Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 21669-21679 [2014-08609]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: April 2, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014–08646 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0708, FRL–9909–47–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that
the Idaho State Implementation Plan
(SIP) meets the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22,
2010, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June
2, 2010. Whenever a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated, the CAA
requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan
is required to address basic program
elements, including but not limited to
regulatory structure, monitoring,
modeling, legal authority, and adequate
resources necessary to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.
These elements are referred to as
infrastructure requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 19, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2013–0708, by any of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: R10-Public_Comments@
epa.gov
• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101
• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region
10 Mailroom, 9th floor, 1200 Sixth
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such
deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2013–
0708. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21669
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Elements
III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure
SIP Submittals
IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The EPA first set standards for NO2 in
1971, setting both a primary standard (to
protect health) and a secondary
standard (to protect the public welfare)
at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb), averaged
annually. The EPA reviewed the
standards in 1985 and 1996, deciding to
retain the standards at the conclusion of
each review. In 2005, the EPA began
another review, resulting in the January
22, 2010, rulemaking to establish an
additional primary NO2 standard at 100
ppb, averaged over one hour (75 FR
6474).
Primary standards for SO2 were first
set in 1971, at 0.14 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over a 24-hour period,
not to be exceeded more than once per
year, and 0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic
mean. The EPA subsequently reviewed
the primary standards and determined
to retain them in 1996 at the conclusion
of the review. More recently, on June 2,
2010, the EPA promulgated a revised
primary SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based
on a three-year average of the annual
99th percentile of one-hour daily
maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520).
The CAA requires that states submit
SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three
years after promulgation of a new or
revised standard. CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) require states to
address basic SIP elements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards, the socalled ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements. To
help states, the EPA issued guidance on
September 13, 2013, addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for certain
NAAQS, including the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.1 As noted in the
guidance, to the extent an existing SIP
already meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)
1 Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
21670
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements, states may certify that fact
via a letter to the EPA.
On September 16, 2013, the State of
Idaho submitted certifications to the
EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) provided notice and an
opportunity for public comment on the
submittals from July 12, 2013, through
August 13, 2013. A notice of public
hearing was published in the Idaho
Statesman on July 12, 2013. The Idaho
DEQ held a public hearing on August
13, 2013 in Boise, Idaho. No comments
or testimony were received. The EPA
has evaluated the Idaho submittals and
determined that the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA have
been met.
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Elements
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for
SIP submissions after a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that
states must meet for infrastructure SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. These
requirements include SIP infrastructure
elements such as modeling, monitoring,
and emissions inventories that are
designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements, with their corresponding
CAA subsection, are listed below:
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system.
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for
enforcement of control measures.
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source
monitoring system.
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated
nonattainment and meet the applicable
requirements of part D.
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
government officials; public
notification; and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
visibility protection.
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/
data.
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.
The EPA’s guidance clarified that two
elements identified in CAA section
110(a)(2) are not governed by the three
year submission deadline of CAA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local
nonattainment area controls are not due
within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due
at the time the nonattainment area plan
requirements are due pursuant to CAA
section 172 and the various pollutant
specific subparts 2–5 of part D. These
requirements are: (i) submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to
the extent that subsection refers to a
permit program as required in part D,
title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I)
which pertain to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D, title I
of the CAA. As a result, this action does
not address infrastructure elements
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to nonattainment new source
review (NSR) or CAA section
110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA
interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
provision on visibility as not being
triggered by a new NAAQS because the
visibility requirements in part C, title I
of the CAA are not changed by a new
NAAQS.
III. EPA Approach to Review of
Infrastructure SIP Submittals
The EPA is acting upon the SIP
submission from Idaho that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of
CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality
standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
these SIP submissions are to provide for
the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
the EPA’s taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address.
The EPA has historically referred to
these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
does not appear in the CAA, the EPA
uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy
other SIP requirements under the CAA,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D of title I of the
CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
required by the EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of
CAA section 169A, and nonattainment
new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit
requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and
section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required contents of
these submissions. The list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2)
contains a wide variety of disparate
provisions, some of which pertain to
required legal authority, some of which
pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain
to requirements for both authority and
substantive program provisions.2 The
EPA therefore believes that while the
timing requirement in section 110(a)(1)
is unambiguous, some of the other
statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, the EPA believes that the list
of required elements for infrastructure
SIP submissions provided in section
110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
The following examples of
ambiguities illustrate the need for the
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) requirements with
respect to infrastructure SIP
submissions for a given new or revised
NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is
that section 110(a)(2) requires that
‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the
list of requirements therein, while the
EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent and would create a conflict
with the nonattainment provisions in
part D of title I of the CAA, which
specifically address nonattainment SIP
requirements.3 Section 110(a)(2)(I)
pertains to nonattainment SIP
2 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
that states must have a SIP-approved program to
address certain sources as required by part C of title
I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
states must have legal authority to address
emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
3 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air
Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR
25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements and part D addresses
when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area
requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires the EPA to
establish a schedule for submission of
such plans for certain pollutants when
the Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment,
and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to
two years, or in some cases three years,
for such designations to be
promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates
that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, the EPA must
determine which provisions of section
110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.
Another example of ambiguity within
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to
whether states must meet all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements in a
single SIP submission, and whether the
EPA must act upon such SIP submission
in a single action. Although section
110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a
plan’’ to meet these requirements, the
EPA interprets the CAA to allow states
to make multiple SIP submissions
separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states
elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure
SIP requirements, the EPA can elect to
act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined
action.5 Similarly, the EPA interprets
the CAA to allow it to take action on the
individual parts of one larger,
comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, the EPA has
sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub4 The EPA notes that this ambiguity within
section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that
various subparts of part D set specific dates for
submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various
pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides
specific dates for submission of emissions
inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these
specific dates are necessarily later than three years
after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.
5 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to
the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action
approving the structural PSD elements of the New
Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to
meet the requirements of the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR
rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR
4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action on
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
elements of the same infrastructure SIP
submission.6
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission
requirements for different NAAQS.
Thus, the EPA notes that not every
element of section 110(a)(2) would be
relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in
the same way, for each new or revised
NAAQS. The states’ attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each
NAAQS therefore could be different. For
example, the monitoring requirements
that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could
be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and
scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might
be very different for an entirely new
NAAQS than for a minor revision to an
existing NAAQS.7
The EPA notes that interpretation of
section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when
the EPA reviews other types of SIP
submissions required under the CAA.
Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP
submissions, the EPA also has to
identify and interpret the relevant
elements of section 110(a)(2) that
logically apply to these other types of
SIP submissions. For example, section
172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan
SIP submissions required by part D have
to meet the ‘‘applicable requirements’’
of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example,
attainment plan SIP submissions must
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable
emission limits and control measures
and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan
SIP submissions required by part D
would not need to meet the portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the
PSD program required in part C of title
I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area
is designated nonattainment and thus
subject to part D planning requirements.
As this example illustrates, each type of
6 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, made a SIP revision to the EPA
demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed
action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on
January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action
on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16,
2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR
42997), the EPA took separate proposed and final
actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007
submittal.
7 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of
new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new
indicator species for the new NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21671
SIP submission may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not
others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in
some of the statutory language of section
110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA
believes that it is appropriate to
interpret the ambiguous portions of
section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
in the context of acting on a particular
SIP submission. In other words, the EPA
assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP
development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or
meet each of them in the same way.
Therefore, the EPA has adopted an
approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against
the list of elements in section 110(a)(2),
but only to the extent each element
applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, the EPA has elected to
use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for
particular elements.8 The EPA most
recently issued guidance for
infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).9 The EPA
developed this document to provide
states with up-to-date guidance for
infrastructure SIPs for any new or
revised NAAQS. Within this guidance,
the EPA describes the duty of states to
make infrastructure SIP submissions to
meet basic structural SIP requirements
within three years of promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS. The EPA also
made recommendations about many
specific subsections of section 110(a)(2)
that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.10 The
8 The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the
CAA requires the EPA to provide guidance or to
promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and
requires the submission of infrastructure SIP
submissions, regardless of whether or not the EPA
provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in
order to assist states, as appropriate.
9 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
2013.
10 The EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did
not make recommendations with respect to
infrastructure SIP submissions to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance
shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
Continued
17APP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21672
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
guidance also discusses the
substantively important issues that are
germane to certain subsections of
section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA
interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP
submissions need to address certain
issues and need not address others.
Accordingly, the EPA reviews each
infrastructure SIP submission for
compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2),
as appropriate.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
is a required element of section
110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP
submissions. Under this element, a state
must meet the substantive requirements
of section 128, which pertain to state
boards that approve permits or
enforcement orders and heads of
executive agencies with similar powers.
Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure
SIP submissions to ensure that the
state’s SIP appropriately addresses the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance
explains the EPA’s interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which
states can appropriately address these
substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an
individual state’s permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether
permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or
by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the
state, the substantive requirements of
section 128 are necessarily included in
the EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure
SIP submissions because section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
As another example, the EPA’s review
of infrastructure SIP submissions with
respect to the PSD program
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the
structural PSD program requirements
contained in part C and the EPA’s PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program
requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to
address all regulated sources and NSR
pollutants, including greenhouse gases.
By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under the EPA’s
interpreted the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created
by ongoing litigation, the EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the
guidance is neither binding nor required by statute,
whether the EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state’s CAA
obligations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are
merely available as an option for the
state, such as the option to provide
grandfathering of complete permit
applications with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter
optional provisions are types of
provisions the EPA considers irrelevant
in the context of an infrastructure SIP
action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements,
however, the EPA’s review of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission focuses
on assuring that the state’s SIP meets
basic structural requirements. For
example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
inter alia, the requirement that states
have a program to regulate minor new
sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates
whether the state has an EPA-approved
minor new source review program and
whether the program addresses the
pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submission, however,
the EPA does not think it is necessary
to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state’s existing minor
source program (i.e., already in the
existing SIP) for compliance with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations that pertain to such
programs.
With respect to certain other issues,
the EPA does not believe that an action
on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to
address possible deficiencies in a state’s
existing SIP. These issues include: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess
emissions from sources during periods
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
that may be contrary to the CAA and the
EPA’s policies addressing such excess
emissions (‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing
provisions related to ‘‘director’s
variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that
may be contrary to the CAA because
they purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while
limiting public process or not requiring
further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs
that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of the EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR
Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72
FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). Thus, the EPA
believes it may approve an
infrastructure SIP submission without
scrutinizing the totality of the existing
SIP for such potentially deficient
provisions and may approve the
submission even if it is aware of such
existing provisions.11 It is important to
11 By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were
to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
note that the EPA’s approval of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission should
not be construed as explicit or implicit
re-approval of any existing potentially
deficient provisions that relate to the
three specific issues just described.
The EPA’s approach to review of
infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are
logically applicable to that submission.
The EPA believes that this approach to
the review of a particular infrastructure
SIP submission is appropriate, because
it would not be reasonable to read the
general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each
and every provision of a state’s existing
SIP against all requirements in the CAA
and the EPA regulations merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in
question has the basic structural
elements for a functioning SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as
statutory and regulatory requirements
under the CAA have evolved, they may
include some outmoded provisions and
historical artifacts. These provisions,
while not fully up to date, nevertheless
may not pose a significant problem for
the purposes of ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a
new or revised NAAQS when the EPA
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. The EPA believes that
a better approach is for states and the
EPA to focus attention on those
elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP
revision due to the promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, the EPA’s 2013
Guidance gives simpler
recommendations with respect to
carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As
a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide
need only state this fact in order to
address the visibility prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, the EPA believes that its
approach with respect to infrastructure
SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides
other avenues and mechanisms to
address specific substantive deficiencies
submission that contained a legal deficiency, such
as a new exemption for excess emissions during
SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate
that provision for compliance against the rubric of
applicable CAA requirements in the context of the
action on the infrastructure SIP.
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
in existing SIPs. These other statutory
tools allow the EPA to take
appropriately tailored action, depending
upon the nature and severity of the
alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5)
authorizes the EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’
whenever the EPA determines that a
state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to
attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to
otherwise comply with the CAA.12
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to
correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.13
Significantly, the EPA’s determination
that an action on a state’s infrastructure
SIP submission is not the appropriate
time and place to address all potential
existing SIP deficiencies does not
preclude the EPA’s subsequent reliance
on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as
part of the basis for action to correct
those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be
appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate
director’s discretion provisions in the
course of acting on an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA believes that
section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the
statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency
in a subsequent action.14
IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other
Control Measures
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emission
limits and other control measures,
means or techniques (including
12 For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah
to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related
to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639
(April 18, 2011).
13 The EPA has used this authority to correct
errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to
PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section
110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions
that the Agency determined it had approved in
error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American
Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada
SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004)
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051
(November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and
Nevada SIPs).
14 See, e.g., the EPA’s disapproval of a SIP
submission from Colorado on the grounds that it
would have included a director’s discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements,
including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR
42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed
disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such
provisions).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
21673
IDAPA 58.01.01.401.03 provides that
economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of
Idaho DEQ will require a Tier II source
emissions rights), as well as schedules
operating permit if Idaho DEQ
and timetables for compliance, as may
determines emission rate reductions are
be necessary or appropriate to meet the
necessary to attain or maintain any
applicable requirements of the CAA.
ambient air quality standard or
State submittals: The Idaho submittals applicable PSD increment.
cite an overview of the Idaho air quality
In addition to the permitting rules
laws and regulations, including portions
described above, Idaho has adopted
of the Idaho Environmental Protection
rules to limit and control emissions
and Health Act (EPHA) and the Rules
resulting from open burning (IDAPA
for the Control of Air Pollution located
58.01.01.600—624) and activities that
at IDAPA 58.01.01. Relevant laws cited
generate visible emissions (IDAPA
include Idaho Code Section 39–
58.01.01.625). Idaho has also
105(3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ
promulgated rules addressing the sulfur
authority to supervise and administer a
content of fuels (IDAPA 58.01.01.725)
system to safeguard air quality, and
and banking of emissions (IDAPA
Idaho Code Section 39–115 which
58.01.01.460—461). Based on the above
provides Idaho DEQ with specific
analysis, we are proposing to approve
authority for the issuance of air quality
the Idaho SIP as meeting the
permits. Relevant regulations include
requirements of CAA section
IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 (incorporation
110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
by reference of federal regulations),
SO2 NAAQS.
IDAPA 58.01.01.200—228 (permit to
construct rules), IDAPA 58.01.01.400—
We note that, in this action, we are
410 (operating permit rules), IDAPA
not proposing to approve or disapprove
58.01.01.600—624 (control of open
any existing Idaho provisions with
burning), IDAPA 58.01.01.625 (visible
regard to excess emissions during
emissions requirements and testing),
startup, shutdown, or malfunction
IDAPA 58.01.01.725 (rules for sulfur
(SSM) of operations at a facility. The
content of fuels), and IDAPA
EPA believes that a number of states
58.01.01.460—461 (banking of
may have SSM provisions that are
emissions).
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP
guidance 15 and the EPA has recently
incorporates by reference a number of
proposed action to address such state
Federal regulations, including the
regulations.
Federal NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50,
In addition, we are not proposing to
revised as of July 1, 2012. The EPA most
approve or disapprove any existing
recently approved the incorporation by
Idaho rules with regard to director’s
reference of these regulations at IDAPA
discretion or variance provisions. The
58.01.01.107 ‘‘Incorporations by
EPA believes that a number of states
Reference’’ on March 3, 2014 (79 FR
may have such provisions that are
11711). Idaho has incorporated by
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
guidance (November 24, 1987, 52 FR
NAAQS into Idaho regulations.
Idaho generally regulates emissions of 45109), and the EPA plans to take action
NO2 and SO2 through its SIP-approved
in the future to address such state
NSR permitting programs, in addition to regulations. In the meantime, we
operating permit regulations, sulfur
encourage any state having a director’s
content of fuels regulations, and rules
discretion or variance provision that is
for the control of open burning, fugitive contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance
dust, activities that generate visible
to take steps to correct the deficiency as
emissions, and emissions banking. The
soon as possible.
EPA most recently approved revisions
to Idaho’s major and minor NSR
15 For further description of the EPA’s SSM
permitting programs on March 3, 2014
Policy, see, e.g., a memorandum dated September
20, 1999, titled ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Policy
(79 FR 11711). Idaho’s NSR rules
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,
incorporate by reference the Federal
Startup, and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A. Herman,
non-attainment NSR regulations and
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Federal PSD regulations at IDAPA
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Also,
58.01.204 and IDAPA 58.01.01.205
the EPA issued a proposed action on February 12,
respectively. In addition to NSR
2013, titled ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response
permitting regulations, Idaho’s Tier II
to Petition for Rulemaking: Findings of Substantial
operating permit regulations at IDAPA
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
58.01.01.400—410 require that to obtain Applying to excess Emissions During Periods of
an operating permit, the applicant must Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction.’’ This
responds to a petition for
demonstrate the source will not cause or rulemaking Sierra Club that concerns rulemaking
filed by the
SSM
significantly contribute to a violation of provisions in 39 states’ SIPs (February 22, 2013, 78
FR 12460).
any ambient air quality standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
21674
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring/Data System
110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement
of Control Measures
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires
SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and
making these data available to the EPA
upon request.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
reference IDAPA 58.01.01.107 and
IDAPA 58.01.01.576.05 in response to
this requirement. These rules
incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 50
National Primary and Secondary Air
Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 52
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 53
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods, and 40 CFR part 58
Appendix B Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance Quality Assurance
Requirements for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration. The Idaho
submittals certify that under these rules
Idaho meets the infrastructure
requirement to implement ambient air
monitoring surveillance systems in
accordance with the requirements of the
CAA.
The Idaho submittals reference the
2012 Idaho Annual Ambient Air
Monitoring Network Plan, approved by
the EPA on October 25, 2012. The Idaho
submittals also reference the Web site
where the Idaho DEQ provides the
network plan, air quality monitoring
summaries, a map of the monitoring
network and real-time air monitoring
data.
EPA analysis: A comprehensive air
quality monitoring plan, intended to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58
was submitted by Idaho on January 15,
1980 (40 CFR 52.670) and approved by
the EPA on July 28, 1982. This air
quality monitoring plan has been
subsequently updated and most recently
approved by the EPA on March 10,
2014.16 The plan includes, among other
things, the locations for NO2 and SO2
monitoring. Idaho makes the plan
available for public review on the Idaho
DEQ Web site at https://
www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/
monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx.
The Web site also includes an
interactive map of Idaho’s air
monitoring network. Based on the
foregoing, we are proposing to approve
the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires
states have a program providing for
enforcement of all SIP measures and the
regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources, including a
program to meet PSD and
nonattainment NSR requirements.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
refer to Idaho Code Section 39–108
which provides Idaho DEQ with
authority to enforce both
administratively and civilly the Idaho
Environmental Protection and Health
Act (EPHA), or any rule, permit or order
promulgated pursuant to the EPHA.
Criminal enforcement is authorized at
Idaho Code Section 39–109. Emergency
order authority, similar to that under
section 303 of the CAA, is located at
Idaho Code Section 39–112. The Idaho
submittals also refer to laws and
regulations related to air quality permits
at IDAPA 58.01.01.200—228 (permit to
construct rules).
The Idaho submittals also cite the
annual incorporation by reference (IBR)
rulemaking which updates Idaho’s SIP
to include Federal changes to the
NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho’s
submittals certify that the annual IBR
updates along with IDAPA sections
200—288 (permitting requirements for
new and modified sources) and 575—
587 (air quality standards and area
classification) meets the CAA
infrastructure requirement to implement
the PSD program.
EPA analysis: With regard to the
requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP
measures, we are proposing to find that
the Idaho provisions described above
provide Idaho DEQ with authority to
enforce the Idaho EPHA, air quality
regulations, permits, and orders
promulgated pursuant to the EPHA.
Idaho DEQ staffs and maintains an
enforcement program to ensure
compliance with SIP requirements.
Idaho DEQ may issue emergency orders
to reduce or discontinue emission of air
contaminants where air emissions cause
or contribute to imminent and
substantial endangerment. Enforcement
cases may be referred to the State
Attorney General’s Office for civil or
criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to
enforcement for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
To generally meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regard to
the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources, a state is
16 Idaho Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan
Approval Letter, dated March 10, 2014.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
required to have PSD, nonattainment
NSR, and minor NSR permitting
programs adequate to implement the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. As noted above, this
action does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to
nonattainment new source review
(NSR).
We most recently approved revisions
to Idaho’s PSD program on March 3,
2014, updating the Idaho PSD program
with respect to Federal requirements for
fine particulate matter implementation
in attainment and unclassifiable areas
(79 FR 11711). Previously on July 17,
2012, we approved a revision to the
Idaho SIP to provide authority to
implement the PSD permitting program
with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions (77 FR 41916). Idaho’s PSD
program implements the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by
reference the Federal PSD program
requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July
1, 2012. As a result, we are proposing
to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with regards to PSD for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
We note that on January 4, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of
Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.),
issued a judgment that remanded two of
the EPA’s rules implementing the 1997
fine particulate matter NAAQS,
including the ‘‘Implementation of New
Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule). The Court
ordered the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these
rules pursuant to subpart 4 consistent
with this opinion.’’Id. at 437. Subpart 4
of part D, title I of the CAA establishes
additional provisions for particulate
matter nonattainment areas. The 2008
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
addressed by the court’s decision
promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both
nonattainment areas (nonattainment
NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable
areas (PSD). As the requirements of
subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment
areas, the EPA does not consider the
portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and
unclassifiable areas to be affected by the
court’s opinion. Moreover, the EPA does
not anticipate the need to revise any
PSD requirements promulgated in the
2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule in
order to comply with the Court’s
decision. Accordingly, the EPA’s
proposed approval of elements
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), with
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
respect to the PSD requirements, does
not conflict with the court’s opinion.
The EPA interprets the CAA section
110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure
submittals due three years after
adoption or revision of a NAAQS to
exclude nonattainment area
requirements, including requirements
associated with a nonattainment NSR
program. Instead, these elements are
typically referred to as nonattainment
SIP or attainment plan elements, which
are due by the dates statutorily
prescribed under subparts 2 through 5
under part D, extending as far as ten
years following designations for some
elements.
On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458
(D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that,
inter alia, vacated the provisions adding
the PM2.5 Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC) to the Federal
regulations at 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). as part of the Federal
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than
2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC); Final Rule’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5
Implementation Rule) (75 FR 64864). In
its decision, the court held that the EPA
did not have the authority to use SMCs
to exempt permit applicants from the
statutory requirement in section
165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient
monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in
all PSD permit applications. Thus,
although the PM2.5 SMC was not a
required element of a state’s PSD
program, where a state PSD program
contains such a provision and allows
issuance of new permits without
requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring
data, such application of the vacated
SMC would be inconsistent with the
court’s opinion and the requirements of
section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
At the EPA’s request, the decision
also vacated and remanded to the EPA
for further consideration the portions of
the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation
Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The
EPA requested this vacatur and remand
of two of the three provisions in the
EPA regulations that contain SILs for
PM2.5 because the wording of these two
SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with
the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities
that we provided in the preamble to the
Federal Register publication when we
promulgated these provisions. The third
SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was
not vacated and remains in effect. We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
21675
Court, which granted review of the case
on June 24, 2013, and heard oral
argument on December 10, 2013, states
are not required to submit
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has
quantified their obligations under that
section. The portions of the SIP
submissions relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, are
required.
For purposes of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submittals
referenced Idaho’s SIP-approved PSD
program and Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP
submitted to the EPA on October 25,
2010. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) is
discussed below.
EPA analysis: The EPA believes that
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD
sub-element may be met by the State’s
confirmation in the submittal that new
major sources and major modifications
in the State are subject to a SIPapproved PSD program. We most
recently approved revisions to Idaho’s
PSD program on March 3, 2014,
updating the Idaho PSD program with
respect to Federal requirements for fine
particulate matter implementation in
attainment and unclassifiable areas (79
FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012,
we approved a revision to the Idaho SIP
to provide authority to implement the
PSD permitting program with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions (77 FR
110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport
41916). Idaho’s PSD program
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires
implements the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
state SIPs to include provisions
NAAQS and incorporates the Federal
prohibiting any source or other type of
PSD program regulations at 40 CFR
emissions activity in one state from
52.21 by reference as of July 1, 2012. As
contributing significantly to
discussed above in section 110(a)(2)(C),
nonattainment, or interfering with
we believe that our proposed approval
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not
state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
affected by recent court vacaturs of EPA
Further, this section requires state SIPs
PSD implementing regulations.
to include provisions prohibiting any
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
source or other type of emissions
the Idaho SIP as meeting the
activity in one state from interfering
requirements of CAA section
with measures required to prevent
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with regards to PSD
significant deterioration (PSD) of air
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
quality, or from interfering with
The EPA believes that, with regard to
measures required to protect visibility
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
visibility sub-element, the requirement
(i.e. measures to address regional haze)
may be satisfied by an approved SIP
in any state (CAA section
addressing regional haze. The Idaho
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
State submittals: The Idaho submittals submittals reference the Idaho Regional
did not address CAA section
Haze SIP, submitted to the EPA on
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In accordance with the October 25, 2010, which addresses
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
visibility impacts across states within
the D.C. Circuit opinion, at this time,
the region. On June 9, 2011, we
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
approved a SIP revision which provides
submissions from the State of Idaho for
Idaho DEQ the authority to address
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS are regional haze and to implement best
available retrofit technology (BART)
not required SIP submissions. See EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 requirements (76 FR 33651).
Subsequently on June 22, 2011, we
F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert granted,
approved portions of the Idaho Regional
2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Unless the
EME Homer City decision is reversed or Haze SIP, including the requirements
for BART (76 FR 36329). Finally, on
otherwise modified by the Supreme
also note that the court’s decision does
not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5
promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
The EPA recently amended its
regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5
SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD
regulations (December 9, 2013, 78 FR
73698). The EPA will initiate a separate
rulemaking regarding the PM2.5 SILs that
will address the court’s remand. In our
previous action on March 3, 2014, we
disapproved Idaho’s incorporation by
reference of the vacated PM2.5 SILs and
SMC provisions into the Idaho SIP (79
FR 11711). This action takes no
additional action with respect to those
SIP provisions that were previously
disapproved. In this action we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as
those elements relate to a
comprehensive PSD program.
With regard to the minor NSR
requirement of this element, the EPA
has determined that Idaho’s minor NSR
permitting program regulates NO2 and
SO2 emissions from minor sources.
Based on the foregoing, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21676
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
November 8, 2012, we approved the
remainder of the Idaho Regional Haze
SIP, including those portions that
address CAA provisions that require
states to set Reasonable Progress Goals
for their Class I areas, and to develop a
Long Term Strategy to achieve these
goals (77 FR 66929).
The EPA is proposing to find that as
a result of the prior approval of the
Idaho regional haze SIP, the Idaho SIP
contains adequate provisions to address
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements
with respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
Interstate and international transport
provisions: CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires SIPs to include provisions
ensuring compliance with the
applicable requirements of CAA
sections 126 and 115 (relating to
interstate and international pollution
abatement). Specifically, CAA section
126(a) requires new or modified major
sources to notify neighboring states of
potential impacts from the source.
EPA analysis: We most recently
approved revisions to the Idaho PSD
program on March 3, 2014, updating the
Idaho PSD program for fine particulate
matter NAAQS implementation in
attainment and unclassifiable areas (79
FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012,
the EPA approved a revision to the
Idaho SIP to provide authority to
implement the PSD permitting program
with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions (77 FR 41916). The Idaho PSD
program implements the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40
CFR 52.21 by reference as of July 1,
2012. IDAPA 58.01.01.209 (procedures
for issuing permits) includes required
procedures for issuing permits for new
sources, including procedures for public
processes, and notice to appropriate
Federal, state and local agencies,
consistent with the requirements of the
Federal PSD program. Idaho issues
notice of its draft permits and
neighboring states consistently receive
copies of those drafts. Idaho also has no
pending obligations under CAA section
115 or 126(b) of the CAA. Therefore, we
are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out
the SIP (and is not prohibited by any
provision of Federal or state law from
carrying out the SIP or portion thereof),
(ii) requirements that the state comply
with the requirements respecting state
boards under section 128 and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the
state has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any SIP
provision, the state has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation
of such SIP provision.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
refer to Idaho Code Section 39–106,
which gives the Idaho DEQ Director
authority to hire personnel to carry out
duties of the department. In addition,
the submittals reference Idaho Code 39–
107, which establishes the State’s Board
of Environmental Quality, Idaho Code
Title 59 Chapter 7 (Ethics in
Government Act), and Executive Order
2013–06 which addresses composition
requirements of the Idaho Board of
Environmental Quality. Finally, the
Idaho submittals reference Idaho Code
Section 39–129, which authorizes Idaho
DEQ to enter into binding agreements
with local governments that are
enforceable as orders.
EPA analysis: We are proposing to
find that the above-referenced
provisions provide Idaho DEQ with
adequate authority to carry out SIP
obligations with respect to the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS as required by
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). With regard
to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we
previously approved a revision to the
Idaho SIP for purposes of meeting CAA
section 128 and CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) on October 24, 2013 (78
FR 63394). Finally, we are proposing to
find that Idaho has provided necessary
assurances that, where Idaho has relied
on a local or regional government,
agency, or instrumentality for the
implementation of any SIP provision,
Idaho has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of the SIP
with regards to the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS as required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source
Monitoring System
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i)
the installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
from such sources, (ii) periodic reports
on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such
reports by the state agency with any
emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to the CAA, which
reports shall be available at reasonable
times for public inspection.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
reference the following provisions:
IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which includes
source testing methods and procedures;
IDAPA 58.01.01.121, which outlines
Idaho DEQ authority to require
monitoring, recordkeeping and periodic
reporting related to source compliance;
IDAPA 58.01.01.122, which provides
Idaho DEQ authority to issue
information orders and orders to
conduct source emissions monitoring,
record keeping, reporting and other
requirements; IDAPA 58.01.01.157,
which outlines test methods and
procedures for source testing and
reporting to the Idaho DEQ; IDAPA
58.01.01.211, which contains conditions
for permits to construct; IDAPA
58.01.01.209, which contains
procedures for issuing permits to
construct, including public processes;
IDAPA 58.01.01.404, which contains
procedures for issuing Tier II operating
permits, including public processes; and
Idaho Code 9–342A and IDAPA
58.01.21 which address public records.
The Idaho submittals also state that
Idaho reports emissions data for the six
criteria pollutants to the EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory, which is updated
every three years.
EPA analysis: The provisions cited in
the Idaho submittals establish
compliance requirements for sources
subject to major and minor source
permitting to monitor emissions, keep
and report records, and collect ambient
air monitoring data. The provisions
cited also provide Idaho DEQ authority
to issue orders to collect additional
information as needed for Idaho DEQ to
ascertain compliance. In addition,
IDAPA 58.01.01.211 (conditions for
permits to construct) and 58.01.01.405
(conditions for tier II operating permits)
provide Idaho DEQ authority to
establish permit conditions requiring
instrumentation to monitor and record
emissions data, and instrumentation for
ambient monitoring to determine the
effect emissions from the stationary
source or facility may have, or are
having, on the air quality in any area
affected by the stationary source or
facility. This information is made
available to the public through public
processes outlined at IDAPA
58.01.01.209 (procedures for issuing
permits) for permits to construct and
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58.01.01.404 (procedures for issuing
permits) for Tier II operating permits.
Additionally, the State is required to
submit emissions data to the EPA for
purposes of the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s
central repository for air emissions data.
All states are required to submit a
comprehensive emissions inventory
every three years and report emissions
for certain larger sources annually
through the EPA’s online Emissions
Inventory System. States report
emissions data for the six criteria
pollutants and their associated
precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter, and
volatile organic compounds. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions
of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA
compiles the emissions data,
supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through
the Web site https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/eiinformation.html.
Based on the analysis above, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51
subpart H (prevention of air pollution
emergency episodes, sections 51.150
through 51.153) for NO2 and SO2.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions
CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that
SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i)
from time to time as may be necessary
to take account of revisions of such
national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard or the availability of
improved or more expeditious methods
of attaining such standard, and (ii),
except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the
Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional
requirements under the CAA.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
refer to Idaho Code Sections 39–105(2)
and (3)(d) which provide Idaho DEQ
with broad authority to revise rules, in
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes
accordance with Idaho administrative
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires
procedures for rulemaking, to meet
states to provide for authority to address national ambient air quality standards
activities causing imminent and
as incorporated by reference in IDAPA
substantial endangerment to public
58.01.01.107. The Idaho submittals also
health, including adequate contingency
refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.575 through
plans to implement the emergency
587 which establish and define
episode provisions in their SIPs.
acceptable ambient concentrations
State submittals: The Idaho submittals consistent with established criteria.
cite Idaho Code 39–112 which provides
EPA analysis: We find that Idaho has
emergency order authority comparable
adequate authority to regularly update
to that in CAA section 303. In addition,
the SIP to take into account revisions of
the submittals cite the Idaho Air
the NAAQS and other related regulatory
Pollution Emergency Rules (IDAPA
changes. In practice, Idaho regularly
58.01.01.550–562).
updates the SIP for purposes of NAAQS
EPA analysis: CAA section 303
revisions and other related regulatory
provides authority to the EPA
changes. We most recently approved
Administrator to restrain any source
revisions to the Idaho SIP on March 3,
from causing or contributing to
2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho has
emissions which present an ‘‘imminent
incorporated by reference the 2010 NO2
and substantial endangerment to public and 2010 SO2 NAAQS into the Idaho
health or welfare, or the environment.’’
SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to
We find that Idaho Code Section 112
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
provides the Idaho DEQ Director with
requirements of CAA section
comparable authority.
110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
The Idaho air pollution emergency
SO2 NAAQS.
rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.550–562 were
110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan
previously approved by the EPA on
Revision Under Part D
January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217). Idaho’s
air pollution emergency rules include
There are two elements identified in
NO2 and SO2, establish stages of episode CAA section 110(a)(2) not governed by
the three-year submission deadline of
criteria, provide for public
CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
announcement whenever any episode
incorporating necessary local
stage has been determined to exist, and
nonattainment area controls are not due
specify emission control actions to be
within three years after promulgation of
taken at each episode stage, consistent
a new or revised NAAQS, but are rather
with the EPA emergency episode SIP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21677
due at the time of the nonattainment
area plan requirements pursuant to
section 172 and the various pollutant
specific subparts 2–5 of part D. These
requirements are: (i) Submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to
the extent that subsection refers to a
permit program as required in part D,
title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I)
which pertain to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D, title I
of the CAA. As a result, this action does
not address infrastructure elements
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I).
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
government officials: CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a
process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land
Managers carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements pursuant
to section 121. CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
further requires states to notify the
public if NAAQS are exceeded in an
area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent
exceedances. Lastly, CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet
applicable requirements of part C, title
I of the CAA related to prevention of
significant deterioration and visibility
protection.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
refer to laws and regulations relating to
public participation processes for SIP
revisions and permitting programs. The
submittals refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.209
and 404 which provide for public
processes related to new source
construction permitting and Tier II
operating permits. The submittals also
refer to Idaho Code Section 39–105(3)(c)
which promotes outreach with local
governments and Idaho Code Section
39–129 which provides authority for
Idaho DEQ to enter into agreements
with local governments. In addition, the
Idaho submittals reference the Idaho
transportation conformity rules and
regional haze rules which provide for
consultation processes. With regard to
public notification, the Idaho submittals
state that Idaho DEQ submits
information to EPA’s AIRNOW program
and provides daily air quality index
scores for many locations throughout
Idaho. Finally, with regards to PSD, the
submittals reference the Idaho rules for
major source permitting at IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 223, including
PSD requirements for sources in
attainment and unclassifiable areas.
EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP includes
specific provisions for consulting with
local governments and Federal Land
Managers as specified in CAA section
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21678
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
121, including the Idaho rules for major
source PSD permitting. The EPA most
recently approved Idaho permitting
rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and
58.01.01.404, which provide
opportunity and procedures for public
comment and notice to appropriate
Federal, state and local agencies, on
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). We
most recently approved Idaho’s rules
that define transportation conformity
consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR
18873), and Idaho’s regional haze rules
on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33651). In
practice, Idaho DEQ routinely
coordinates with local governments,
states, Federal Land Managers and other
stakeholders on air quality issues
including permitting action,
transportation conformity, and regional
haze. Therefore, we are proposing to
find that the Idaho SIP meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
for consultation with government
officials for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires
the public be notified if NAAQS are
exceeded in an area and to enhance
public awareness of measures that can
be taken to prevent exceedances. The
EPA calculates an air quality index for
five major air pollutants regulated by
the CAA: ground-level ozone,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide.
The EPA AIRNOW program provides
this air quality index daily to the public,
including health effects and actions
members of the public can take to
reduce air pollution. Idaho actively
participates and submits information to
the AIRNOW program, in addition to
the EPA’s Enviroflash Air Quality Alert
program. Idaho DEQ also provides the
daily air quality index to the public on
the DEQ Web site at https://
www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm, as
well as measures that can be taken to
prevent exceedances. Therefore, we are
proposing to find that the Idaho SIP
meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Turning to the requirement in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the
applicable requirements of part C of title
I of the CAA, we have evaluated this
requirement in the context of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to
permitting. The EPA most recently
approved revisions to the State’s PSD
program on March 3, 2014, updating the
Idaho PSD program with respect to
Federal requirements for fine particulate
matter implementation in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711).
In addition, on July 17, 2012, we
approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
provide authority to implement the PSD
permitting program with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions (77 FR
41916). The State’s PSD program
implements the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS and incorporates by reference
the Federal PSD program regulations at
40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. We
believe that our proposed approval of
element 110(a)(2)(J) is not affected by
recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD
implementing regulations. Please see
our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C).
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to PSD for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
With regard to the applicable
requirements for visibility protection,
the EPA recognizes that states are
subject to visibility and regional haze
program requirements under part C of
the CAA. In the event of the
establishment of a new NAAQS,
however, the visibility and regional
haze program requirements under part C
do not change. Thus we find that there
is no new applicable requirement
relating to visibility triggered under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new
NAAQS becomes effective. Based on the
above analysis, we are proposing to
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/
Data
CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that
SIPs provide for (i) the performance of
such air quality modeling as the
Administrator may prescribe for the
purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of any emissions of
any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national
ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the
submission, upon request, of data
related to such air quality modeling to
the Administrator.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
state that air quality modeling is
conducted during development of
revisions to the SIP, as appropriate for
Idaho to demonstrate attainment with
required air quality standards. Idaho
cites IDAPA 58.01.01.202.02 and IDAPA
58.01.01.402.03 which address permit to
construct and Tier II operating permit
application procedures and modeling
requirements for estimating ambient
concentrations, respectively. Modeling
is also addressed in Idaho’s source
permitting process as discussed at
section 110(a)(2)(A) above. Estimates of
ambient concentrations are based on
requirements specified in 40 CFR part
51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Quality Models) which is incorporated
by reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.
EPA analysis: We most recently
approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107
(incorporations by reference) on March
3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). This rule
incorporates by reference the following
EPA regulations: Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51;
National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR
part 50; Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52;
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53;
and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance,
40 CFR part 58 revised as of July 1,
2012. Idaho has incorporated by
reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS into Idaho regulations. Idaho
models estimates of ambient
concentrations based on 40 CFR part 51
Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality
Models). To cite an example of a SIP
supported by substantial modeling, the
EPA approved the PM10 Maintenance
Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise
Idaho Area on October 27, 2003 (68 FR
61106). Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees
CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs
to require each major stationary source
to pay permitting fees to cover the cost
of reviewing, approving, implementing
and enforcing a permit, until such time
as the SIP fee requirement is superseded
by the EPA’s approval of the state’s title
V operating permit program.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.387 through
397, which sets the requirements for the
annual registration of Tier I (title V)
sources and the annual assessment and
payment of fees to support the Tier I
permitting program. The EPA approved
Idaho’s title V permitting program on
October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574). The
submittals also reference IDAPA
58.01.01.407 through 409 which set the
requirements for Tier II operating permit
processing fees and usage.
EPA analysis: We approved Idaho’s
title V program on October 4, 2001 (66
FR 50574) with an effective date of
November 5, 2001. While Idaho’s
operating permit program is not
formally approved into the State’s SIP,
it is a legal mechanism the State can use
to ensure that Idaho DEQ has sufficient
resources to support the air program,
consistent with the requirements of the
SIP. Before the EPA can grant full
approval, a state must demonstrate the
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules
ability to collect adequate fees. Idaho’s
title V program included a
demonstration the State will collect a
fee from title V sources above the
presumptive minimum in accordance
with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Idaho
regulations require permitting fees for
major sources subject to new source
review, as specified at IDAPA
58.01.01.224 through 227. Therefore, we
are proposing to conclude that Idaho
has satisfied the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation
by Affected Local Entities
CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires
states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by
local political subdivisions affected by
the SIP.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals
reference IDAPA 58.01.01.209, 364 and
404 which provide for the public
processes related to developing and
issuing air quality permits. In addition,
the submittals reference the
transportation conformity consultation
and public processes at IDAPA
58.01.01.563 through 574. Finally, the
submittals reference the consultation
and participation process outlined in 40
CFR 51.102, incorporated by reference
at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.
EPA analysis: The EPA most recently
approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107
(incorporations by reference), which
incorporates by reference EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 51—
Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans on March 3, 2014
(79 FR 11711). In addition, we most
recently approved Idaho permitting
rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and
58.01.01.404, which provide
opportunity and procedures for public
comment and notice to appropriate
Federal, state and local agencies, on
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530).
Finally, we approved the State rules that
define transportation conformity
consultation on April 12, 2001 (66 FR
18873). Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(M) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to find that the
Idaho SIP meets the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is
being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:53 Apr 16, 2014
Jkt 232001
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves the state’s law
as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
the state’s law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to the requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
the action does not involve technical
standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in Idaho, and the EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21679
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 27, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014–08609 Filed 4–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0018, FRL–9909–46–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is proposing to
approve part of the December 27, 2013,
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from Oregon for purposes of
meeting the infrastructure requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for lead (Pb) on
October 15, 2008. The CAA requires that
each state, after a new or revised
NAAQS is promulgated, review their
SIP to ensure that it meets the
infrastructure requirements necessary to
implement the new or revised NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to find that the
Oregon SIP meets the CAA
infrastructure requirements for the 2008
Pb NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 19, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2014–0018, by any of the
following methods:
• Email: R10Public_Comments@epa.gov.
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, WA 98101.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10
Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17APP1.SGM
17APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21669-21679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08609]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0708, FRL-9909-47-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find
that the Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) on January 22, 2010, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) on June 2, 2010. Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements, including but not limited
to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0708, by any of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov
Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101
Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th floor,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin
Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are
only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0708. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The EPA first set standards for NO2 in 1971, setting
both a primary standard (to protect health) and a secondary standard
(to protect the public welfare) at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb),
averaged annually. The EPA reviewed the standards in 1985 and 1996,
deciding to retain the standards at the conclusion of each review. In
2005, the EPA began another review, resulting in the January 22, 2010,
rulemaking to establish an additional primary NO2 standard
at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour (75 FR 6474).
Primary standards for SO2 were first set in 1971, at
0.14 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 24-hour period, not to be
exceeded more than once per year, and 0.030 ppm, annual arithmetic
mean. The EPA subsequently reviewed the primary standards and
determined to retain them in 1996 at the conclusion of the review. More
recently, on June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary
SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a three-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR
35520).
The CAA requires that states submit SIPs meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after promulgation
of a new or revised standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require
states to address basic SIP elements, including emissions inventories,
monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the
standards, the so-called ``infrastructure'' requirements. To help
states, the EPA issued guidance on September 13, 2013, addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for certain NAAQS, including the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the
guidance, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the CAA section
110(a)(2)
[[Page 21670]]
requirements, states may certify that fact via a letter to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10,
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 16, 2013, the State of Idaho submitted certifications
to the EPA that the Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provided notice and an
opportunity for public comment on the submittals from July 12, 2013,
through August 13, 2013. A notice of public hearing was published in
the Idaho Statesman on July 12, 2013. The Idaho DEQ held a public
hearing on August 13, 2013 in Boise, Idaho. No comments or testimony
were received. The EPA has evaluated the Idaho submittals and
determined that the requirements for reasonable notice and public
hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA have been met.
II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Elements
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated. CAA section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states
must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP
infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions
inventories that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. The requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection,
are listed below:
110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
The EPA's guidance clarified that two elements identified in CAA
section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission
deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary
local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the
nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section
172 and the various pollutant specific subparts 2-5 of part D. These
requirements are: (i) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in
part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. As a result, this action
does not address infrastructure elements related to CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR) or
CAA section 110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA interprets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by
a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C, title I of
the CAA are not changed by a new NAAQS.
III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure SIP Submittals
The EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Idaho that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the
term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under
the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP''
submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part
D of title I of the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by
the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA
section 169A, and nonattainment new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\2\ The EPA therefore
believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for
infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains
ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given
new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section
110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\3\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP
[[Page 21671]]
requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires the EPA to establish a schedule for submission
of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates
the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\4\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, the EPA must determine which provisions of
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,''
70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section
110(a)(2)(I)).
\4\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2)
is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set
specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether the EPA must act upon such SIP submission
in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit
``a plan'' to meet these requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to
allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\5\ Similarly, the EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
the EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action approving the
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State
separately to meet the requirements of the EPA's 2008
PM2.5 NSR rule), and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action on
the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
\6\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77
FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), the
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when the EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, the
EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, the EPA assumes that Congress could not
have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the
NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant
pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. Therefore, the EPA has adopted an approach under which it
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in
section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\8\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\9\ The EPA developed this document to provide
states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or
revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, the EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural
SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. The EPA also made recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of
infrastructure SIP submissions.\10\ The
[[Page 21672]]
guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are
germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the
EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, the EPA reviews each infrastructure
SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions
of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the
EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for
infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states
and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
regardless of whether or not the EPA provides guidance or
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
\9\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\10\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance
shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C.
Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which
had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In
light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, the EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither
binding nor required by statute, whether the EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains the EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in the EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD
program requirements contained in part C and the EPA's PSD regulations.
Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for
the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants,
including greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under the
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions the EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of
a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether
the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and
whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In
the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, the
EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and
every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii)
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007).
Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such
potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if
it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to note
that the EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include
a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states
and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, the EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations
with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies
[[Page 21673]]
in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take
appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity
of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to
issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the EPA determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, the EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude the EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
\13\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
\14\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Analysis of the Idaho Submittals
110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals cite an overview of the
Idaho air quality laws and regulations, including portions of the Idaho
Environmental Protection and Health Act (EPHA) and the Rules for the
Control of Air Pollution located at IDAPA 58.01.01. Relevant laws cited
include Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(d) which provides Idaho DEQ
authority to supervise and administer a system to safeguard air
quality, and Idaho Code Section 39-115 which provides Idaho DEQ with
specific authority for the issuance of air quality permits. Relevant
regulations include IDAPA 58.01.01.107.03 (incorporation by reference
of federal regulations), IDAPA 58.01.01.200--228 (permit to construct
rules), IDAPA 58.01.01.400--410 (operating permit rules), IDAPA
58.01.01.600--624 (control of open burning), IDAPA 58.01.01.625
(visible emissions requirements and testing), IDAPA 58.01.01.725 (rules
for sulfur content of fuels), and IDAPA 58.01.01.460--461 (banking of
emissions).
EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP incorporates by reference a number of
Federal regulations, including the Federal NAAQS at 40 CFR part 50,
revised as of July 1, 2012. The EPA most recently approved the
incorporation by reference of these regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.107
``Incorporations by Reference'' on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho
has incorporated by reference the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS into Idaho regulations.
Idaho generally regulates emissions of NO2 and
SO2 through its SIP-approved NSR permitting programs, in
addition to operating permit regulations, sulfur content of fuels
regulations, and rules for the control of open burning, fugitive dust,
activities that generate visible emissions, and emissions banking. The
EPA most recently approved revisions to Idaho's major and minor NSR
permitting programs on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho's NSR rules
incorporate by reference the Federal non-attainment NSR regulations and
Federal PSD regulations at IDAPA 58.01.204 and IDAPA 58.01.01.205
respectively. In addition to NSR permitting regulations, Idaho's Tier
II operating permit regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.400--410 require that
to obtain an operating permit, the applicant must demonstrate the
source will not cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any
ambient air quality standard. IDAPA 58.01.01.401.03 provides that Idaho
DEQ will require a Tier II source operating permit if Idaho DEQ
determines emission rate reductions are necessary to attain or maintain
any ambient air quality standard or applicable PSD increment.
In addition to the permitting rules described above, Idaho has
adopted rules to limit and control emissions resulting from open
burning (IDAPA 58.01.01.600--624) and activities that generate visible
emissions (IDAPA 58.01.01.625). Idaho has also promulgated rules
addressing the sulfur content of fuels (IDAPA 58.01.01.725) and banking
of emissions (IDAPA 58.01.01.460--461). Based on the above analysis, we
are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
We note that, in this action, we are not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing Idaho provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations
at a facility. The EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance \15\
and the EPA has recently proposed action to address such state
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For further description of the EPA's SSM Policy, see, e.g.,
a memorandum dated September 20, 1999, titled ``State Implementation
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,
Startup, and Shutdown,'' from Steven A. Herman, Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Also, the
EPA issued a proposed action on February 12, 2013, titled ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking: Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Applying to excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction.'' This rulemaking responds to a petition for rulemaking
filed by the Sierra Club that concerns SSM provisions in 39 states'
SIPs (February 22, 2013, 78 FR 12460).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing Idaho rules with regard to director's discretion or variance
provisions. The EPA believes that a number of states may have such
provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance
(November 24, 1987, 52 FR 45109), and the EPA plans to take action in
the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, we
encourage any state having a director's discretion or variance
provision that is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to
correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
[[Page 21674]]
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to
provide for establishment and operation of ambient air quality
monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making
these data available to the EPA upon request.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals reference IDAPA 58.01.01.107
and IDAPA 58.01.01.576.05 in response to this requirement. These rules
incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 50 National Primary and Secondary
Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 52 Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 53 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference
and Equivalent Methods, and 40 CFR part 58 Appendix B Ambient Air
Quality Surveillance Quality Assurance Requirements for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration. The Idaho submittals certify that under
these rules Idaho meets the infrastructure requirement to implement
ambient air monitoring surveillance systems in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
The Idaho submittals reference the 2012 Idaho Annual Ambient Air
Monitoring Network Plan, approved by the EPA on October 25, 2012. The
Idaho submittals also reference the Web site where the Idaho DEQ
provides the network plan, air quality monitoring summaries, a map of
the monitoring network and real-time air monitoring data.
EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Idaho on
January 15, 1980 (40 CFR 52.670) and approved by the EPA on July 28,
1982. This air quality monitoring plan has been subsequently updated
and most recently approved by the EPA on March 10, 2014.\16\ The plan
includes, among other things, the locations for NO2 and
SO2 monitoring. Idaho makes the plan available for public
review on the Idaho DEQ Web site at https://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/monitoring/monitoring-network.aspx. The Web site also includes
an interactive map of Idaho's air monitoring network. Based on the
foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Idaho Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan Approval Letter,
dated March 10, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states have a program providing
for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction
of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD
and nonattainment NSR requirements.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Section
39-108 which provides Idaho DEQ with authority to enforce both
administratively and civilly the Idaho Environmental Protection and
Health Act (EPHA), or any rule, permit or order promulgated pursuant to
the EPHA. Criminal enforcement is authorized at Idaho Code Section 39-
109. Emergency order authority, similar to that under section 303 of
the CAA, is located at Idaho Code Section 39-112. The Idaho submittals
also refer to laws and regulations related to air quality permits at
IDAPA 58.01.01.200--228 (permit to construct rules).
The Idaho submittals also cite the annual incorporation by
reference (IBR) rulemaking which updates Idaho's SIP to include Federal
changes to the NAAQS and PSD program. Idaho's submittals certify that
the annual IBR updates along with IDAPA sections 200--288 (permitting
requirements for new and modified sources) and 575--587 (air quality
standards and area classification) meets the CAA infrastructure
requirement to implement the PSD program.
EPA analysis: With regard to the requirement to have a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures, we are proposing to find
that the Idaho provisions described above provide Idaho DEQ with
authority to enforce the Idaho EPHA, air quality regulations, permits,
and orders promulgated pursuant to the EPHA. Idaho DEQ staffs and
maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. Idaho DEQ may issue emergency orders to reduce or
discontinue emission of air contaminants where air emissions cause or
contribute to imminent and substantial endangerment. Enforcement cases
may be referred to the State Attorney General's Office for civil or
criminal enforcement. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) related to
enforcement for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
To generally meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
regard to the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary
sources, a state is required to have PSD, nonattainment NSR, and minor
NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. As noted above, this action does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review (NSR).
We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on March
3, 2014, updating the Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal
requirements for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). Previously on July 17, 2012, we
approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement
the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (77
FR 41916). Idaho's PSD program implements the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the Federal PSD
program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. As a result,
we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with regards to PSD for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
We note that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a judgment that remanded two of the EPA's
rules implementing the 1997 fine particulate matter NAAQS, including
the ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule). The
Court ordered the EPA to ``repromulgate these rules pursuant to subpart
4 consistent with this opinion.''Id. at 437. Subpart 4 of part D, title
I of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas. The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule
addressed by the court's decision promulgated NSR requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, the EPA
does not consider the portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's
opinion. Moreover, the EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any
PSD requirements promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR
Implementation Rule in order to comply with the Court's decision.
Accordingly, the EPA's proposed approval of elements 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), with
[[Page 21675]]
respect to the PSD requirements, does not conflict with the court's
opinion. The EPA interprets the CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2)
infrastructure submittals due three years after adoption or revision of
a NAAQS to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including
requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program. Instead,
these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or
attainment plan elements, which are due by the dates statutorily
prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as
ten years following designations for some elements.
On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued
a judgment that, inter alia, vacated the provisions adding the
PM2.5 Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the
Federal regulations at 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). as
part of the Federal ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC); Final Rule'' (2010 PSD PM2.5
Implementation Rule) (75 FR 64864). In its decision, the court held
that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit
applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the
CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in
all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC
was not a required element of a state's PSD program, where a state PSD
program contains such a provision and allows issuance of new permits
without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such
application of the vacated SMC would be inconsistent with the court's
opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded to the
EPA for further consideration the portions of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The EPA requested this
vacatur and remand of two of the three provisions in the EPA
regulations that contain SILs for PM2.5 because the wording
of these two SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR
52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities that we provided in the
preamble to the Federal Register publication when we promulgated these
provisions. The third SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not
vacated and remains in effect. We also note that the court's decision
does not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5 promulgated as
part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
The EPA recently amended its regulations to remove the vacated
PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD regulations
(December 9, 2013, 78 FR 73698). The EPA will initiate a separate
rulemaking regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will address the
court's remand. In our previous action on March 3, 2014, we disapproved
Idaho's incorporation by reference of the vacated PM2.5 SILs
and SMC provisions into the Idaho SIP (79 FR 11711). This action takes
no additional action with respect to those SIP provisions that were
previously disapproved. In this action we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J) as those elements relate to a comprehensive PSD
program.
With regard to the minor NSR requirement of this element, the EPA
has determined that Idaho's minor NSR permitting program regulates
NO2 and SO2 emissions from minor sources. Based
on the foregoing, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires state SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). Further, this section requires state SIPs to
include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality, or from
interfering with measures required to protect visibility (i.e. measures
to address regional haze) in any state (CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
State submittals: The Idaho submittals did not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, at this time, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions from the State of Idaho for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS are not required SIP
submissions. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7
(D.C. Cir. 2012), cert granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Unless the
EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the
Supreme Court, which granted review of the case on June 24, 2013, and
heard oral argument on December 10, 2013, states are not required to
submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has quantified their
obligations under that section. The portions of the SIP submissions
relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in contrast, are
required.
For purposes of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submittals referenced
Idaho's SIP-approved PSD program and Idaho's Regional Haze SIP
submitted to the EPA on October 25, 2010. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
is discussed below.
EPA analysis: The EPA believes that the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) PSD sub-element may be met by the State's
confirmation in the submittal that new major sources and major
modifications in the State are subject to a SIP-approved PSD program.
We most recently approved revisions to Idaho's PSD program on March 3,
2014, updating the Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal
requirements for fine particulate matter implementation in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012,
we approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions (77 FR 41916). Idaho's PSD program implements the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July
1, 2012. As discussed above in section 110(a)(2)(C), we believe that
our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by
recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with regards to PSD for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
The EPA believes that, with regard to the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility sub-element, the requirement may be
satisfied by an approved SIP addressing regional haze. The Idaho
submittals reference the Idaho Regional Haze SIP, submitted to the EPA
on October 25, 2010, which addresses visibility impacts across states
within the region. On June 9, 2011, we approved a SIP revision which
provides Idaho DEQ the authority to address regional haze and to
implement best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements (76 FR
33651). Subsequently on June 22, 2011, we approved portions of the
Idaho Regional Haze SIP, including the requirements for BART (76 FR
36329). Finally, on
[[Page 21676]]
November 8, 2012, we approved the remainder of the Idaho Regional Haze
SIP, including those portions that address CAA provisions that require
states to set Reasonable Progress Goals for their Class I areas, and to
develop a Long Term Strategy to achieve these goals (77 FR 66929).
The EPA is proposing to find that as a result of the prior approval
of the Idaho regional haze SIP, the Idaho SIP contains adequate
provisions to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility requirements with
respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Interstate and international transport provisions: CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with the applicable requirements of CAA sections 126 and 115
(relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
Specifically, CAA section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources
to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
EPA analysis: We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho PSD
program on March 3, 2014, updating the Idaho PSD program for fine
particulate matter NAAQS implementation in attainment and
unclassifiable areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, the
EPA approved a revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to
implement the PSD permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas
emissions (77 FR 41916). The Idaho PSD program implements the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates the
Federal PSD program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 by reference as of July
1, 2012. IDAPA 58.01.01.209 (procedures for issuing permits) includes
required procedures for issuing permits for new sources, including
procedures for public processes, and notice to appropriate Federal,
state and local agencies, consistent with the requirements of the
Federal PSD program. Idaho issues notice of its draft permits and
neighboring states consistently receive copies of those drafts. Idaho
also has no pending obligations under CAA section 115 or 126(b) of the
CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128 and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Section
39-106, which gives the Idaho DEQ Director authority to hire personnel
to carry out duties of the department. In addition, the submittals
reference Idaho Code 39-107, which establishes the State's Board of
Environmental Quality, Idaho Code Title 59 Chapter 7 (Ethics in
Government Act), and Executive Order 2013-06 which addresses
composition requirements of the Idaho Board of Environmental Quality.
Finally, the Idaho submittals reference Idaho Code Section 39-129,
which authorizes Idaho DEQ to enter into binding agreements with local
governments that are enforceable as orders.
EPA analysis: We are proposing to find that the above-referenced
provisions provide Idaho DEQ with adequate authority to carry out SIP
obligations with respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). With
regard to CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously approved a
revision to the Idaho SIP for purposes of meeting CAA section 128 and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) on October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63394).
Finally, we are proposing to find that Idaho has provided necessary
assurances that, where Idaho has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
SIP provision, Idaho has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of the SIP with regards to the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii).
Therefore we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System
CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of
other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the
nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such
sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with
any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA,
which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public
inspection.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals reference the following
provisions: IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which includes source testing methods
and procedures; IDAPA 58.01.01.121, which outlines Idaho DEQ authority
to require monitoring, recordkeeping and periodic reporting related to
source compliance; IDAPA 58.01.01.122, which provides Idaho DEQ
authority to issue information orders and orders to conduct source
emissions monitoring, record keeping, reporting and other requirements;
IDAPA 58.01.01.157, which outlines test methods and procedures for
source testing and reporting to the Idaho DEQ; IDAPA 58.01.01.211,
which contains conditions for permits to construct; IDAPA 58.01.01.209,
which contains procedures for issuing permits to construct, including
public processes; IDAPA 58.01.01.404, which contains procedures for
issuing Tier II operating permits, including public processes; and
Idaho Code 9-342A and IDAPA 58.01.21 which address public records. The
Idaho submittals also state that Idaho reports emissions data for the
six criteria pollutants to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory,
which is updated every three years.
EPA analysis: The provisions cited in the Idaho submittals
establish compliance requirements for sources subject to major and
minor source permitting to monitor emissions, keep and report records,
and collect ambient air monitoring data. The provisions cited also
provide Idaho DEQ authority to issue orders to collect additional
information as needed for Idaho DEQ to ascertain compliance. In
addition, IDAPA 58.01.01.211 (conditions for permits to construct) and
58.01.01.405 (conditions for tier II operating permits) provide Idaho
DEQ authority to establish permit conditions requiring instrumentation
to monitor and record emissions data, and instrumentation for ambient
monitoring to determine the effect emissions from the stationary source
or facility may have, or are having, on the air quality in any area
affected by the stationary source or facility. This information is made
available to the public through public processes outlined at IDAPA
58.01.01.209 (procedures for issuing permits) for permits to construct
and
[[Page 21677]]
58.01.01.404 (procedures for issuing permits) for Tier II operating
permits.
Additionally, the State is required to submit emissions data to the
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
the EPA's central repository for air emissions data. All states are
required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three
years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through
the EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions
data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors--
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also
voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA
compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
Based on the analysis above, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes
CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority
to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including adequate contingency plans to implement the
emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals cite Idaho Code 39-112 which
provides emergency order authority comparable to that in CAA section
303. In addition, the submittals cite the Idaho Air Pollution Emergency
Rules (IDAPA 58.01.01.550-562).
EPA analysis: CAA section 303 provides authority to the EPA
Administrator to restrain any source from causing or contributing to
emissions which present an ``imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare, or the environment.'' We find that Idaho Code
Section 112 provides the Idaho DEQ Director with comparable authority.
The Idaho air pollution emergency rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.550-562
were previously approved by the EPA on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2217).
Idaho's air pollution emergency rules include NO2 and
SO2, establish stages of episode criteria, provide for
public announcement whenever any episode stage has been determined to
exist, and specify emission control actions to be taken at each episode
stage, consistent with the EPA emergency episode SIP requirements set
forth at 40 CFR part 51 subpart H (prevention of air pollution
emergency episodes, sections 51.150 through 51.153) for NO2
and SO2. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho
SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions
CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to Idaho Code Sections
39-105(2) and (3)(d) which provide Idaho DEQ with broad authority to
revise rules, in accordance with Idaho administrative procedures for
rulemaking, to meet national ambient air quality standards as
incorporated by reference in IDAPA 58.01.01.107. The Idaho submittals
also refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.575 through 587 which establish and define
acceptable ambient concentrations consistent with established criteria.
EPA analysis: We find that Idaho has adequate authority to
regularly update the SIP to take into account revisions of the NAAQS
and other related regulatory changes. In practice, Idaho regularly
updates the SIP for purposes of NAAQS revisions and other related
regulatory changes. We most recently approved revisions to the Idaho
SIP on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). Idaho has incorporated by reference
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS into the Idaho
SIP. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D
There are two elements identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not
governed by the three-year submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls
are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, but are rather due at the time of the nonattainment area plan
requirements pursuant to section 172 and the various pollutant specific
subparts 2-5 of part D. These requirements are: (i) Submissions
required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection
refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA,
and (ii) submissions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain
to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the
CAA. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements
related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR
or CAA section 110(a)(2)(I).
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials: CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for consultation with
local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements pursuant to section 121. CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are
exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that
can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, CAA section 110(a)(2)(J)
requires states to meet applicable requirements of part C, title I of
the CAA related to prevention of significant deterioration and
visibility protection.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to laws and
regulations relating to public participation processes for SIP
revisions and permitting programs. The submittals refer to IDAPA
58.01.01.209 and 404 which provide for public processes related to new
source construction permitting and Tier II operating permits. The
submittals also refer to Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(c) which promotes
outreach with local governments and Idaho Code Section 39-129 which
provides authority for Idaho DEQ to enter into agreements with local
governments. In addition, the Idaho submittals reference the Idaho
transportation conformity rules and regional haze rules which provide
for consultation processes. With regard to public notification, the
Idaho submittals state that Idaho DEQ submits information to EPA's
AIRNOW program and provides daily air quality index scores for many
locations throughout Idaho. Finally, with regards to PSD, the
submittals reference the Idaho rules for major source permitting at
IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 223, including PSD requirements for sources
in attainment and unclassifiable areas.
EPA analysis: The Idaho SIP includes specific provisions for
consulting with local governments and Federal Land Managers as
specified in CAA section
[[Page 21678]]
121, including the Idaho rules for major source PSD permitting. The EPA
most recently approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.209 and
58.01.01.404, which provide opportunity and procedures for public
comment and notice to appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, on
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). We most recently approved Idaho's
rules that define transportation conformity consultation on April 12,
2001 (66 FR 18873), and Idaho's regional haze rules on June 9, 2011 (76
FR 33651). In practice, Idaho DEQ routinely coordinates with local
governments, states, Federal Land Managers and other stakeholders on
air quality issues including permitting action, transportation
conformity, and regional haze. Therefore, we are proposing to find that
the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for
consultation with government officials for the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the public be notified if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. The EPA calculates
an air quality index for five major air pollutants regulated by the
CAA: ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The EPA AIRNOW program provides this air
quality index daily to the public, including health effects and actions
members of the public can take to reduce air pollution. Idaho actively
participates and submits information to the AIRNOW program, in addition
to the EPA's Enviroflash Air Quality Alert program. Idaho DEQ also
provides the daily air quality index to the public on the DEQ Web site
at https://www.deq.idaho.gov/air/aqindex.cfm, as well as measures that
can be taken to prevent exceedances. Therefore, we are proposing to
find that the Idaho SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Turning to the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, we
have evaluated this requirement in the context of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. The EPA most recently approved
revisions to the State's PSD program on March 3, 2014, updating the
Idaho PSD program with respect to Federal requirements for fine
particulate matter implementation in attainment and unclassifiable
areas (79 FR 11711). In addition, on July 17, 2012, we approved a
revision to the Idaho SIP to provide authority to implement the PSD
permitting program with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (77 FR
41916). The State's PSD program implements the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS and incorporates by reference the Federal PSD
program regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2012. We believe that
our proposed approval of element 110(a)(2)(J) is not affected by recent
court vacaturs of EPA PSD implementing regulations. Please see our
discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, the EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility
and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new applicable requirement relating to visibility
triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. Based on the above analysis, we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data
CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals state that air quality
modeling is conducted during development of revisions to the SIP, as
appropriate for Idaho to demonstrate attainment with required air
quality standards. Idaho cites IDAPA 58.01.01.202.02 and IDAPA
58.01.01.402.03 which address permit to construct and Tier II operating
permit application procedures and modeling requirements for estimating
ambient concentrations, respectively. Modeling is also addressed in
Idaho's source permitting process as discussed at section 110(a)(2)(A)
above. Estimates of ambient concentrations are based on requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality
Models) which is incorporated by reference at IDAPA 58.01.01.107.
EPA analysis: We most recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107
(incorporations by reference) on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711). This rule
incorporates by reference the following EPA regulations: Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, 40
CFR part 51; National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 40 CFR part 50; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans, 40 CFR part 52; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent
Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR
part 58 revised as of July 1, 2012. Idaho has incorporated by reference
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS into Idaho
regulations. Idaho models estimates of ambient concentrations based on
40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models). To cite
an example of a SIP supported by substantial modeling, the EPA approved
the PM10 Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada County/Boise
Idaho Area on October 27, 2003 (68 FR 61106). Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees
CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major
stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of
reviewing, approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such
time as the SIP fee requirement is superseded by the EPA's approval of
the state's title V operating permit program.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals refer to IDAPA 58.01.01.387
through 397, which sets the requirements for the annual registration of
Tier I (title V) sources and the annual assessment and payment of fees
to support the Tier I permitting program. The EPA approved Idaho's
title V permitting program on October 4, 2001 (66 FR 50574). The
submittals also reference IDAPA 58.01.01.407 through 409 which set the
requirements for Tier II operating permit processing fees and usage.
EPA analysis: We approved Idaho's title V program on October 4,
2001 (66 FR 50574) with an effective date of November 5, 2001. While
Idaho's operating permit program is not formally approved into the
State's SIP, it is a legal mechanism the State can use to ensure that
Idaho DEQ has sufficient resources to support the air program,
consistent with the requirements of the SIP. Before the EPA can grant
full approval, a state must demonstrate the
[[Page 21679]]
ability to collect adequate fees. Idaho's title V program included a
demonstration the State will collect a fee from title V sources above
the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). Idaho
regulations require permitting fees for major sources subject to new
source review, as specified at IDAPA 58.01.01.224 through 227.
Therefore, we are proposing to conclude that Idaho has satisfied the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 NO2
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities
CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for
consultation and participation in SIP development by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
State submittals: The Idaho submittals reference IDAPA
58.01.01.209, 364 and 404 which provide for the public processes
related to developing and issuing air quality permits. In addition, the
submittals reference the transportation conformity consultation and
public processes at IDAPA 58.01.01.563 through 574. Finally, the
submittals reference the consultation and participation process
outlined in 40 CFR 51.102, incorporated by reference at IDAPA
58.01.01.107.
EPA analysis: The EPA most recently approved IDAPA 58.01.01.107
(incorporations by reference), which incorporates by reference EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 51--Requirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of Implementation Plans on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11711).
In addition, we most recently approved Idaho permitting rules at IDAPA
58.01.01.209 and 58.01.01.404, which provide opportunity and procedures
for public comment and notice to appropriate Federal, state and local
agencies, on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 47530). Finally, we approved the
State rules that define transportation conformity consultation on April
12, 2001 (66 FR 18873). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
V. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the following
CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This
action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because the action does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
Idaho, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 27, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-08609 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
