[Federal Register: June 26, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 123)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 43006-43013]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26jn02-11]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket ID-15-6995a; FRL-7232-1]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Sandpoint, Idaho, Air Quality 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is taking direct final 
action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted 
by the Governor's designee for the Sandpoint nonattainment area in the 
State of Idaho.
    Sandpoint was classified as nonattainment for particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 
micrometers (PM10) pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990. As a result, Idaho was required to submit a plan for bringing 
the area into attainment. This action approves the plan for Sandpoint 
submitted on August 16, 1996.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 26, 2002, unless 
EPA receives adverse comment by July 26,

[[Page 43007]]

2002. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to Donna Deneen, EPA, Region 10, 
Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 
98101. Copies of the State's request and other information supporting 
this action are available for inspection during normal business hours 
at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and State of Idaho Department 
of Environmental Quality, 1445 North Orchard, Boise, ID 83706-2239.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of 
Air Quality, at (206) 553-6706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the words ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Table of Contents

I. Sandpoint SIP Revision
    A. What action are we taking?
    B. What is the background for this action?
    C. What impact does this action have on the Sandpoint community?
    D. What does the emissions inventory for the Sandpoint SIP 
revision show?
    E. What is the Sandpoint area doing to reduce emissions?
    F. How does the SIP demonstrate attainment with the 
PM10 standard?
    G. How are contingency measure requirements satisfied?
    H. How are sources of PM10 precursors addressed?
    I. How does the SIP show Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 
maintenance of the standard?
    J. How are the enforceability requirements satisfied?
    K. How are the New Source Review Program requirements satisfied?
    L. How are procedural requirements satisfied?
II. Administrative Requirements
* * * * *

I. Sandpoint SIP Revision

A. What Action Are We Talking?

    In this action, we are approving the Sandpoint SIP revision 
submitted by the State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, 
Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ, Idaho, or State) on August 16, 
1996.\1\ We are approving this revision because we believe the State 
adequately demonstrates that the control measures being implemented in 
Sandpoint result in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for PM10 promulgated on July 1, 1987,\2\ 
as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During the 2000 legislative session, the Division of 
Environmental Quality became a separate department rather than a 
division of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, which 
remained a separate department. See Idaho Code sections 39-102A and 
39-104. At the same time, the Department of Environmental Quality 
was given the air pollution planning authorities previously held by 
the Department of Health and Welfare. See Idaho Code sections 39-108 
to 39-118D. All references in this notice ``IDEQ'' shall refer to 
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of 
Environmental Quality, and the Idaho Department of Health and 
Welfare, as appropriate.
    \2\ On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and new standards 
for PM10 and PM2.5 (62 FR 38651). The U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., 
Inc., et al. v. USEPA, No. 97-1440 (May 14, 1999) issued an opinion 
that, among other things, vacated the new standards for 
PM10 that were published on July 18, 1997 and became 
effective September 16, 1997. However, the PM10 standards 
promulgated on July 1, 1987 were not an issue in this litigation, 
and the Court's decision does not affect the applicability of those 
standards in the Sandpoint area. Codification of those standards 
continue to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Idaho began monitoring PM10 in the Sandpoint area in 
1986. Data collected between 1986 and 1990 showed the Sandpoint area 
violated the NAAQS for PM10. In the 1990 Amendments to the 
Clean Air Act, areas that violated the PM10 NAAQS prior to 
1989 were, by law, designated nonattainment for PM10 and 
classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a).\3\ 
Because Sandpoint was one of those areas (see 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 
1991) and 40 CFR 81.313), Idaho was required to adopt and submit a 
PM10 SIP that addressed the requirements of section 189 of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant 
changes to the Act. See Public Law 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho initially submitted a PM10 SIP for the Sandpoint 
area in May of 1993. Our initial review found it complete, but our 
technical review uncovered deficiencies in the plan. Over the next 3 
years, Idaho, the local agencies and community in Sandpoint worked to 
develop a new PM10 SIP that addressed the deficiencies of 
the 1993 submittal.
    On August 16, 1996, the State of Idaho submitted a revised 
PM10 SIP for the Sandpoint nonattainment area, replacing and 
addressing the deficiencies in the 1993 submittal. We have completed a 
review of the technical and administrative adequacy of this plan and 
presented the results in a Technical Support Document (TSD). The TSD 
provides the basis for our approval of the plan and discusses in more 
detail the air quality planning requirements for moderate 
PM10 nonattainment areas in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of 
the Act.\4\ Based on our review, we believe the plan brings the area 
into attainment and, therefore, are approving it in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more detailed discussion of the interpretations of title 
I, see our ``General Preamble,'' which describes our preliminary 
views on how we intend to review SIP's and SIP revisions. (See 
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 
1992)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Impact Does This Action Have on the Sandpoint Community?

    EPA's approval of this SIP revision brings Sandpoint a step closer 
to becoming an attainment area for PM10. A redesignation to 
attainment would relieve the Sandpoint area of certain obligations 
currently in place because of its nonattainment status.
    Although the SIP revision contains emission reduction control 
measures that impact residential wood combustion, roadways, and 
industrial facilities, these control measures have been in place and 
have been enforceable by the State since 1996. Therefore, our approval 
of these measures now has little or no additional impact on the 
Sandpoint community.

D. What Does the Emissions Inventory for the Sandpoint SIP Revision 
Show?

    Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that a nonattainment plan 
include a comprehensive, accurate, and 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.
    An emissions inventory provides information about the relative 
contribution of pollution sources within an airshed. It forms the basis 
for evaluating control strategies, tracking emission reductions, and 
measuring growth. Because this information is required for an area's 
attainment demonstration (or its demonstration that it cannot 
practicably attain) an accurate emissions inventory must accompany each 
attainment plan submission (57 FR 13539).

[[Page 43008]]

    The emissions inventory for the 1996 Sandpoint SIP consists of the 
actual emissions from industrial sources in 1993 and the projected 
emissions from area sources in 1994. The reason the inventory covers 
two different years is because it uses some, but not all, of the 
inventory prepared for the SIP originally submitted by Idaho in 1993. 
For the 1993 SIP, emissions inventories were developed for two separate 
time periods: 1990 (actual emissions) and 1994 (projected emissions). 
When the State began preparing the 1996 SIP using the same data, 
concerns were raised about using the values in the 1990 inventory for 
industrial sources because they might not accurately reflect projected 
growth at the sources. To address these concerns, the State updated the 
base-year inventory to reflect actual emissions from industry in 1993. 
It did not, however, update the area source inventory because there was 
no indication that the area source inventories were not representative. 
In order to work with an area source inventory that covered a similar 
time period as the industrial inventory, the State used the 1994 
projected area source inventory instead of the 1990 actual area source 
inventory for its baseline area source inventory.
    As shown below in Table I, the three largest daily wintertime 
PM10 emissions sources in 1993/4 were residential wood 
combustion, fugitive road dust, and industrial processes. The total 
maximum daily wintertime PM10 emissions were 6364 lb/day, 
and the annual PM10 emissions were 577 tons/year. The term 
``Before Control Strategy'' in Table I means before the control 
measures described in the following section, ``What is the Sandpoint 
area doing to cut emissions?,'' were in place.

 Table I.--PM10 Maximum Daily Wintertime and Annual Emissions for 1993/4
                                Base Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     24-hr/Before        Annual/Before
             Source               control  strategy    control strategy
                                      (lbs/day)           (tons/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Wood Combustion....  2878 (45.2%)         97 (16.8%)
Fugitive Road Dust.............  2210 (34.7%)         305 (52.9%)
Industrial Process.............  686 (10.8%)          90 (15.6%)
Building Construction..........  469 (7.4%)           63 (11.0%)
Mobile Sources.................  110 (1.7%)           18 (3.2%)
Miscellaneous Burning..........  8 (0.1%)             2 (0.3%)
Residential Heating............  3 (0.0%)             1 (0.1%)
Agricultural Tilling...........  0 (0.0%)             1 (0.1%)
    Total......................  6364 lbs per day     577 tons per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II shows the State projects the three largest daily 
wintertime PM10 emissions sources--before control strategy 
or after control strategy--in the 1997 attainment year to remain the 
same (i.e., residential wood combustion, fugitive road dust, and 
industrial process). The term ``After Control Strategy'' in Table II 
means after the control measures described in the following section, 
``What is the Sandpoint area doing to cut emissions?,'' were in place. 
The SIP projects the peak daily wintertime PM10 emissions in 
1997--after control--to be 3926 lb/day. This is in contrast to 6364 
lbs/day PM10 emitted during the 1993/4 baseline year before 
the control strategy was in place (see Table I).

Table II.--PM10 Maximum Daily Wintertime Projections for Attainment Year
                                  1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     24-hr/Before         24-hr/After
             Source               control  strategy    control  strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Wood Combustion....  2906 (44.0%)         1864 (47.5%)
Fugitive Road Dust.............  2420 (36.7%)         788 (20.0%)
Industrial Process.............  870 (13.2%)          679 (17.3%)
Building Construction..........  469 (7.1%)           469 (11.9%)
Mobile Sources.................  114 (1.7%)           114 (2.9%)
Miscellaneous Burning..........  3 (0.0%)             3 (0.0%)
Residential Heating............  9 (0.0%)             9 (0.0%)
Agricultural Tilling...........  0 (0.0%)             0 (0.0%)
    Total......................  6791 lbs per day     3926 lbs per day
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is approving the emissions inventory in the Sandpoint SIP 
revision 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 section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act.

E. What Is the Sandpoint Area Doing To Reduce Emissions?

    For approval, the Sandpoint SIP revision must assure that 
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) to reduce PM10 
are being implemented in the Sandpoint nonattainment area.\5\ There are 
three main sources of PM10 emissions in the Sandpoint

[[Page 43009]]

nonattainment area: residential wood combustion, fugitive road dust, 
and industrial processes. The SIP uses the following control strategy 
to reduce emissions from these sources. Overall, the control strategy 
provides for a reduction of 2442 pounds of PM10 per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the statutory RACM implementation deadlines have 
passed, RACM must be implemented ``as soon as possible.'' Delaney v. 
EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA has interpreted this 
requirement to be ``as soon as practicable.'' 55 FR 36458, 36505 
(September 9, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Residential Wood Combustion
    a. Public Awareness Program. Sandpoint's public awareness program 
informs and educates citizens about stove sizing, installation, proper 
operation and maintenance, general health risks of wood smoke, new 
technology stoves, and alternatives to wood heating. It uses a wide 
variety of media, including brochures, radio advisories, newspaper 
advertisements, TV PSA's, TV advertisements, pay stub inserts, and 
utility inserts, to educate citizens on these topics. In addition, the 
Greater Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce developed and implemented an 
aggressive public awareness campaign in 1995 to initially kick-off its 
wood smoke reduction efforts. Appendix F-3 of the SIP contains an 
outline of this campaign.
    Sandpoint's public awareness program qualifies as a RACM because it 
falls within the description of a qualifying public awareness program, 
as described in Appendix C2 of the General Preamble. 57 FR 18072. (See 
List of Available Control Measures no. 2.)
    b. Uncertified Wood Stove Replacement Program. Sandpoint's 
uncertified woodstove replacement program is a temporary program that 
offered homeowners incentive grants to replace their old wood stoves 
with cleaner burning heating systems. By the time it ended in September 
1995, the replacement program had resulted in the removal of 84 wood 
stoves. These were replaced by 64 natural gas devices, 18 new wood 
stoves and 2 pellet stoves.
    Sandpoint's uncertified wood stove replacement program meets the 
requirements of RACM because it encourages improved performance of 
woodburning devices by subsidizing stove purchases. (See Appendix C2 of 
the General Preamble, List of Available Control Measures no. 3.)
    c. Tax Reduction Program. Idaho revised its State tax code to allow 
taxpayers to receive a tax reduction if they replace their uncertified 
wood stoves with cleaner burning units. As of September 1999, 90 
taxpayers in the Sandpoint NAA qualified for this tax deduction.
    This program meets the requirements of RACM because it gives a 
financial incentive for replacing old, uncertified wood stoves with 
cleaner burning heating units. (See Appendix C2 of the General 
Preamble, List of Available Control Measures no. 3).
    d. Limits on Growth of Uncertified Wood Stoves. In 1995, the City 
of Sandpoint adopted Ordinance No. 965, which, among other things, 
restricts the sale and installation of uncertified solid fuel heating 
appliances in the City of Sandpoint. More specifically, the ordinance 
prohibits any person in the City to advertise for sale, offer for sale, 
sell, or install in any new or existing building a solid fuel heating 
device that has not been certified by EPA. The ordinance also prohibits 
any person in the City of Sandpoint from installing a solid fuel 
heating appliance in any new or existing structure before first 
procuring a permit from the building department, which requires payment 
of a fee.
    Because these measures slow the growth of non-certified woodburning 
devices by restricting their sale and the growth of all woodburning 
devices by imposing installation permit fees, the measures qualify as 
RACM. (See Appendix C2 of the General Preamble, List of Available 
Control Measures no. 4.)
    e. Episodic Curtailment Program. In 1995, the City of Sandpoint 
passed Ordinance No. 965, which, among other things, lays out a two-
stage approach for wood smoke curtailment. The first stage calls for 
voluntary curtailment of the use of woodburning appliances if the 
PM10 concentration reaches 70 micrograms per cubic meter 
(ug/m3). The second stage calls for mandatory curtailment if the 
concentration reaches 100 ug/m3. Violation of the mandatory curtailment 
requirements is a misdemeanor offense, and violators are subject to a 
monetary fine.
    IDEQ provides the City of Sandpoint with the daily air quality 
advisory status. Notification of a voluntary or mandatory curtailment 
is announced during regularly scheduled broadcasts on radio and 
television. There is also a toll-free hotline and a phone tree run by 
the Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce to spread the notification throughout 
the community.
    Because this measure establishes a mandatory episode curtailment 
program, includes a plan, a communication strategy, a trigger level, 
and is enforceable, the measure qualifies as a RACM. (See Appendix C2 
of the General Preamble, List of Available Control Measures no. 1.)
2. Fugitive Road Dust
    Winter road sanding has been shown to adversely affect 
PM10 levels throughout the western United States, including 
Sandpoint. The silt-laden, friable sand is placed on roads by local and 
state highway departments to provide vehicles with better traction on 
snow and ice. However, once the snow has melted and the roads have 
dried out, the remaining dry road sand is easily resuspended by moving 
vehicular traffic as fugitive dust.
    a. Improved quality of anti-skid materials. In 1994, the City of 
Sandpoint adopted Ordinance 939:
    Material Specifications for Street Sanding Material. This measure 
requires applicators of anti-skid materials to use only materials that 
meet certain standards for fines and durability. Historically, road 
maintenance departments in the Sandpoint area used anti-skid material 
that had a fine content ranging from 5-10 percent. The new measure 
allows a maximum of 2-5 percent fines, depending on the durability 
index. Lowering the percent of fines improves the abrasiveness of the 
material and, thus, results in lower silt loadings and, consequently, 
emissions.
    While this ordinance technically only applies to city-maintained 
roads in Sandpoint, it also impacts State highways that are under the 
Idaho Transportation Department's (ITD's) jurisdiction as well. ITD, in 
order to avoid having to maintain separate stockpiles of anti-skid 
materials, has agreed to adhere to the City's standard on all its 
highways within the nonattainment area boundaries.
    Ordinance 939 qualifies as RACM because it requires improved 
material specification requirements for skid control materials. (See 
Appendix C1 of the General Preamble (57 FR 18072), List of Available 
Control Measures no. 8.)
    b. Reduced volume of anti-skid materials. Compared to the baseline 
year, both the ITD and Sandpoint Independent Highway District (SIHD) 
are using less anti-skid material on State highways and roadways in the 
City of Sandpoint. There are a number of reasons for this change. 
First, the adoption of sanding material specifications has increased 
the cost of material from $0.50/yard to approximately $12.00/yard. This 
gives ITD and SIHD a strong incentive to apply the materials as 
efficiently as possible. The regional ITD office has also developed a 
policy to establish portions of state highways in downtown Sandpoint as 
an ``anti-skid free zone.'' In this zone, a liquid de-icer is used 
instead of sand when weather conditions are appropriate. Finally, ITD 
has made improvements in the application of sand by installing ground

[[Page 43010]]

speed control sensors that vary the application rate based on vehicle 
speed, preventing unnecessary deposition of material that could later 
become entrained as fugitive dust.
    These measures qualify as RACM because they result in a reduction 
of usage of skid control sand or salt. (See Appendix C1 of the General 
Preamble, List of Available Control Measures no. 8.)
    c. Use of alternative materials--liquid de-icer. SIHD and ITD have 
acquired equipment to apply liquid de-icer as an alternative to anti-
skid material. Between November 1994 and January 1995, SIHD used 8750 
gallons of liquid de-icer. Use of a combination of liquid de-icer and 
anti-skid material also proved effective, with the de-icer acting as a 
binder and dust suppressant.
    This measure qualifies as RACM because it results in a reduction of 
usage of skid control sand or salt. (See Appendix C1 in the General 
Preamble, List of Available Control Measures no. 8.)
    d. Increased frequency of street sweeping. Vacuum sweeping streets 
reduces the silt loading on vehicle travel lanes and reduces re-
entrained road dust. This practice is particularly important after 
there is no longer a need for sanding material, such as after the snow 
melts. SIHD purchased and is using a new regenerative air vacuum 
sweeper, which has a higher collection efficiency than the vacuum 
sweeper it used previously. Approximately 20% of the local and highway 
lane miles and approximately 40% of the collector lane miles are swept. 
In addition, re-surfacing projects are planned to provide uniform road 
surfaces so that the effectiveness of the new vacuum sweeper is 
maintained.
    This measure qualifies as RACM because it provides for rapid clean 
up of temporary sources of dust, such as skid control sand, on paved 
roads. (See Appendix C1 of the General Preamble, List of Available 
Control Measures no. 4.)
3. Industrial Sources--Permitting Strategy
    In the inventory, IDEQ identified five industrial facilities in the 
Sandpoint nonattainment area that had the potential to emit over 1 ton/
year of PM10: Interstate Concrete & Asphalt, L.D. McFarland 
Pole Co., Lake Pre-Mix Concrete, Lignetics of Idaho, and Louisiana-
Pacific Corp. IDEQ modeled the emissions from each source using EPA's 
Guideline Model ISCSTDFT. Based on the modeling results and emissions 
inventory, IDEQ determined the emissions reduction that was necessary 
at each source in order to ensure attainment with the standard. The 
necessary reductions for each source were then converted into emission 
limits and control measures and incorporated into each source's State-
issued operating permit. Control measures included the paving of haul 
roads, installing baghouses and dust collections systems, and improving 
dust enclosures. Some of the measures required at the Interstate 
Concrete & Asphalt and Louisiana Pacific sites were required to be 
implemented in the future. According to certifications submitted by the 
facilities and inspections by the State, these measures have been 
successfully implemented.
    Table III below shows the reductions that resulted from this 
control strategy. In particular, it shows that, in 1997, the amount of 
PM10 emissions that industrial sources were allowed to emit 
was capped at 679 lb/day due to new emissions limitations in the 
permits. That is 7 lb/day fewer emissions than were actually emitted by 
industrial sources on a worst-case day in 1993, and 191 lb/day fewer 
emissions than would have been allowed to be emitted by industrial 
sources in 1997 if the permits had not been revised.

    Table III.--PM10 Maximum Daily Wintertime Industrial Emissions in
                                Sandpoint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                lbs/day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 actual emissions from inventory (prior to permit                686
 revisions)..................................................
1997 maximum allowable (prior to permit revisions)...........        870
1997 maximum allowable (after permit revisions)..............        679
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has defined RACT for PM10 planning purposes as the 
lowest emission rate that a particular source is capable of meeting by 
application of control technology that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility. 57 FR 13541. The 
attainment needs of the area are also considered in determining RACT. 
Additional controls that might otherwise constitute RACT may not be 
required if the additional controls would not expedite attainment. 57 
FR 13540-13541 and fn. 18 and 20. Because the industrial sources have 
implemented the emission limits and control requirements of the 
permits, the permits implement emission limits and control requirements 
that are technologically and economically feasible. Because the 
Sandpoint area has not had an exceedance of the PM10 
standard since January 1994 and because the area appears to have 
attained the standard, additional controls would not expedite 
attainment. Therefore, EPA believes that the permits issued by IDEQ to 
these sources represent RACT in light of the attainment needs of the 
area.

F. How Does the SIP Demonstrate Attainment of the PM10 
Standard?

    To demonstrate attainment of the 24-hour PM10 standard, 
IDEQ ran an air quality dispersion model that predicted the ambient 
concentrations of PM10 in the Sandpoint area in the baseline 
year and 1997. Among the inputs into the model, IDEQ used five years of 
Spokane meteorological data and 1997 projected inventory data. 
Consistent with EPA policy, IDEQ identified the sixth highest 24-hour 
PM10 concentration at each modeling receptor, then used the 
highest of the sixth highest values to determine whether or not a 
violation of the standard occurred. (PM10 SIP Development 
Guideline, June 1987, pg 6-4). This value was 133 [mu]g/m3 
(110 [mu]g/m3 from area and industrial sources and 23 [mu]g/
m3 from background level). Because 133 [mu]g/m3 
is below the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 [mu]g/
m3, the SIP demonstrates attainment of the standard.
    Supporting these results, monitoring data for Sandpoint show no 
exceedences of the standard since January 26, 1994. Based on these 
data, Sandpoint is attaining the 24-hour PM10 standard. To 
demonstrate attainment of the annual PM10 NAAQS, IDEQ relied 
on the area's historic monitoring data, in lieu of a modeling 
demonstration. We believe this approach is appropriate for two reasons. 
First, Sandpoint has never violated the annual PM10 NAAQS 
since monitoring began in 1986. Second, the annual arithmetic mean 
concentration reported for Sandpoint has been at least 15 percent below 
the standard since monitoring began and at least 45 percent below the 
standard since 1995. In light

[[Page 43011]]

of this historic evidence of clean annual data for the area, in 
combination with our expectations that control measures implemented to 
reduce 24-hour levels will also aid in reducing annual levels, we 
believe it is very unlikely that Sandpoint will exceed the annual 
standard in the future. Consequently, we believe that IDEQ has 
demonstrated attainment of the annual standard.

G. How Are Contingency Measure Requirements Satisfied?

    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). 
Contingency measures must provide for additional emissions reductions 
beyond the control strategy that is used to attain the ambient 
standard. A State may rely on ``over control'' as a contingency 
measure, that is, rely on control measures that are part of the core 
control strategy in the SIP. EPA has stated that, in general, 
reductions equal to at least 25 percent of the total reductions for the 
control strategy would be appropriate for a moderate nonattainment 
area. See 57 FR 13544.
    The Sandpoint SIP revision uses over control to meet the 
contingency requirements. Emissions reductions from over control are 
achieved primarily by the mandatory residential wood burning 
curtailment program adopted by the City of Sandpoint in February 1995. 
Modeling of the core control measures in the SIP for the Sandpoint 
nonattainiment area indicates a 63 [mu]g/m3 reduction in the 
24-hour standard (from 196 [mu]g/m3 to 133 ug/
m3)and a 17 ug/m3 over control reduction in the 
24-hour standard (from 150 [mu]g/m3 to 133 [mu]g/
m3). This means that the core control measures in the SIP 
result in over control of 27% (the ratio of 17 [mu]g/m3 to 
63 [mu]g/m3). Since these measures result in at least 25 
percent more reductions than were needed to attain the standard, EPA 
approves the contingency measures submitted in the Sandpoint SIP.

H. How Are Sources of PM10 Precursors Addressed?

    The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary 
sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary source of 
PM10 precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM10 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 Sandpoint nonattainment area 
did not reveal any major stationary sources, including any major 
stationary sources of PM10 precursors, EPA is granting the 
exclusion from control requirements authorized under section 189(e) for 
major stationary sources of PM10 precursors.

I. How Does the SIP Show Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 
Maintenance of the Standard?

    The Sandpoint SIP revision must contain quantitative milestones 
that demonstrate RFP in maintaining the standard. These must be met 
until the area is redesignated attainment.
    RFP is demonstrated in the Sandpoint nonattainment area by programs 
in the Sandpoint nonattainment area that continue to reduce 
PM10 emissions. For instance, the tax deduction program has 
resulted in at least 16 replacements of uncertified wood stoves in the 
nonattainment area during 1998 and 1999. Another step taken to further 
reduce emissions is the SIHD's recent purchase of a new high-efficiency 
street sweeper to improve the effectiveness of the street cleaning 
program. Steps like these and continued operation of the reduction 
programs, in combination with monitoring data showing that the 
Sandpoint NAA has not exceeded the 24-hour standard since early 1994, 
satisfy the RFP and demonstration of maintenance requirements.

J. How Are the Enforceability Requirements Satisfied?

    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
IDEQ and EPA (see section 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 57 
FR 13556). Our criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP 
revisions are 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 State submitted to EPA documentation that describes, for each 
control measure implemented in Sandpoint, how compliance will be 
assured, the frequency of the assurance, and the enforcement mechanisms 
to be used. IDEQ's role, as well as other entities' roles in assuring 
adequate implementation of the RACT/RACM attainment strategy in the 
Sandpoint SIP, are also identified.
    Based on the ordinances IDEQ submitted (City of Sandpoint 
Ordinances Nos. 965 and 939) and IDEQ's explanation of how those 
ordinances and other control measures will be tracked and enforced, EPA 
believes that the enforceability requirements are met. This is 
consistent with section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act which requires all 
emission limits, control measures and other elements of the SIP to be 
enforceable.

K. How Are the New Source Review Program Rrequirements Satisfied?

    States with initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas 
were required to submit a permit program for the construction and 
operation of new and modified stationary sources of PM10 by 
June 30, 1992. See section 189(a) of the Clean Air Act.
    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 included revisions to the new 
source review (NSR) program requirements of the construction and 
operation of new and modified major stationary sources located in 
nonattainment areas. The Act requires states to amend their SIPs to 
reflect these revisions, but it did not require submittal of this 
element along with the other SIP elements. The Act established June 30, 
1992 as the submittal date for the revised NSR programs. See section 
189(a) of the Act.
    In the ``General Preamble,'' EPA issued guidance for states to 
follow in the development of revised NSR programs to meet the 
requirements of the 1990 Amendments. 57 FR 13552-13556. EPA guidance 
calls for states to implement their existing NSR programs during the 
interval preceding EPA's formal approval of their revised NSR program.
    Idaho did not submit a permit program for the construction and 
operation of new and modified major stationary sources of 
PM10 by the June 30, 1992 deadline. On January 15, 1993, we 
mailed a findings letter to the Governor of Idaho explaining that this 
element was missing. The State had until July 15, 1994 to submit the 
NSR program or sanctions would have been imposed under the provisions 
of the Act. IDEQ submitted its NSR program on May 17, 1994, and we 
informed Idaho that the NSR program was complete in a June 10, 1994 
letter to the IDEQ Administrator. Upon further review, we uncovered a 
number of deficiencies in the submitted program. In 1999, IDEQ 
submitted revisions to its NSR program addressing these deficiencies. 
We will take action on IDEQ's NSR submittal in a separate FR document 
when we have completed our review of the 1999 revisions.

[[Page 43012]]

L. How Are Procedural Requirements Satisfied?

    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.\6\ 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 the state after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan 
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of 
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEQ held a public hearing on the SIP revision on June 13, 1995 
and, after IDEQ reviewed the oral testimony, the IDEQ Administrator 
adopted the final plan and submitted it to EPA on August 16, 1996 as a 
proposed revision to the SIP.
    EPA reviewed the SIP revision to determine completeness in 
accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V. We sent a letter dated December 8, 1997 to the 
Administrator of the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality indicating 
the submittal was complete and the next steps to be taken in the review 
process.

II. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 30, 2002.
Ron Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

    2. Section 52.670 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(35) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (35) On August 16, 1996, the State of Idaho adopted and submitted a 
revision to the SIP for Sandpoint, Idaho, for the purpose of bringing 
about the attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for 
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal 10 micrometers.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ordinance No. 939, Material Specifications for Street Sanding 
Material, as adopted by the City of Sandpoint on February 22, 1994.
    (B) Ordinance No. 965, Solid Fuel Heating Appliance Ordinance, as 
adopted by the City of Sandpoint on February 21, 1995.
    (C) The following terms and conditions limiting particulate matter 
emissions in the following permits:
    (1) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Lake Pre-Mix

[[Page 43013]]

concrete, Permit No. 777-00182, issued May 17, 1996, the following 
conditions for the cement silo vent: 1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 3.1.1, and 
3.1.2.
    (2) State of Idaho Air Pollution Operating Permit for Interstate 
Concrete & Asphalt, Permit No. 017-00048, issued August 2, 1999, the 
following conditions: for the asphalt plant, 2.2, 3.1.1, 4.1, 4.1.1, 
4.1.2, 4.2.1 (as it applies to the hourly PM10 emission 
limit in Appendix A), 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, and 4.2.2.3; for the 
concrete batch plant, 2.1, 3.1.1, 4.1, 4.1.1, and 4.1.2; Appendix A (as 
it applies to PM10 emission rates after 7/1/96) and Appendix 
B (as it applies after 7/1/96).
    (3) State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality 
Tier II Operating Permit for Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Permit No. 
017-00003, issued October 31, 2001, the following conditions: for the 
Kipper and Sons Hog Fuel Boiler, 2.3 (as it applies to 
PM10), 2.5, 2.7, 2.13, 2.14, 2.17, 2.19; Cleaver-Brooks 
Natural Gas-Fired Boilers, 3.2 (as it applies to PM10); 
Pneumatic Conveyance System, 4.2, 4.4, 4.7; Drying Kilns, 5.2, 5.4, 
5.5; Fugitive Emission Sources, 6.5, 6.7, 6.13; and the Appendix (as it 
applies to PM10).
    (ii) Additional Materials.
    (A) Sandpoint PM10 Air Quality Improvement Plan, adopted 
August 16, 1996.

[FR Doc. 02-16139 Filed 6-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P