated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the amended Act (see section
193 of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Control Measures
As noted above, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C) of the Act). The General Preamble contains a detailed
discussion of EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT)
requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
In broad terms, the State should identify available control
measures evaluating them for their reasonableness in light of the
feasibility of the controls and the attainment needs of the area. A
State may reject available control measures if the measures are
technologically infeasible or the cost of the control is unreasonable.
In addition, RACM does not require controls on emissions from sources
that are insignificant (i.e. de minimis) and RACM does not require the
implementation of all available control measures where an area
demonstrates timely attainment of the NAAQS and the implementation of
additional controls would not expedite attainment (see 57 FR 13540-
13544).
Idaho's SIP submittals for Ada County/Boise do not provide for
implementation of control measures which assure timely attainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS, nor, in the alternative, do they show that the
adoption of available control measures would be economically or
technologically unreasonable. Therefore, the submittals do not meet the
specific statutory requirements to provide for the implementation of
RACM (including RACT) in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.
a. Residential Wood Burning Program
The State relies on control strategies designed to reduce wood
smoke for timely attainment of the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards.
The residential wood burning program has three main objectives: 1.
Reduce wood burning during critical periods; 2. Improve the performance
and efficiency of wood heating equipment; and 3. Provide reasonable
alternatives to wood heat. The State's available control measures to be
implemented in the Ada County/Boise nonattainment area that address the
main objectives include the following:
(1) Episodic Wood Burning Curtailment Program
The SIP submittal discusses an episodic two-stage voluntary and
mandatory wood burning curtailments in the Ada County/Boise
nonattainment area. The first stage is a voluntary burn ban when 24-
hour PM-10 levels in the nonattainment area are predicted to equal or
exceed 100 g/m\3\. The 24-hour PM-10 prediction is made after
an IDEQ meteorologist calculates lower atmospheric stability and
evaluates PM-10 equivalent sampler, nephelometer, upper air temperature
sounding, snow cover, surface temperature, delta temperature, wind
speed, cloud cover, National Weather Service and occasionally
commercial weather service data.
The second stage is a mandatory curtailment program. In 1986, Boise
adopted an ordinance imposing a mandatory burn ban when 24-hour PM-10
levels actually attain or exceed 110 g/m\3\, and stable
meteorological conditions are expected to persist for the next 24 hours
(see Boise City Code, Tit. 4, Ch. 6). This ordinance was amended in
January 1993 to reduce the trigger point for mandatory burn bans from
110 g/m\3\ to 100 g/m\3\ (see Boise City Code, Sec.
4-6-4).
The SIP states that Garden City also has a mandatory curtailment
program, but no documentation of the Garden City program was included
in the initial SIP submittal. The SIP further states that the State
would attempt to persuade other Ada County jurisdictions to implement
mandatory curtailment programs similar to the Boise program. To date,
EPA has informally received copies of mandatory wood smoke curtailment
ordinances (some are signed and others are unsigned) for unincorporated
Ada County and the cities of Eagle, Garden City and Meridian. These
ordinances, however, have not been adopted into the SIP and have not
been formally submitted to EPA.
In its SIP submittal, the State notes that a county-wide5
mandatory wood smoke curtailment program is necessary to bring the Ada
County/Boise nonattainment area into timely attainment of the NAAQS
because approximately 30% of the wood burning in the area occurs
outside of areas covered by mandatory wood burning restrictions. For
this reason, the SIP submittal for Ada County/Boise cannot be
considered to satisfy the RACM requirement because the State has not
adopted as part of the SIP and submitted to EPA those available control
measures necessary for expeditious attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS (or
shown that all economically and technologically feasible control
measures have been implemented and timely attainment is impracticable).
Specifically, the State has not adopted and submitted mandatory burn
ban ordinances for Garden City, Eagle, Meridian and unincorporated Ada
County. EPA urges the State to promptly adopt and submit to the EPA the
necessary mandatory residential wood smoke burning ban ordinances on
which the State relies in its SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\In a letter to the EPA, dated August 14, 1992, the State
argued for the exclusion of the locality south of Amity Road and
west of Cloverdale Road (the Kuna area) from proposed mandatory burn
bans because the area is located in a separate stream drainage from
the Boise River Valley, and thus does not significantly contribute
smoke to the valley where the PM-10 exceedances have been recorded.
The State also noted that the emission inventory, modeling and
visibility observations indicate that the Kuna area air quality is
markedly cleaner than the ambient air in the Boise River Valley,
which includes downtown Boise. EPA acknowledged in an August 27,
1992 letter to IDEQ, that the State had adequately demonstrated that
mandatory burn bans in the Kuna area were unnecessary to demonstrate
attainment and EPA formally proposes to make this determination in
today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the SIP submittal cannot be considered to satisfy the RACM
requirement at this time, EPA is proposing limited approval of the
Boise wood smoke control ordinance, Boise City Code Tit. 4, Ch. 6,
pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act in order to
strengthen the SIP and make the ordinance federally enforceable. EPA
believes that this control measure will result in reductions in PM-10
emissions in the nonattainment area and thus advance the Act's air
quality-related protection goals.
(2) Wood Smoke Public Education/Awareness Program
The wood smoke public education/awareness program for the Ada
County/Boise nonattainment area plays a critical role in achieving the
aforementioned three main objectives of IDEQ's residential wood burning
program. The wood smoke public education/awareness program was first
officially initiated in 1986, following the passage of Boise's local
wood burning ordinance. Brochures, television and radio public service
announcements, newspaper advertisements, outreach meetings at public
schools, media interviews and press conferences are the main components
of the integrated awareness package. Various points have been focused
on during the program's existence, including the nature of the wood
smoke problem, health impacts, meteorological factors (including tips
asking citizens to refrain from burning on clear, calm and/or cool
days) and how to burn cleaner.
IDEQ and the City of Boise are responsible for a majority of the
continuing wood smoke public education/awareness program. According to
IDEQ, local surveys and building department statistics show reductions
in the numbers of wood stoves installed, reduction in the average
volume of wood burned per household and widespread public cooperation
during poor air quality periods as the result of the wood smoke public
education efforts. These surveys and statistics are the basis for the
10% annual credit IDEQ is claiming for the wood smoke public education/
awareness program during 1990 through the year 2000.
EPA believes that IDEQ has adequately demonstrated, through surveys
and building department statistics, that the well-established,
extensive, wood smoke public education/awareness program for the Ada
County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment area has achieved at least a 10
percent wood smoke emission reduction. Therefore, EPA proposes limited
approval of the wood smoke public education/awareness program described
in the Ada County/Boise SIP as a SIP strengthening measure and proposes
to accept the 10 percent credit requested by the IDEQ.
(3) Wood Stove Certification
The City of Boise's 1986 wood burning ordinance initiated a
requirement mandating all wood burning appliances sold and installed
within the city to be certified as meeting certain emission standards
(see Boise City Code, Sec. 4-6-9). The ordinance is enforced by city
and county building department inspectors. The initial certification
program was based on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
standards. The current program is based on the national wood burning
device New Source Performance Standards developed by the EPA.
The implementation and enforcement of the certification program
resulted in the City of Boise accelerating the introduction of
certified stoves and the phase-out of old, high emission uncertified
stoves. However, IDEQ does not take any credit for the emission
reductions that have resulted from the wood stove certification
program.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\According to the SIP submittal, Meridian, Eagle, Garden City,
unincorporated Ada County, Nampa and Emmett also require that only
certified wood stoves be sold and installed within their respective
jurisdictions. However, no documentation (i.e. ordinances)
supporting this statement was included in the SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the enforceability of the City of Boise wood stove
certification program and its advancement of the PM-10 air quality
goals, EPA is proposing limited approval of this program as a SIP
strengthening measure.
(4) Wood Stove Change-Out Program
An initial feature of the City of Boise's 1986 wood burning
ordinance was the development of a financial incentive program to
replace uncertified wood stoves with certified stoves (see Boise City
Code, Sec. 4-6-18). Low or no interest loans were offered to
individuals participating in the program. In order to receive a loan,
the participant was required to give the uncertified wood stove to the
city building department for destruction. The loan program began in
September 1986 and ended in September 1988. Approximately $800,000 in
loans were made, resulting in the replacement of 494 uncertified wood
stoves with cleaner heating devices. IDEQ does not take credit for
reductions in the emissions, even though 84 uncertified wood stoves
were removed from the airshed after the area source emission inventory
base year (1987).
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) also operated a wood
stove change-out loan program, which ran from May 1987 to May 1993. 186
uncertified wood stoves were changed-out with cleaner heating devices
during that period, with a majority of the replacements occurring
during 1988-1993. Again, IDEQ did not take credit for these PM-10
emission reductions. Both the Boise and IDWR wood stove change-out loan
programs strengthen the SIP and further assure that these wood smoke
sources will not contribute to a future PM-10 exceedance. Accordingly,
EPA proposes limited approval of the wood stove change-out loan program
because it strengthens the SIP and enhances PM-10 air quality
protection for the Ada County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment area.
b. Other Sources
As noted, RACM does not require controls on emissions from sources
that are insignificant (i.e. de minimis) and does not require the
implementation of all available control measures where an area
demonstrates timely attainment and the implementation of additional
controls would not expedite attainment (see 57 FR 13540-13544).
IDEQ has determined, through its analysis of the nonattainment
area, that road dust contributed 15 percent of the PM-10 concentration
on the worst case day in base year 1987. IDEQ did not propose controls
for road dust. Rather, the State relies on wood smoke controls to
demonstrate timely attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard, concluding
that the implementation of additional control measures for road dust
would not expedite attainment. However, the State's control strategy
assumes the timely adoption and submittal of effective and enforceable
mandatory wood smoke curtailment ordinances for the remainder of the
nonattainment area. While such mandatory wood smoke curtailment
ordinances, in conjunction with the other wood smoke controls described
above, may demonstrate attainment of the standard, all of these control
measures have not in fact been submitted. Thus, RACM is not met because
it has not been demonstrated that the implementation of available
control measures could not expedite attainment or that the
implementation of such measures is technologically or economically
unreasonable.
It is EPA's view that RACM does not require the implementation of
controls for prescribed silvicultural and agricultural burning for the
Ada County/Boise nonattainment area because the area is not
significantly impacted by those activities. Similarly, EPA believes
that RACT does not require the implementation of control technology for
stationary sources of PM-10 in the nonattainment area, because the area
is primarily characterized by commercial, residential and light
industrial uses. There are currently no major stationary sources
operating in the Ada County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment area and large
stationary sources do not contribute significantly to the PM-10 air
quality problem in Boise.
In summary, EPA is proposing to approve, under the authority of
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act and for the limited purpose of
strengthening the SIP and making such control measures federally
enforceable, the control measures that have been submitted to date as
part of the PM-10 SIP for the Ada County/Boise nonattainment area.
These measures include the voluntary episodic wood burning curtailment
program for the entire nonattainment area, the mandatory episodic wood
burning curtailment program for the City of Boise, the wood smoke
public education/awareness program, the wood stove certification
program and the wood stove change-out program. A final limited approval
of these existing control measures would not mean that EPA has approved
these control measures as satisfying the specific Act requirement for
the State to implement RACM (including RACT) in moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas (see sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). Rather,
limited approval of these measures by EPA means only that these control
requirements become part of the applicable implementation plan and are
federally enforceable by EPA (see, e.g., sections 302(q) and 113 of the
Act). EPA is concurrently proposing to disapprove the RACM (including
RACT) element because the State has not adopted and submitted to EPA
all of the mandatory wood smoke control ordinances on which it relies
in its SIP submittal. A final disapproval of the Ada County/Boise PM-10
SIP RACM (including RACT) element would start the 18 month clock for
the imposition of mandatory sanctions under section 179 of the Act and
the two-year clock for the promulgation of a Federal Implementation
Plan under section 110(c)(1) of the Act.
4. Demonstration
Moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December
31, 1994 (see section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). The General Preamble
sets out EPA's guidance on the use of modeling for moderate area
attainment demonstrations (57 FR 13539). Alternatively, the State must
show attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. The 24-hour PM-
10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is
equal to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is
50 g/m3, and the standard is attained when the expected
annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50
g/m3 (id.).
As indicated in the General Preamble, 57 FR 13539, EPA has
developed a supplemental attainment demonstration policy for initial
PM-10 nonattainment areas. This policy provides additional flexibility
in meeting the PM-10 attainment demonstration requirements. An earlier
April 2, 1991 memorandum titled, ``PM-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance:
Final Staff Work Product'' contained ``Attachment 5'' describing the
same policy.
IDEQ conducted an attainment demonstration based upon WYNDvalley, a
non-guideline dispersion model that EPA recommended be used in the Ada
County/Boise nonattainment area. WYNDvalley is applicable in light and
variable wind scenarios in regions influenced by complex terrain. Cold
temperatures and light winds with limited vertical mixing create
stagnant weather conditions in the Boise River Valley. All of the PM-10
exceedances observed in the Ada County/Boise nonattainment area have
occurred during stagnant wintertime conditions.
The attainment demonstration indicates that the Ada County/Boise
nonattainment area will be in attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS
during the entire period of 1993 to 2000, with the maximum predicted
24-hour concentration of 147 g/m3 occurring in 1995. The
demonstration also addresses the quantitative milestone requirement
(discussed below) by showing that the PM-10 NAAQS will be maintained
after December 31, 1994 by predicting a 24-hour worst case day design
concentration of 144 g/m3 for the year 2000. According to
EPA's review, which corrected for the use of non-reference PM-10 data
in 1986 and 1987 (i.e. Hi-Vol SA321A gravimetric PM-10 sampler), the
Ada County/Boise area has never violated the annual arithmetic mean PM-
10 standard. The highest valid three-year annual average in the
nonattainment area is 43 g/m3 during 1987-1989, while the
lowest three-year average is 39 g/m3 during 1990-1992.
The control strategy used to achieve these design concentrations
and demonstrate attainment of both the 24-hour and annual PM-10
standards, however, relies on mandatory wood smoke control programs in
Eagle, Garden City, Meridian and unincorporated Ada County. As
discussed above in the section titled ``Control Measures,'' the State
has not adopted these ordinances as part of the SIP and submitted them
to EPA. Accordingly, EPA proposes to disapprove the attainment
demonstration. More detailed description of the attainment
demonstration is contained in the TSD accompanying this document.
5. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment
and which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1) of the Act,
toward attainment by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the CAA).
Although section 189(c) plainly provides that quantitative
milestones are to be achieved until an area is redesignated attainment,
it is silent in indicating the starting point for counting the first
three-year period or how many milestones must be initially addressed.
In the General Preamble, EPA addressed the statutory gap in the
starting point for counting the three-year milestones, indicating that
it would begin from the due date for the applicable implementation plan
revision containing the control measures for the area (i.e., November
15, 1991 for initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas (see 57 FR
13539)). As to the number of milestones, EPA believes that at least two
milestones must be initially addressed. Thus, submittals to address the
SIP revisions due on November 15, 1991 for the initial moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas must demonstrate that two milestones will be
achieved (1st milestone: November 15, 1991 through November 15, 1994;
2nd milestone: November 15, 1994 through November 15, 1997). For areas
that demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the second
milestone should, at a minimum, provide for continued maintenance of
the standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Section 189(c) provides that quantitative milestones are to
be achieved ``until the area is redesignated attainment.'' However,
this endpoint for quantitative milestones is speculative because
redesignation for an area as attainment is contingent upon several
factors and future events. Therefore, EPA believes it is reasonable
for States to initially address at least the first two milestones.
Addressing two milestones will ensure that the State continues to
maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date for at least some
period during which an area could be redesignated attainment.
However, in all instances, additional milestones must be addressed
if an area is not redesignated attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that demonstrate
attainment, the emissions reduction progress made between the SIP
submittal (due date of November 15, 1991) and the attainment date of
December 31, 1994 (46 days beyond the November 15, 1994 milestone date)
will satisfy the first quantitative milestone. The de minimis timing
differential makes it administratively impracticable to require
separate milestone and attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR 13539). In
implementing the quantitative milestone and RFP provisions for this
initial moderate area, EPA has reviewed the attainment demonstration
for the area to determine the nature of any milestones necessary to
ensure timely attainment and whether annual incremental reductions
should be required in order to ensure attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by
December 31, 1994.
The SIP purports to demonstrate attainment by 1994 and maintenance
through 2000, which would satisfy three milestones. However, as
discussed above, the maintenance demonstration and, therefore, the
quantitative milestones directly depend on mandatory wood smoke control
programs in Eagle, Garden City, Meridian and unincorporated Ada County.
As discussed above in the section titled ``Control Measures,'' the
State has not adopted these ordinances as part of the SIP and submitted
them to EPA. Accordingly, EPA proposes to disapprove the quantitative
milestone requirement (see General Preamble, 57 FR 13565 and July 9,
1992 EPA memorandum regarding ``Processing of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Submittals'').
6. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance
addressing how EPA intends to implement section 189(e) (see 57 FR
13539-13540 and 13541-13542).
Because the emission inventory for the Ada County/Boise PM-10
nonattainment area did not reveal any major stationary sources,
including any major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, EPA is
proposing to grant the exclusion from control requirements authorized
under section 189(e) for major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
IDEQ and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 57
FR 13556). EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP
revisions were set forth in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section
110(a)(2)(C)).
The specific control measures that were submitted as part of the
SIP are addressed above under the section headed ``Control Measures.''
As also discussed in that section, although the State relies on
mandatory wood smoke control ordinances throughout the entire
nonattainment area (except for the Kuna area) to demonstrate attainment
and maintenance of the standard, the State has adopted and submitted to
EPA a mandatory wood smoke curtailment ordinance only for the City of
Boise. The necessary ordinances for Eagle, Garden City, Meridian and
unincorporated Ada County, as well as evidence that the wood smoke
control programs for these areas are adequately funded, implemented,
enforced and maintained, have not been submitted at this time.
EPA has reviewed for enforceability the wood smoke ordinance for
the City of Boise, which includes the mandatory curtailment program and
the wood stove certification program for Boise, and has determined that
it meets all of the criteria included in the September 23, 1987, Potter
Memorandum. Exemptions from the mandatory burn bans are allowed only
for the following reasons and must be approved by the City Building
Department: a. wood burning is the resident's sole source of heat; b.
curtailment would cause unreasonable economic hardship for low income
households; or c. the wood burning device being utilized is certified
by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or EPA as ``clean
burning''. This is consistent with the recommendations for woodburning
curtailment programs provided in EPA's Guidance Document for
Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures. The wood stove
certification program does not contain any exemptions. Compliance with
wood burning curtailments and the certification program is mainly
achieved by responding to citizen complaints, but the City of Boise has
limited personnel that independently monitor for noncompliance.
Enforcement of burn bans and the certification program follows three
progressive steps: 1. written warning; 2. fine; and 3. further legal
action against the violator, if needed. IDEQ's submittals and the TSD
contain further information on the enforceability of the Boise wood
smoke curtailment ordinance and the personnel and funding intended to
support effective implementation of this ordinance. In these respects,
this control measure appears to be enforceable.
Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act requires that, where the State has
relied on a local or regional government, agency or instrumentality for
the implementation of any plan provision, the plan must provide
necessary assurances that the State has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such plan provision. The State's initial SIP
submittal did not address the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E).
However, in a recent submission from the State addressing State
responsibility for local control measures, such as the Boise wood smoke
control ordinance, the State indicated that it relies on its existing
ability to issue an operating permit to any stationary source when the
Department determines that emission reductions from that source are
necessary to attain or maintain a NAAQS (see Idaho Administrative
Procedures Act (IDAPA) 16.01.01012.03.c (June 1993); IDAPA
16.01.01401.03 (May 1994)). The submission includes a copy of an
opinion from the Attorney General's office stating that such permits
could be issued to the owners of wood stoves and could include
provisions directly implementing local mandatory wood smoke curtailment
ordinances in the event a local entity fails to implement or enforce
its respective local ordinance. This mechanism appears to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act for State
responsibility for local wood smoke control ordinances.
EPA is reserving judgment on the enforceability of the outstanding
control measures (i.e. mandatory wood smoke curtailment programs for
Eagle, Garden City, Meridian and unincorporated Ada County) and the
adequacy of the related enforcement programs until EPA receives and
reviews these measures.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures (see generally 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544).
These measures must have been submitted by November 15, 1993 for the
initial moderate nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should
consist of other available measures that are not part of the area's
core control strategy . These measures must take effect without further
action by the State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area
has failed to make reasonable further progress or attain the PM-10
NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline.
Contingency measures for the Ada County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment
area have not yet been submitted by IDEQ. A findings letter, dated
January 13, 1994, was mailed to the Governor of Idaho informing him
that the State had failed to make the required PM-10 contingency
measures submittal for the Ada County/Boise SIP. The State has until
July 13, 1995 to correct this deficiency for Ada County/Boise, or it
will face Federal highway and/or offset sanctions (see section 179 of
the CAA).
EPA intends to take action on the contingency measures for the Ada
County/Boise PM-10 nonattainment area when this requirement is
submitted or intends to impose sanctions in the event this deficiency
is not corrected.
9. Transportation Conformity Protective Finding
Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA and the regulations implementing that
provision require that transportation plans, programs, and projects
which are funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Act must conform with State or Federal air quality
implementation plans (see 58 FR 62188 (November 24, 1993)). According
to 58 FR 62228, Sec. 51.448, areas which submitted a control strategy
implementation plan before November 24, 1993 must be demonstrated to
conform according to transitional period criteria and procedures by
November 25, 1994. Otherwise, their conformity status will lapse, and
no new project-level conformity determinations may be made. Under 40
CFR 51.448(a)(2),\8\ if EPA disapproves a control strategy
implementation plan revision submitted by the State and notifies the
State, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Department
of Transportation (DOT), the conformity status of the transportation
plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) lapses 120 days after
EPA's disapproval. After that time, no new project-level conformity
determinations may be made and no new transportation plan, TIP, or
project may be found to conform until another control strategy
implementation plan revision is submitted and conformity is
demonstrated according to transitional period criteria and procedures.
Note that these conformity consequences of a disapproval of a control
strategy are in addition to the discretionary sanctions, which may be
imposed under section 110(m) of the Act at any time following a
disapproval, and the mandatory sanctions, which must be imposed under
section 179 of the Act beginning 18 months following a disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Although Secs. 51.448(d) (2) and (3) by their terms apply to
``areas which submitted a control strategy implementation plan
before November 24, 1993,'' the effective date of the conformity
rule, EPA intended that these provisions apply only to plans on
which final action had been taken prior to the effective date of the
rule. EPA intended the provisions of Sec. 51.448(a) (2) and (3) to
apply to all plans, regardless of the date of submission, on which
final action was not taken until after November 24, 1993. In other
words, EPA intended that the conformity status of the transportation
plan and TIP lapse 120 days or, in the case of a protective finding,
one year after the later of the effective date of the conformity
rule (November 24, 1994) or the disapproval of the control strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.448(a)(3), however, allows EPA to extend the 120-day
lapse period to one year from the date of disapproval if EPA determines
that the control strategy contained in the revision would have been
considered approvable with respect to requirements for emission
reductions if all committed measures had been submitted in enforceable
form as required by section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act. If EPA makes such
a ``protective finding,'' the transportation conformity plan and TIP
will be valid for 12 months following the date of disapproval and the
conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP will lapse 12
months following the date of disapproval unless within that time
another control strategy implementation plan revision is submitted to
EPA and found to be complete.
If, as proposed in this action, EPA disapproves the control
strategy in the moderate area SIP for the Ada County/Boise
nonattainment area, under Sec. 51.448(a)(2) the conformity status of
the transportation plan and TIP would lapse 120 days after the
effective date of the disapproval. EPA has evidence, however, that the
wood smoke control ordinances for the cities of Eagle, Garden City and
Meridian, and unincorporated Ada County are enforceable as a matter of
local law, and believes that these control measures would have been
considered approvable with respect to requirements for emission
reductions if each of these control measures had been submitted to EPA
in enforceable form as required by section 110(a)(2)(A). Therefore, EPA
proposes that the 120-day lapse period be extended to one year under 40
CFR 51.448(a)(3). Accordingly, if EPA takes final action on this
proposal, and the RACM (including RACT) requirement, attainment
demonstration and quantitative milestones and RFP elements of the Ada
County/Boise moderate PM-10 nonattainment SIP are disapproved, then the
State of Idaho's transportation plan and TIP may be found to conform
for 12 months past the effective date of the PM-10 SIP disapproval. The
conformity status of the transportation plan and TIP would then lapse
12 months following the effective date of final action on this proposal
unless within that time another control strategy implementation plan
revision is submitted to EPA and found to be complete.
III. Implications of This Action
EPA is proposing to approve the emission inventory and, as
described in the TSD, several submittals to address requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the Act, including the: a. Monitoring network (CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B)); b. consultation and public notification/process
(CAA section 110(a)(2)(J); c. provisions for revising the plan (CAA
section 110(a)(2)(H)); and d. prohibiting sources from significantly
impacting other states (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)). EPA is also
proposing to grant the exclusion from precursor control requirements
authorized under section 189(e) of the Act. EPA is proposing limited
approval of the control measures that have been submitted by the State
as of this date under the authority of sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of
the Act for the limited purpose of strengthening the SIP and making
them federally enforceable. EPA believes making these control measures
federally enforceable will achieve PM-10 emissions reductions in the
Ada County/Boise nonattainment area and, therefore, advances the NAAQS-
related goals of the CAA. EPA is proposing disapproval of these control
measures as meeting the RACM (including RACT) requirement, because the
State has not adopted as part of the SIP and submitted to EPA those
available control measures necessary for expeditious attainment of the
PM-10 NAAQS (or shown that all economically and technologically
feasible control measures have been implemented and timely attainment
is impracticable), specifically, mandatory burn ban ordinances for
Garden City, Eagle, Meridian and unincorporated Ada County. In
addition, because the attainment demonstration and quantitative
milestones and reasonable further progress (RFP) elements of the Ada
County/Boise PM-10 SIP depend in part on the control measures which the
State has not yet adopted and submitted to EPA, EPA is also proposing
to disapprove these elements.
A final disapproval of these Ada County/Boise PM-10 SIP elements
will authorize the imposition of discretionary sanctions under section
110(m) of the Act, and will institute the 18-month clock for the
imposition of mandatory sanctions under section 179 of the Act and the
two-year clock for the promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan
under section 110(c)(1) of the Act.
If, however, the State submits the additional control measures on
which it relies in its SIP submittal and, based on EPA's review, these
additional control measures adequately address the outstanding
deficiencies, EPA will consider withdrawing this limited approval/
disapproval and instead proposing full approval of the PM-10 plan for
Ada County/Boise relative to those moderate area PM-10 SIP requirements
which were due November 15, 1991.
IV. Request for Public Comments
EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As
indicated at the outset of this document, EPA will consider any
comments postmarked by October 24, 1994.
V. Administrative Review
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2224), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from
E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds
(see Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)). EPA's disapproval of the State request
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval.
Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it does not impose any new Federal
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 13, 1994.
Jane S. Moore,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-23496 Filed 9-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
