Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho, 72719-72727 [2010-29628]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
72719
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
State
submittal
date
EPA
approval
date
Comments
*
*
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan,
May 11, 2010 (see comments).
*
State-wide ........
*
06/28/2010
*
11/26/2010 [Insert
page number
where the document begins]
*
*
For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
docket EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0669.
[FR Doc. 2010–29626 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean
EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Table of Contents
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0482; FRL–9231–1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving numerous
revisions to the Idaho State
Implementation Plan that were
submitted to EPA by the State of Idaho
on May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13,
2005, May 5, 2006, April 16, 2007, May
12, 2008, and June 8, 2009. The
revisions were submitted in accordance
with the requirements of section 110
and part D of the Clean Air Act
(hereinafter the Act or CAA). EPA is
taking no action in this rulemaking on
a number of submitted rule revisions
that are unrelated to the purposes of the
implementation plan.
DATES: This action is effective on
December 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s SIP
revision and other information
supporting this action are available for
inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101, or at (206) 553–6706.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. Background for This Action
A. What revisions to the Idaho SIP does
this action address?
B. What comments did we receive on our
proposal for these revisions?
1. Section 110(l)
a. Summary of Comments Regarding
Section 110(l)
b. EPA Response to Section 110(l)-Related
Comments
2. Section 193
a. Summary of Comments Regarding
Section 193
b. EPA Response to Section 193-Related
Comments
II. Final Action
A. Rules To Approve Into the Idaho SIP
B. Rules on Which No Action Is Taken
C. Scope of Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for This Action
Title I of the CAA, as amended by
Congress in 1990, specifies the general
requirements for states to submit State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain
and/or maintain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
EPA’s actions regarding approval of
those SIPs. On May 22, 2003, April 2,
2004, July 13, 2005, May 5, 2006, April
16, 2007, May 12, 2008, and June 8,
2009, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
submitted numerous revisions to the SIP
for the State of Idaho. On March 18,
2010, EPA solicited public comment on
a proposal to approve all of the
revisions submitted by IDEQ, except the
identified provisions on which EPA
proposed to take no action. 75 FR
13058. This final action will update the
federally approved SIP to reflect
changes to the Rules for the Control of
Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01)
that were made by IDEQ and reviewed
and deemed approvable into the Idaho
SIP (Code of Federal Regulations part
52, subpart N).
A. What revisions to the Idaho SIP does
this action address?
Table 1 below identifies each SIP
submittal addressed in this action,
including the submittal date, title and
sections of IDAPA 58.01.01 that are
revised. The submittals include Idaho’s
annual incorporation by reference of
various portions of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), revised new source
review (NSR) requirements, revised
permit to construct exemptions, updates
and clarifications to the State’s
permitting program, revisions related to
the definition of ‘‘regulated air
pollutant,’’ modified definitions for the
State’s major and minor source
permitting programs, procedures for
transferring permits, clarifications to
sulfur content of fuels provisions, and
various editorial changes. The
submittals also included provisions we
are taking no action on, including an
electric generating unit construction
prohibition, demonstration of
preconstruction compliance with toxic
standards, permit fee provisions, appeal
provisions, provisions relating to Tier 1
operating permits, facility emissions
cap, standards of performance of certain
types of waste incinerators, and various
definition revisions. More information
about each SIP submittal, including a
summary of the submittal and relevant
background information and analysis
supporting our action, can be found in
our proposed approval. 75 FR 13058
(March 18, 2010).
TABLE 1—IDEQ SIP SUBMITTALS ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION
Date of submittal
Title (with IDEQ Docket No.)
05/22/2003 1 .........................
Soil Vapor Extraction (58–0101–0102) ...........................
2001 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0103) ........
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (58–
0101–0103).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sections of IDAPA 58.01.01 revised or amended
Sfmt 4700
58.01.01.210.
58.01.01.008 and 107.
58.01.01.861.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72720
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—IDEQ SIP SUBMITTALS ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION—Continued
Date of submittal
Title (with IDEQ Docket No.)
Sections of IDAPA 58.01.01 revised or amended
Permit Clarification (58–0101–0202) ...............................
58.01.01.209, 213, 228, 313, 317, 395, 410, 511, 581,
700 and 710–724.
58.01.01.008 and 107.
58.01.01.01.006, 007, 200–202, 209, 224–228, 400–
402, 404, 407–410, 470, 800–802.
58.01.01.387–399.
58.01.01.008 and 107.
58.01.01.006, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 209, 225 and
401.
58.01.01.220 and 222.
58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204 and 205.
58.01.01.006–008, 133–135, 155, 213, 220, 440–442,
460, 511–513, 560–561, 575, 581, and 679.
58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204 and 205.
58.01.01.006, 007, 209, and 404.
2002 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0202) ........
Permitting Fees (58–0101–0104) ....................................
04/02/2004 ...........................
07/13/2005 ...........................
Title V Operating Permit Fees (58–0101–0203) .............
2003 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0301) ........
New Source Review (58–0101–0304) ............................
05/05/2006 2 .........................
Permit To Construct Exemptions (58–0101–0401) .........
2004 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0402) ........
Regulated Air Pollutants (58–0101–0503) ......................
04/16/2007 ...........................
05/12/2008 ...........................
06/08/2009 1 .........................
2005 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0505) ........
Procedure for Transfer of Permit To Construct and Tier
II permits (58–0101–0506).
Permit To Construct Exemptions (58–0101–0507) .........
2006 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0602) ........
Mercury (58–0101–0603) ................................................
2007 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0701) ........
Sulfur Content of Fuels (58–0101–0703) ........................
2008 IBR of Federal Rules (58–0101–0802) ..................
58.01.01.222.
58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204, 205.
58.01.01.199.
58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204, 205.
58.01.01.725.
58.01.01.008 and 107.
1 The May 22, 2003 and June 8, 2009 SIP submittals included IDEQ SIP revisions for the control of nonmetallic mineral processing plants
(IDEQ Docket 58–0101–0002 and a portion of Docket 58–0101–0802), which will be acted on in a separate action.
2 The May 6, 2006 submittal included IDEQ’s SIP revision for the facility emissions cap (IDEQ Docket 58–0101–0508) which will be acted on in
a separate action.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
B. What comments did we receive on
our proposal for these revisions?
National Resource Defense Council
(NRDC) commented on EPA’s proposal
to approve changes to Idaho’s
permitting programs for major stationary
sources, specifically the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permit
program and the nonattainment area
(Part D) permit program that incorporate
EPA’s ‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ NRDC
primarily commented on the
requirements of the Federal NSR rules,
not Idaho’s application of the Federal
requirements in its own rules. Notably,
NRDC participated in litigation
challenging EPA’s promulgation of the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, where similar
arguments were made by NRDC and
dismissed by the DC Circuit Court. New
York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005).
NRDC’s comments in this action,
including exhibits, do not raise any
specific concerns with Idaho’s rules, but
rather, reiterate arguments made by
NRDC to the DC Circuit regarding
Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Clean Air
Act.1
1 NRDC notes that, ‘‘[t]he 2002 rule provisions
considered by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA
were EPA regulations, not state ones. The court thus
had no occasion to decide whether EPA could
approve any state’s versions of any of the 2002 rule
provisions consistently with section 110(1) of the
Act.’’ NRDC Comments at 4. The Idaho rules at
issue here track the federally approved rules, as
upheld by the DC Circuit (which NRDC admits—
NRDC Comments at 4–5) and NRDC supported all
its comments with information related to the
challenge of EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Although NRDC’s comments provide
citations to nine sections of the Idaho
rules, the comments make no attempt to
specifically explain or demonstrate how
those identified provisions are
inconsistent with either Section 110(l)
or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore,
NRDC provides no evidence supporting
its allegations that approval of the
specific provisions would result in a
violation of the CAA or otherwise be
‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, and otherwise not in
accordance with law.’’ NRDC Comments
at 2. The NRDC comments include a list
of 31 exhibits which the comment letter
incorporates by reference into the
comments. NRDC Comments at 1 and
11–12. The 31 exhibits appear to all be
related to the DC Circuit Court case New
York v. EPA, and were either submitted
to that Court for review, or are relevant
to that adjudication. In any event, none
of the 31 exhibits provides EPA with
any comments specific to the Idaho
rules at issue. Despite the lack of Idahospecific discussion in NRDC’s letter,
EPA has responded to the few
comments that appear related to the
March 18, 2010, proposal to approve
Idaho’s SIP revisions pertaining to
EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
1. Section 110(l)
a. Summary of comments regarding
Section 110(l):
provided no Idaho-specific suppport for its
comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NRDC asserts that ‘‘[t]he 2002 NSR
Reform Rule provisions that were not
vacated by the DC Circuit in New York
v. EPA [citation omitted] allow
previously-prohibited emissionsincreases to occur.’’ NRDC Comments at
4. As a result, NRDC states that, ‘‘it
cannot be said of Idaho’s plan that it
‘will cause no degradation of air
quality’ ’’ and ‘‘Idaho has made no
‘demonstration that the emissions that
are allowed by its revised rule but are
prohibited by the current SIP would not
interfere with attainment or other
applicable requirements.’ ’’ NRDC
Comments at 5. Further, NRDC states
that ‘‘EPA has never made, or even
proposed to make, a finding that
revisions to Idaho’s permit provisions so
that they track the non-vacated
provisions of the 2002 rule ‘will cause
no degradation of air quality’ [citations
omitted] or avoid ‘interfering with any
applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the
[NAAQS], or any other applicable
requirement of the Act,’’ and that ‘‘EPA
fails to even cite CAA Section 110(l) in
the proposal.’’ NRDC Comments at 5.
Finally, NRDC concludes that
‘‘finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal
at issue here would violate section
110(l) of the Act.’’ NRDC Comments at
5.
b. EPA response to Section 110(l)related comments:
EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules were
upheld by the DC Circuit Court which
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reviewed them, with the exception of
the pollution control project and clean
unit provisions (and the remanded
matters). The three significant changes
in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were
upheld by the DC Circuit were (1)
plantwide applicability limits (PALs),
(2) the 2-in-10 baseline, and (3) the
actual-to-projected actual emission test.
The Supplemental Environmental
Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final
NSR Improvement Rules (November 21,
2002) (Supplemental Analysis)
discussed each of these three changes
individually, and addresses some of the
issues raised by NRDC.
With regard to PALs, the
Supplemental Analysis explains, ‘‘The
EPA expects that the adoption of PAL
provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience
to date is that the emissions caps found
in PAL-type permits result in real
emissions reductions, as well as other
benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6.
EPA further explained that,
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Although it is impossible to predict how
many and which sources will take PALs, and
what actual reductions those sources will
achieve for what pollutants, we believe that,
on a nationwide basis, PALs are certain to
lead to tens of thousands of tons of
reductions of VOC from source categories
where frequent operational changes are
made, where these changes are timesensitive, and where there are opportunities
for economical air pollution control
measures. These reductions occur because of
the incentives that the PAL creates to control
existing and new units in order to provide
room under the cap to make necessary
operational changes over the life of the PAL.
Supplemental Analysis at 7. The
Supplemental Analysis, and particularly
Appendix B, provides additional details
regarding EPA’s analysis of PALs and
anticipated associated emissions
decreases.
With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline,
EPA concluded that, ‘‘The EPA believes
that the environmental impact from the
change in baseline EPA is now
finalizing will not result in any
significant change in benefits derived
from the NSR program.’’ Supplemental
Analysis at 13. This is mainly because
‘‘the number of sources receiving
different baselines likely represents a
very small fraction of the overall NSR
permit universe, excludes new sources
and coal fired power plants, and
because the baseline may shift in either
direction, we conclude that any overall
consequences would be negligible.’’
Supplemental Analysis at 14.
Additional information regarding the 2in-10 baseline changes is available in
the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix
F.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
With regard to the actual-to-projected
actual test, EPA concluded, ‘‘we believe
that the environmental impacts of the
switch to the actual-to-projected actual
test are likely to be environmentally
beneficial. However, as with the change
to the baseline, we believe the vast
majority of sources, including new
sources, new units, electric utility steam
generating units, and units that actually
increase emissions as a result of a
change, will be unaffected by this
change. Thus, the overall impacts of the
NSR changes are likely to be
environmentally beneficial, but only to
a small extent.’’ Supplemental Analysis
at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis
Appendix G).2
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that
‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress * * * or any
other applicable requirement of this
chapter.’’ Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7410(l). In ‘‘Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans; New Source
Review; State of Nevada, Clark County
Department of Air Quality and
Environmental Management,’’ 69 FR
54006 (September 7, 2004), the EPA
stated that Section 110(l) does not
preclude SIP relaxations. The Agency
stated that Section 110(l) only requires
that the ‘‘relaxations not interfere with
specified requirements of the Act
including requirements for attainment
and reasonable further progress,’’ and
that, therefore, a state can relax its SIP
provisions if it is able to show that it can
‘‘attain or maintain the [National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)] and meet any applicable
reasonable further progress goals or
other specific requirements.’’ 69 FR at
54011–12.
As the commenter acknowledges, the
Idaho PSD/NSR rules track the Federal
2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA did
evaluate Idaho’s rules consistent with
its evaluation of the Federal rules, and
determined that Idaho’s rules were
equivalent to the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules. Overall, as summarized above,
EPA expects that changes in air quality
as a result of implementing Idaho’s
PSD/NSR rules will be consistent with
EPA’s position on the Federal 2002 NSR
Reform Rules—that there will be
somewhere between neutral and
providing modest contribution to
reasonable further progress when the
2002 NSR Reform Rules are compared to
2 For more information on the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules, and its supporting technical documents, see
https://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 (last
visited November 21, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
72721
the pre-reform provisions. EPA’s
analysis for the environmental impacts
of these three components of the 2002
NSR Reform Rules is informative of how
Idaho’s adoption of NSR Reform (based
on the Federal rules) will affect
emissions. EPA has no reason to believe
that the environmental impacts will be
different from those discussed in the
Supplemental Analysis for the 2002
NSR Reform Rules, and, thus, approval
of Idaho’s SIP revision would not be
contrary to Section 110(l) of the CAA.
As discussed above, NRDC cites to
nine general sections of Idaho’s rules as
provisions that would violate Section
110(l).3 Without further specificity,
however, it is not clear why or how
NRDC believes approval of these
provisions would violate Section 110(l).
Moreover, NRDC has provided no
Idaho-specific documentation that
indicates that EPA’s analysis and
conclusions regarding the impact of the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, in the
Supplemental Analysis, are not
applicable to Idaho’s rules which mirror
the Federal rules.
EPA evaluated Idaho’s rules in
comparison with the existing Federal
rules, and determined that Idaho’s rules
were equivalent to the 2002 NSR Reform
(Federal) Rules. EPA also considered the
Supplemental Analysis in reviewing
NRDC’s comments. EPA concluded that
approval of Idaho’s SIP revision would
not be contrary to Section 110(l) of the
CAA because they implement Federal
provisions. This comparison was
discussed in the proposal to approve
Idaho’s SIP revision. Absent more
explicit information demonstrating that
Idaho’s plan for implementation of a
specific provision of its rules would
interfere with any applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act and
thus should be disapproved under
Section 110(l), Idaho’s SIP submission
and the Supplemental Analysis support
approval and there is no basis to
determine that approval of Idaho’s rules
would violate Section 110(l).
Although NRDC has not identified the
specific provisions within these sections
in Idaho’s submittal that they contend
prevent the State’s revised plan from
meeting the criteria in Section 110(l),
EPA presumes that NRDC is referring to
3 While NRDC has not identified the specific
provisions within these sections in Idaho’s
submittal that they contend prevent the State’s
revised plan from meeting the criteria in Section
110(l), by its many references to EPA’s 2002 NSR
Reform Rules, EPA presumes that NRDC is referring
to the changes to the applicability provisions for
determining when modifications to existing major
stationary sources are subject to review (i.e., when
a major modification would occur). The responses
to NRDC’s comments that follow are based on that
presumption.
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72722
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the changes to the applicability
provisions for determining when
modifications to existing major
stationary sources are subject to review
(i.e., when a major modification would
occur) because those provisions of the
2002 NSR Reform Rules differ most
from PSD and Part D NSR rules
currently approved in the Idaho SIP.
With respect to major modifications,
IDEQ has informed EPA that it issued
only one PSD permit for a major
modification in the ten years prior to
adopting the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
and has not issued a PSD permit for a
major modification in the five years
since adopting the NSR Reform changes.
Given this permitting record, EPA does
not believe that there is any evidence
that the change to the major
modification applicability provisions in
the Idaho SIP resulting from Idaho’s
adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
In addition, EPA does not believe that
the change to the definition of major
modification has interfered, or will
interfere, with Idaho’s ability to ensure
reasonable further progress in any
nonattainment area. Of the five areas in
Idaho that were designated
nonattainment in response to the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, all five
have now attained the applicable
NAAQS. Three have been formally
redesignated to attainment, two before
and one after Idaho revised its NSR
rules (Boise-Ada County CO, 67 FR
65713 (October 28, 2002; eff. December
27, 2002); Ada County (Boise) PM10, 68
FR 61106 (October 27, 2003, eff.
November 26, 2003); and Portneuf
Valley (Pocatello) PM10, 71 FR 39574
(July 13, 2006, eff. August 14, 2006)).
Two have been determined to have
attained the applicable NAAQS, one
before and one after Idaho revised its
NSR rules (Pinehurst (Shoshone
County) PM10, 66 FR 44304 (August 23,
2001, eff. October 22, 2001) and
Sandpoint PM10, 75 FR 35302 (June 22,
2010, eff. August 23, 2010)). Since all
nonattainment areas have successfully
attained the NAAQS, some before and
some after the revision to the NSR rules,
EPA finds no basis to conclude that the
change to the rules would interfere with
Idaho’s ability to ensure reasonable
further progress in any nonattainment
area. There are no existing major
sources of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in
the newly designated Franklin County
(Cache Valley) PM2.5 nonattainment
area, so the change to the Part D NSR
rule will not affect Idaho’s ability to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
ensure reasonable further progress when
it develops and submits the attainment
plan for that newly designated area.
Moreover, although NRDC
acknowledges that ‘‘110(l) requires
* * * a determination that the specific
revision, when considered in the context
of the SIP elements already in place, can
meet the Act’s attainment
requirements,’’ (citing Hall v. EPA, 273
F.3d 1146, 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2001)
(emphasis added), NRDC’s comments
fail to consider the other permitting
rules in the Idaho SIP along with the
revisions to those rules that EPA is
proposing to approve in this action. The
Idaho SIP includes a single ‘‘permit to
construct’’ program (IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 228) that includes
requirements for the construction and
modification of stationary sources,
including major stationary sources in
nonattainment areas (IDAPA
58.01.01.204) and attainment or
unclassifiable areas (IDAPA
58.01.01.205). Importantly, the Idaho
rules require that changes to existing
major stationary sources that are not
subject to review under the provisions
for major sources are subject to the
nonmajor source requirements of IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 228 (see IDAPA
58.01.01.204.03 and 58.01.01.205.04).
The nonmajor source requirements
include the requirement that no permit
to construct shall be granted unless the
applicant shows that the stationary
source or modification would not cause
or significantly contribute to a violation
of any ambient air quality standard
(IDAPA 58.01.01.203.02). Thus, changes
at existing major stationary sources that
would have undergone review as major
modifications under Idaho’s existing
PSD SIP but now may not be reviewed
as major modifications under Idaho’s
adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
must still undergo review as nonmajor
changes and cannot be constructed if
they would cause or significantly
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
Idaho’s nonmajor new source review
requirements provide additional
assurance that Idaho’s adoption of the
2002 NSR Reform rules will not
interfere with the Idaho SIP’s ability to
attain and maintain the NAAQS, and
the commenter has provided no
information to the contrary.
2. Section 193
a. Summary of comments regarding
Section 193:
NRDC states that NSR is a ‘‘control
requirement’’ and thus the requirements
of Section 193 apply to the NSR rules
at issue in the Idaho SIP revision. NRDC
Comments at 8. NRDC further alleges
that Idaho’s revisions ‘‘ensure that
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
emissions will not be reduced as much
as under the preexisting rules. In fact,
the modifications allow emissions to
increase in Idaho’s nonattainment
areas.’’ NRDC Comments at 9. Finally,
NRDC states that ‘‘because section 193
lies within part D,’’ ‘‘if EPA approves
Idaho’s revised plan, that action will
additionally exceed the agency’s
authority under section 110(k)(3) and
violate section 100(l) [this appears to be
a typo and should read 110(l)].’’ NRDC
Comments at 10.
b. EPA response to Section 193related Comments:
The response to the Section 193
issues raised by NRDC involves many of
the same elements of the response above
to the Section 110(l) comments, which
is also incorporated by reference here.
Section 193 states (in relevant part)
that ‘‘[n]o control requirement in effect,
or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement, or plan in effect
before November 15, 1990, in any area
which is a nonattainment area for any
air pollutant may be modified after
November 15, 1990, in any manner
unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission
reductions of such air pollutant.’’
Assuming for purposes of this
discussion that Section 193 does apply
to the instant action, as was discussed
earlier in this notice, EPA has
previously determined and explained in
the Supplemental Analysis that
implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules still in effect (that is, those not
vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its New
York I decision) are expected to have at
least a neutral environmental benefit.
Therefore, even if Section 193 did apply
to this action, EPA does not agree with
commenter’s assertions that the SIP
submissions approved in this action
raise a Section 193 concern.
In addition, the core of NRDC’s
argument seems to revolve around the
DC Circuit Court decision in South
Coast Air Quality Management District
v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
(finding that NSR associated with the 1hour ozone standard included control
requirements). At issue in South Coast
was EPA’s determination regarding the
revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone
program (and corresponding SIP
elements), including all the 1-hour
nonattainment NSR elements, and
whether such elements would continue
to be required as part of SIPs
implementing the new (at that time) 8hour ozone standard. The facts in the
South Coast case are thus
distinguishable from the instant matter
where the Idaho SIP is merely being
updated to include changes to the 2002
Federal NSR Rules and, as discussed
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
above, those changes insure equivalent
or greater emission reductions. EPA is
not removing the entirety of its Part D
NSR program from the Idaho SIP as it
pertains to a particular NAAQS. Rather,
EPA is simply approving Idaho’s SIP
revisions that implement rules
equivalent to Federal rules; and as
discussed earlier in this notice, EPA
developed a Supplemental Analysis to
support adoption of the Federal rules.
The Idaho SIP will continue to operate
72723
A. Rules To Approve into the Idaho SIP
with the full suite of NSR related
elements.4
II. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve
all of the amendments to the Rules for
the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho as
submitted by the Director of IDEQ on
May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13,
2005, May 5, 2006, April 16, 2007, May
12, 2008, and June 8, 2009, except for
certain sections listed below. This
action will result in changes to the
Idaho SIP in 40 CFR part 52, subpart N.
EPA approves into the SIP at 40 CFR
part 52, subpart N, the Idaho regulations
listed in Table 2. It is important to note
that in those instances where IDEQ
submitted multiple revisions to a single
section of IDAPA 58.01.01, the most
recent version of that section (based on
state effective date) is incorporated into
the SIP because it supersedes all
previous revisions.
TABLE 2—IDAHO REGULATIONS FOR PROPOSED APPROVAL
State citation
State effective
date
Title/subject
Explanation
58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
006 .................
General Definitions ....................................................................................
4/11/2006
007 .................
Definitions for the Purposes of Sections 200 through 225 and 400
through 461.
Incorporations by Reference .....................................................................
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/2/2008
7/1/2002
4/6/2005
4/2/2008
4/6/2005
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
7/1/2002
4/6/2005
107 .................
133
134
135
155
200
201
202
204
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
5/8/2009
206
209
213
220
222
400
401
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Start-up, Shutdown and Scheduled Maintenance Requirements .............
Upset, Breakdown and Safety Requirements ...........................................
Excess Emission Reports .........................................................................
Circumvention ............................................................................................
Procedures and Requirements for Permits to Construct ..........................
Permit to Construct Required ....................................................................
Application Procedures .............................................................................
Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in
Nonattainment Areas.
Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in
Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas.
Optional Offsets for Permits to Construct .................................................
Procedures for Issuing Permits .................................................................
Pre-Permit Construction ............................................................................
General Exemption Criteria for Permit to Construct Exemptions .............
Category II Exemptions .............................................................................
Procedures and Requirements for Tier II Operating Permits ...................
Tier II Operating Permit .............................................................................
402
404
460
511
512
513
560
561
575
581
679
700
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
Application Procedures .............................................................................
Procedure for Issuing Permits ...................................................................
Requirements for Emission Reduction Credits .........................................
Applicability ................................................................................................
Definitions ..................................................................................................
Requirements ............................................................................................
Notification to Sources ..............................................................................
General Rules ...........................................................................................
Air Quality Standards and Area Classification ..........................................
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments ........................
Averaging Period .......................................................................................
Particulate Matter Process Weight Limitations .........................................
7/1/2002
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
4/11/2006
5/3/2003
725 .................
Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels .............................................................
Except Section 107.03(g) through
(n) and (p).
5/8/2009
205 .................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Except Section 006.66(b) (re: state
air toxics in definition of ‘‘modification’’).
B. Rules on Which No Action Is Taken
EPA is taking no action on the
following rules:
4 EPA also notes that there are only three
nonattainment areas in Idaho where the Part D NSR
rules apply. There are no existing major stationary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
4/2/2008
Except 401.01.a (bubbles) and
401.04 (compliance date extension).
More recent state rule effective
date.
58.01.01.008, Definitions for Purposes of
Section 300 through 386
58.01.01.199, Electric Generating Unit
Construction Prohibition
58.01.01.210, Demonstration of
Preconstruction Compliance with
Toxic Standards
sources within any of these nonattainment areas so
the rule provisions that define when a modification
to an existing major source would be subject to
review do not actually apply to any sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72724
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
58.01.01.225, Permit to Construct
Processing Fee
58.01.01.228, Appeals
58.01.01.313, 317, 387–399, 395,
Procedures and Requirements for
Tier I Operating Permits
58.01.01.410, Appeals
58.01.01.175–181, Procedures and
Requirements for Permits
Establishing a Facility Emissions
Cap
58.01.01.861, Standards of Performance
of Hospital/Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerators
C. Scope of Action
Idaho has not demonstrated authority
to implement and enforce IDAPA
Chapter 58 within ‘‘Indian Country’’ as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.5 Therefore,
EPA proposes that this SIP approval not
extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’ in Idaho. See
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall
include enforceable emission limits),
110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate
authority under State law to carry out
SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs
shall include enforceable emission
limits). This is consistent with EPA’s
previous approval of Idaho’s PSD
program, in which EPA specifically
disapproved the program for sources
within Indian Reservations in Idaho
because the State had not shown it had
authority to regulate such sources. See
40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent
with EPA’s approval of Idaho’s title V
air operating permits program. See 61
FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996)
(interim approval does not extend to
Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575
(October 4, 2001) (full approval does not
extend to Indian Country).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
5 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined under 18 U.S.C.
1151 as: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United
States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of
any patent, and including rights-of-way running
through the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian
communities within the borders of the United
States, whether within the original or subsequently
acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been
extinguished, including rights-of-way running
through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the
use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been
formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho,
Indian country includes, but is not limited to, the
Coeur d’Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley
Reservation, the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe,
the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce
Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce
Treaty.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this 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 requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide 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 the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act,
5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by January 25, 2011.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator Region 10.
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N—Idaho
2. In § 52.670(c), the table in
paragraph (c) is amended:
■ a. By revising entries 006 and 007.
■ b. By revising entry 107.
■ c. By revising entry 200.
■ d. By revising entries 133 though 135.
■ e. By revising entry 155.
■ f. By revising entries 201 and 202.
■ g. By revising entries 204 through 206.
■ h. By revising entry 209.
■ i. By revising entry 213.
■ j. By revising entry 220.
■ k. By revising entry 222.
■ l. By revising entries 400 through 402.
■
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
72725
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
■
■
■
■
■
m. By revising entry 404.
n. By revising entry 460.
o. By revising entries 511 through 513.
p. By revising entries 560 and 561.
q. By revising entry 575.
■
■
■
■
§ 52.670
r. By revising entry 581.
s. By revising entry 679.
t. By revising entry 700.
u. By revising entry 725.
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS
State citation
Title/subject
State effective date
EPA approval date
Explanations
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
*
006 ..................
*
*
General Definitions ...............................
*
4/11/06, 7/1/02, 4/5/00,
3/20/97, 5/1/94
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
007 ..................
Definitions for the Purposes of Sections 200 through 225 and 400
through 461.
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 6/30/95,
5/1/95, 5/1/94
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
107 ..................
*
*
Incorporations by Reference ................
*
5/8/09, 3/30/07, 3/20/04,
7/1/97, 5/1/94
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
133 ..................
*
*
Start-up, Shutdown and Scheduled
Maintenance Requirements.
*
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97 .....
*
134 ..................
Upset, Breakdown and Safety Requirements.
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97 .....
135 ..................
Excess Emission Reports .....................
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97 .....
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
155 ..................
*
*
Circumvention .......................................
*
4/11/06 ...............................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
200 ..................
*
*
Procedures and Requirements for Permits to Construct.
*
4/2/2008 .............................
*
201 ..................
Permit to Construct Required ...............
7/1/02 .................................
202 ..................
Application Procedures .........................
4/6/05, 7/1/02, 4/5/00,
5/1/94
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
204 ..................
*
*
Permit Requirements for New Major
Facilities or Major Modifications in
Nonattainment Areas.
Permit Requirements for New Major
Facilities or Major Modifications in
Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas.
Optional Offsets for Permits to Construct.
*
4/2/08, 3/30/07, 4/6/05,
4/5/00, 5/1/94
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
205 ..................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
206 ..................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
4/2/08, 3/30/07, 4/6/05 .......
4/6/05 .................................
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
*
Except Section
006.55(b) (re: state air
toxics in definition of
‘‘modification’’).
*
Except Section
107.03(g) through (n)
and (p).
72726
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS—Continued
Title/subject
*
209 ..................
*
*
Procedures for Issuing Permits ............
*
4/11/06, 4/6/05, 5/3/03,
7/1/02, 4/5/00, 3/19/99,
3/23/98, 5/1/94
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
213 ..................
*
*
Pre-Permit Construction .......................
*
4/11/06, 5/3/03, 4/5/00,
3/23/98
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
220 ..................
*
*
General Exemption Criteria for Permit
to Construct Exemptions.
*
4/11/06, 4/5/00 ...................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
222 ..................
*
*
Category II Exemptions ........................
*
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94,
7/1/97
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
400 ..................
*
*
Procedures and Requirements for Tier
II Operating Permits.
*
7/1/02 .................................
Tier II Operating Permit ........................
4/6/05, 7/1/02, 4/5/00,
5/1/94
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
401 ..................
402 ..................
Application Procedures .........................
7/1/02, 5/1/94, 4/5/00,
7/1/02
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
404 ..................
*
*
Procedure for Issuing Permits ..............
*
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94,
7/1/02
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
460 ..................
*
*
Requirements for Emission Reduction
Credits.
*
4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94 .......
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
511 ..................
*
*
Applicability ...........................................
*
4/11/06 ...............................
Definitions .............................................
4/11/06, 5/1/94, 4/5/00 .......
513 ..................
Requirements ........................................
4/11/06 ...............................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
512 ..................
*
560 ..................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
State citation
*
*
Notification to Sources ..........................
*
4/11/06 ...............................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
State effective date
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Explanations
Except 401.01.a (bubbles) and 401.04
(compliance date extension).
72727
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS—Continued
State citation
Title/subject
State effective date
EPA approval date
561 ..................
General Rules .......................................
4/11/06, 5/1/94, 3/15/02 .....
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
575 ..................
*
*
Air Quality Standards and Area Classification.
*
4/11/06 ...............................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
581 ..................
*
*
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Increments.
*
4/11/06, 5/3/03, 7/1/97, 5/1/
94.
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
679 ..................
*
*
Averaging Period ..................................
*
4/11/06, 5/1/94 ...................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
700 ..................
*
*
Particulate Matter Process Weight Limitations.
*
5/3/03, 4/5/00 .....................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
725 ..................
*
*
Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels .........
*
5/8/09, 5/1/94 .....................
*
*
11/26/2010 [Insert page
number where the document begins]
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
to be a human carcinogen.’’ EPA has
determined that these 16 chemicals
meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B)
criteria because they can reasonably be
anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
DATES:
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–29628 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
This final rule is effective
November 30, 2010, and shall apply for
the reporting year beginning January 1,
2011 (reports due July 1, 2012).
40 CFR Part 372
[EPA–HQ–TRI–2010–0006; FRL–9231–5]
Addition of National Toxicology
Program Carcinogens; Community
Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is adding 16 chemicals to
the list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 (PPA). These 16 chemicals
have been classified by the National
Toxicology Program in their Report on
Carcinogens as ‘‘reasonably anticipated
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:13 Nov 24, 2010
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2010–0006. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
ADDRESSES:
RIN 2025–AA28
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanations
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental
Analysis Division, Office of Information
Analysis and Access (2842T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–
0743; fax number: 202–566–0677; email: bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for
specific information on this notice. For
general information on EPCRA section
313, contact the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Hotline,
toll free at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–
9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free,
TDD (800) 553–7672, https://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this notice apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture, process,
or otherwise use any of the chemicals
included in this final rule. Potentially
affected categories and entities may
include, but are not limited to:
E:\FR\FM\26NOR1.SGM
26NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72719-72727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29628]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0482; FRL-9231-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving numerous revisions to the Idaho State
Implementation Plan that were submitted to EPA by the State of Idaho on
May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13, 2005, May 5, 2006, April 16,
2007, May 12, 2008, and June 8, 2009. The revisions were submitted in
accordance with the requirements of section 110 and part D of the Clean
Air Act (hereinafter the Act or CAA). EPA is taking no action in this
rulemaking on a number of submitted rule revisions that are unrelated
to the purposes of the implementation plan.
DATES: This action is effective on December 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's SIP revision and other information
supporting this action are available for inspection at EPA Region 10,
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, or at (206) 553-6706.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background for This Action
A. What revisions to the Idaho SIP does this action address?
B. What comments did we receive on our proposal for these
revisions?
1. Section 110(l)
a. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 110(l)
b. EPA Response to Section 110(l)-Related Comments
2. Section 193
a. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 193
b. EPA Response to Section 193-Related Comments
II. Final Action
A. Rules To Approve Into the Idaho SIP
B. Rules on Which No Action Is Taken
C. Scope of Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background for This Action
Title I of the CAA, as amended by Congress in 1990, specifies the
general requirements for states to submit State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to attain and/or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs.
On May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13, 2005, May 5, 2006, April 16,
2007, May 12, 2008, and June 8, 2009, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted numerous revisions to the SIP
for the State of Idaho. On March 18, 2010, EPA solicited public comment
on a proposal to approve all of the revisions submitted by IDEQ, except
the identified provisions on which EPA proposed to take no action. 75
FR 13058. This final action will update the federally approved SIP to
reflect changes to the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
(IDAPA 58.01.01) that were made by IDEQ and reviewed and deemed
approvable into the Idaho SIP (Code of Federal Regulations part 52,
subpart N).
A. What revisions to the Idaho SIP does this action address?
Table 1 below identifies each SIP submittal addressed in this
action, including the submittal date, title and sections of IDAPA
58.01.01 that are revised. The submittals include Idaho's annual
incorporation by reference of various portions of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), revised new source review (NSR) requirements,
revised permit to construct exemptions, updates and clarifications to
the State's permitting program, revisions related to the definition of
``regulated air pollutant,'' modified definitions for the State's major
and minor source permitting programs, procedures for transferring
permits, clarifications to sulfur content of fuels provisions, and
various editorial changes. The submittals also included provisions we
are taking no action on, including an electric generating unit
construction prohibition, demonstration of preconstruction compliance
with toxic standards, permit fee provisions, appeal provisions,
provisions relating to Tier 1 operating permits, facility emissions
cap, standards of performance of certain types of waste incinerators,
and various definition revisions. More information about each SIP
submittal, including a summary of the submittal and relevant background
information and analysis supporting our action, can be found in our
proposed approval. 75 FR 13058 (March 18, 2010).
Table 1--IDEQ SIP Submittals Addressed in This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections of IDAPA
Date of submittal Title (with IDEQ 58.01.01 revised
Docket No.) or amended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05/22/2003 \1\.................. Soil Vapor 58.01.01.210.
Extraction (58-
0101-0102).
2001 IBR of 58.01.01.008 and
Federal 107.
Regulations (58-
0101-0103).
Hospital/Medical/ 58.01.01.861.
Infectious Waste
Incinerators (58-
0101-0103).
[[Page 72720]]
Permit 58.01.01.209, 213,
Clarification (58- 228, 313, 317,
0101-0202). 395, 410, 511,
581, 700 and 710-
724.
2002 IBR of 58.01.01.008 and
Federal 107.
Regulations (58-
0101-0202).
Permitting Fees 58.01.01.01.006,
(58-0101-0104). 007, 200-202,
209, 224-228, 400-
402, 404, 407-
410, 470, 800-
802.
Title V Operating 58.01.01.387-399.
Permit Fees (58-
0101-0203).
04/02/2004...................... 2003 IBR of 58.01.01.008 and
Federal 107.
Regulations (58-
0101-0301).
07/13/2005...................... New Source Review 58.01.01.006, 200,
(58-0101-0304). 202, 204, 205,
206, 209, 225 and
401.
Permit To 58.01.01.220 and
Construct 222.
Exemptions (58-
0101-0401).
2004 IBR of 58.01.01.008, 107,
Federal 200, 204 and 205.
Regulations (58-
0101-0402).
05/05/2006 \2\.................. Regulated Air 58.01.01.006-008,
Pollutants (58- 133-135, 155,
0101-0503). 213, 220, 440-
442, 460, 511-
513, 560-561,
575, 581, and
679.
2005 IBR of 58.01.01.008, 107,
Federal 200, 204 and 205.
Regulations (58-
0101-0505).
Procedure for 58.01.01.006, 007,
Transfer of 209, and 404.
Permit To
Construct and
Tier II permits
(58-0101-0506).
Permit To 58.01.01.222.
Construct
Exemptions (58-
0101-0507).
04/16/2007...................... 2006 IBR of 58.01.01.008, 107,
Federal 200, 204, 205.
Regulations (58-
0101-0602).
Mercury (58-0101- 58.01.01.199.
0603).
05/12/2008...................... 2007 IBR of 58.01.01.008, 107,
Federal 200, 204, 205.
Regulations (58-
0101-0701).
06/08/2009 \1\.................. Sulfur Content of 58.01.01.725.
Fuels (58-0101-
0703).
2008 IBR of 58.01.01.008 and
Federal Rules (58- 107.
0101-0802).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The May 22, 2003 and June 8, 2009 SIP submittals included IDEQ SIP
revisions for the control of nonmetallic mineral processing plants
(IDEQ Docket 58-0101-0002 and a portion of Docket 58-0101-0802), which
will be acted on in a separate action.
\2\ The May 6, 2006 submittal included IDEQ's SIP revision for the
facility emissions cap (IDEQ Docket 58-0101-0508) which will be acted
on in a separate action.
B. What comments did we receive on our proposal for these revisions?
National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) commented on EPA's
proposal to approve changes to Idaho's permitting programs for major
stationary sources, specifically the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permit program and the nonattainment area (Part D)
permit program that incorporate EPA's ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' NRDC
primarily commented on the requirements of the Federal NSR rules, not
Idaho's application of the Federal requirements in its own rules.
Notably, NRDC participated in litigation challenging EPA's promulgation
of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, where similar arguments were made by NRDC
and dismissed by the DC Circuit Court. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC
Cir. 2005). NRDC's comments in this action, including exhibits, do not
raise any specific concerns with Idaho's rules, but rather, reiterate
arguments made by NRDC to the DC Circuit regarding Sections 110(l) and
193 of the Clean Air Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NRDC notes that, ``[t]he 2002 rule provisions considered by
the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA were EPA regulations, not state
ones. The court thus had no occasion to decide whether EPA could
approve any state's versions of any of the 2002 rule provisions
consistently with section 110(1) of the Act.'' NRDC Comments at 4.
The Idaho rules at issue here track the federally approved rules, as
upheld by the DC Circuit (which NRDC admits--NRDC Comments at 4-5)
and NRDC supported all its comments with information related to the
challenge of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC provided no Idaho-
specific suppport for its comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NRDC's comments provide citations to nine sections of the
Idaho rules, the comments make no attempt to specifically explain or
demonstrate how those identified provisions are inconsistent with
either Section 110(l) or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, NRDC
provides no evidence supporting its allegations that approval of the
specific provisions would result in a violation of the CAA or otherwise
be ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not
in accordance with law.'' NRDC Comments at 2. The NRDC comments include
a list of 31 exhibits which the comment letter incorporates by
reference into the comments. NRDC Comments at 1 and 11-12. The 31
exhibits appear to all be related to the DC Circuit Court case New York
v. EPA, and were either submitted to that Court for review, or are
relevant to that adjudication. In any event, none of the 31 exhibits
provides EPA with any comments specific to the Idaho rules at issue.
Despite the lack of Idaho-specific discussion in NRDC's letter, EPA has
responded to the few comments that appear related to the March 18,
2010, proposal to approve Idaho's SIP revisions pertaining to EPA's
2002 NSR Reform Rules.
1. Section 110(l)
a. Summary of comments regarding Section 110(l):
NRDC asserts that ``[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions that were
not vacated by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA [citation omitted]
allow previously-prohibited emissions-increases to occur.'' NRDC
Comments at 4. As a result, NRDC states that, ``it cannot be said of
Idaho's plan that it `will cause no degradation of air quality' '' and
``Idaho has made no `demonstration that the emissions that are allowed
by its revised rule but are prohibited by the current SIP would not
interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements.' '' NRDC
Comments at 5. Further, NRDC states that ``EPA has never made, or even
proposed to make, a finding that revisions to Idaho's permit provisions
so that they track the non-vacated provisions of the 2002 rule `will
cause no degradation of air quality' [citations omitted] or avoid
`interfering with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the [NAAQS], or any
other applicable requirement of the Act,'' and that ``EPA fails to even
cite CAA Section 110(l) in the proposal.'' NRDC Comments at 5. Finally,
NRDC concludes that ``finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal at issue
here would violate section 110(l) of the Act.'' NRDC Comments at 5.
b. EPA response to Section 110(l)-related comments:
EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules were upheld by the DC Circuit Court
which
[[Page 72721]]
reviewed them, with the exception of the pollution control project and
clean unit provisions (and the remanded matters). The three significant
changes in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were upheld by the DC Circuit
were (1) plantwide applicability limits (PALs), (2) the 2-in-10
baseline, and (3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. The
Supplemental Environmental Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR
Improvement Rules (November 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis) discussed
each of these three changes individually, and addresses some of the
issues raised by NRDC.
With regard to PALs, the Supplemental Analysis explains, ``The EPA
expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions
caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as
well as other benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further
explained that,
Although it is impossible to predict how many and which sources
will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources will
achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide basis,
PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of reductions
of VOC from source categories where frequent operational changes are
made, where these changes are time-sensitive, and where there are
opportunities for economical air pollution control measures. These
reductions occur because of the incentives that the PAL creates to
control existing and new units in order to provide room under the
cap to make necessary operational changes over the life of the PAL.
Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly
Appendix B, provides additional details regarding EPA's analysis of
PALs and anticipated associated emissions decreases.
With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded that, ``The EPA
believes that the environmental impact from the change in baseline EPA
is now finalizing will not result in any significant change in benefits
derived from the NSR program.'' Supplemental Analysis at 13. This is
mainly because ``the number of sources receiving different baselines
likely represents a very small fraction of the overall NSR permit
universe, excludes new sources and coal fired power plants, and because
the baseline may shift in either direction, we conclude that any
overall consequences would be negligible.'' Supplemental Analysis at
14. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline changes is
available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F.
With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded,
``we believe that the environmental impacts of the switch to the
actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally
beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, we believe the
vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric
utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase
emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change.
Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be
environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.'' Supplemental
Analysis at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis Appendix G).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and its
supporting technical documents, see https://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 (last visited November 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ``[t]he Administrator shall
not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.''
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In ``Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of Nevada, Clark County
Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management,'' 69 FR 54006
(September 7, 2004), the EPA stated that Section 110(l) does not
preclude SIP relaxations. The Agency stated that Section 110(l) only
requires that the ``relaxations not interfere with specified
requirements of the Act including requirements for attainment and
reasonable further progress,'' and that, therefore, a state can relax
its SIP provisions if it is able to show that it can ``attain or
maintain the [National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)] and meet
any applicable reasonable further progress goals or other specific
requirements.'' 69 FR at 54011-12.
As the commenter acknowledges, the Idaho PSD/NSR rules track the
Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA did evaluate Idaho's rules
consistent with its evaluation of the Federal rules, and determined
that Idaho's rules were equivalent to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
Overall, as summarized above, EPA expects that changes in air quality
as a result of implementing Idaho's PSD/NSR rules will be consistent
with EPA's position on the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules--that there
will be somewhere between neutral and providing modest contribution to
reasonable further progress when the 2002 NSR Reform Rules are compared
to the pre-reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the environmental
impacts of these three components of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules is
informative of how Idaho's adoption of NSR Reform (based on the Federal
rules) will affect emissions. EPA has no reason to believe that the
environmental impacts will be different from those discussed in the
Supplemental Analysis for the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and, thus,
approval of Idaho's SIP revision would not be contrary to Section
110(l) of the CAA.
As discussed above, NRDC cites to nine general sections of Idaho's
rules as provisions that would violate Section 110(l).\3\ Without
further specificity, however, it is not clear why or how NRDC believes
approval of these provisions would violate Section 110(l). Moreover,
NRDC has provided no Idaho-specific documentation that indicates that
EPA's analysis and conclusions regarding the impact of the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules, in the Supplemental Analysis, are not applicable to
Idaho's rules which mirror the Federal rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While NRDC has not identified the specific provisions within
these sections in Idaho's submittal that they contend prevent the
State's revised plan from meeting the criteria in Section 110(l), by
its many references to EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules, EPA presumes
that NRDC is referring to the changes to the applicability
provisions for determining when modifications to existing major
stationary sources are subject to review (i.e., when a major
modification would occur). The responses to NRDC's comments that
follow are based on that presumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA evaluated Idaho's rules in comparison with the existing Federal
rules, and determined that Idaho's rules were equivalent to the 2002
NSR Reform (Federal) Rules. EPA also considered the Supplemental
Analysis in reviewing NRDC's comments. EPA concluded that approval of
Idaho's SIP revision would not be contrary to Section 110(l) of the CAA
because they implement Federal provisions. This comparison was
discussed in the proposal to approve Idaho's SIP revision. Absent more
explicit information demonstrating that Idaho's plan for implementation
of a specific provision of its rules would interfere with any
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act and thus should be
disapproved under Section 110(l), Idaho's SIP submission and the
Supplemental Analysis support approval and there is no basis to
determine that approval of Idaho's rules would violate Section 110(l).
Although NRDC has not identified the specific provisions within
these sections in Idaho's submittal that they contend prevent the
State's revised plan from meeting the criteria in Section 110(l), EPA
presumes that NRDC is referring to
[[Page 72722]]
the changes to the applicability provisions for determining when
modifications to existing major stationary sources are subject to
review (i.e., when a major modification would occur) because those
provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules differ most from PSD and Part D
NSR rules currently approved in the Idaho SIP. With respect to major
modifications, IDEQ has informed EPA that it issued only one PSD permit
for a major modification in the ten years prior to adopting the 2002
NSR Reform Rules and has not issued a PSD permit for a major
modification in the five years since adopting the NSR Reform changes.
Given this permitting record, EPA does not believe that there is any
evidence that the change to the major modification applicability
provisions in the Idaho SIP resulting from Idaho's adoption of the 2002
NSR Reform Rules would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
In addition, EPA does not believe that the change to the definition
of major modification has interfered, or will interfere, with Idaho's
ability to ensure reasonable further progress in any nonattainment
area. Of the five areas in Idaho that were designated nonattainment in
response to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, all five have now
attained the applicable NAAQS. Three have been formally redesignated to
attainment, two before and one after Idaho revised its NSR rules
(Boise-Ada County CO, 67 FR 65713 (October 28, 2002; eff. December 27,
2002); Ada County (Boise) PM10, 68 FR 61106 (October 27, 2003, eff.
November 26, 2003); and Portneuf Valley (Pocatello) PM10, 71 FR 39574
(July 13, 2006, eff. August 14, 2006)). Two have been determined to
have attained the applicable NAAQS, one before and one after Idaho
revised its NSR rules (Pinehurst (Shoshone County) PM10, 66 FR 44304
(August 23, 2001, eff. October 22, 2001) and Sandpoint PM10, 75 FR
35302 (June 22, 2010, eff. August 23, 2010)). Since all nonattainment
areas have successfully attained the NAAQS, some before and some after
the revision to the NSR rules, EPA finds no basis to conclude that the
change to the rules would interfere with Idaho's ability to ensure
reasonable further progress in any nonattainment area. There are no
existing major sources of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in the newly
designated Franklin County (Cache Valley) PM2.5 nonattainment area, so
the change to the Part D NSR rule will not affect Idaho's ability to
ensure reasonable further progress when it develops and submits the
attainment plan for that newly designated area.
Moreover, although NRDC acknowledges that ``110(l) requires * * * a
determination that the specific revision, when considered in the
context of the SIP elements already in place, can meet the Act's
attainment requirements,'' (citing Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1152,
1159 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added), NRDC's comments fail to consider
the other permitting rules in the Idaho SIP along with the revisions to
those rules that EPA is proposing to approve in this action. The Idaho
SIP includes a single ``permit to construct'' program (IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 228) that includes requirements for the
construction and modification of stationary sources, including major
stationary sources in nonattainment areas (IDAPA 58.01.01.204) and
attainment or unclassifiable areas (IDAPA 58.01.01.205). Importantly,
the Idaho rules require that changes to existing major stationary
sources that are not subject to review under the provisions for major
sources are subject to the nonmajor source requirements of IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 228 (see IDAPA 58.01.01.204.03 and
58.01.01.205.04). The nonmajor source requirements include the
requirement that no permit to construct shall be granted unless the
applicant shows that the stationary source or modification would not
cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air
quality standard (IDAPA 58.01.01.203.02). Thus, changes at existing
major stationary sources that would have undergone review as major
modifications under Idaho's existing PSD SIP but now may not be
reviewed as major modifications under Idaho's adoption of the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules must still undergo review as nonmajor changes and cannot
be constructed if they would cause or significantly contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS. Idaho's nonmajor new source review requirements
provide additional assurance that Idaho's adoption of the 2002 NSR
Reform rules will not interfere with the Idaho SIP's ability to attain
and maintain the NAAQS, and the commenter has provided no information
to the contrary.
2. Section 193
a. Summary of comments regarding Section 193:
NRDC states that NSR is a ``control requirement'' and thus the
requirements of Section 193 apply to the NSR rules at issue in the
Idaho SIP revision. NRDC Comments at 8. NRDC further alleges that
Idaho's revisions ``ensure that emissions will not be reduced as much
as under the preexisting rules. In fact, the modifications allow
emissions to increase in Idaho's nonattainment areas.'' NRDC Comments
at 9. Finally, NRDC states that ``because section 193 lies within part
D,'' ``if EPA approves Idaho's revised plan, that action will
additionally exceed the agency's authority under section 110(k)(3) and
violate section 100(l) [this appears to be a typo and should read
110(l)].'' NRDC Comments at 10.
b. EPA response to Section 193-related Comments:
The response to the Section 193 issues raised by NRDC involves many
of the same elements of the response above to the Section 110(l)
comments, which is also incorporated by reference here.
Section 193 states (in relevant part) that ``[n]o control
requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be
modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification
insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air
pollutant.''
Assuming for purposes of this discussion that Section 193 does
apply to the instant action, as was discussed earlier in this notice,
EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental
Analysis that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules still in
effect (that is, those not vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its New York
I decision) are expected to have at least a neutral environmental
benefit. Therefore, even if Section 193 did apply to this action, EPA
does not agree with commenter's assertions that the SIP submissions
approved in this action raise a Section 193 concern.
In addition, the core of NRDC's argument seems to revolve around
the DC Circuit Court decision in South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (finding that NSR
associated with the 1-hour ozone standard included control
requirements). At issue in South Coast was EPA's determination
regarding the revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone program (and
corresponding SIP elements), including all the 1-hour nonattainment NSR
elements, and whether such elements would continue to be required as
part of SIPs implementing the new (at that time) 8-hour ozone standard.
The facts in the South Coast case are thus distinguishable from the
instant matter where the Idaho SIP is merely being updated to include
changes to the 2002 Federal NSR Rules and, as discussed
[[Page 72723]]
above, those changes insure equivalent or greater emission reductions.
EPA is not removing the entirety of its Part D NSR program from the
Idaho SIP as it pertains to a particular NAAQS. Rather, EPA is simply
approving Idaho's SIP revisions that implement rules equivalent to
Federal rules; and as discussed earlier in this notice, EPA developed a
Supplemental Analysis to support adoption of the Federal rules. The
Idaho SIP will continue to operate with the full suite of NSR related
elements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA also notes that there are only three nonattainment areas
in Idaho where the Part D NSR rules apply. There are no existing
major stationary sources within any of these nonattainment areas so
the rule provisions that define when a modification to an existing
major source would be subject to review do not actually apply to any
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve all of the amendments to the
Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho as submitted by the
Director of IDEQ on May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13, 2005, May 5,
2006, April 16, 2007, May 12, 2008, and June 8, 2009, except for
certain sections listed below. This action will result in changes to
the Idaho SIP in 40 CFR part 52, subpart N.
A. Rules To Approve into the Idaho SIP
EPA approves into the SIP at 40 CFR part 52, subpart N, the Idaho
regulations listed in Table 2. It is important to note that in those
instances where IDEQ submitted multiple revisions to a single section
of IDAPA 58.01.01, the most recent version of that section (based on
state effective date) is incorporated into the SIP because it
supersedes all previous revisions.
Table 2--Idaho Regulations for Proposed Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58.01.01--Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
006................................... General Definitions........... 4/11/2006 Except Section 006.66(b)
(re: state air toxics
in definition of
``modification'').
007................................... Definitions for the Purposes 4/11/2006
of Sections 200 through 225
and 400 through 461.
107................................... Incorporations by Reference... 5/8/2009 Except Section 107.03(g)
through (n) and (p).
133................................... Start-up, Shutdown and 4/11/2006
Scheduled Maintenance
Requirements.
134................................... Upset, Breakdown and Safety 4/11/2006
Requirements.
135................................... Excess Emission Reports....... 4/11/2006
155................................... Circumvention................. 4/11/2006
200................................... Procedures and Requirements 4/2/2008
for Permits to Construct.
201................................... Permit to Construct Required.. 7/1/2002
202................................... Application Procedures........ 4/6/2005
204................................... Permit Requirements for New 4/2/2008
Major Facilities or Major
Modifications in
Nonattainment Areas.
205................................... Permit Requirements for New 4/2/2008
Major Facilities or Major
Modifications in Attainment
or Unclassifiable Areas.
206................................... Optional Offsets for Permits 4/6/2005
to Construct.
209................................... Procedures for Issuing Permits 4/11/2006
213................................... Pre-Permit Construction....... 4/11/2006
220................................... General Exemption Criteria for 4/11/2006
Permit to Construct
Exemptions.
222................................... Category II Exemptions........ 4/11/2006
400................................... Procedures and Requirements 7/1/2002
for Tier II Operating Permits.
401................................... Tier II Operating Permit...... 4/6/2005 Except 401.01.a
(bubbles) and 401.04
(compliance date
extension).
402................................... Application Procedures........ 7/1/2002
404................................... Procedure for Issuing Permits. 4/11/2006
460................................... Requirements for Emission 4/11/2006
Reduction Credits.
511................................... Applicability................. 4/11/2006 ........................
512................................... Definitions................... 4/11/2006
513................................... Requirements.................. 4/11/2006
560................................... Notification to Sources....... 4/11/2006
561................................... General Rules................. 4/11/2006
575................................... Air Quality Standards and Area 4/11/2006
Classification.
581................................... Prevention of Significant 4/11/2006
Deterioration (PSD)
Increments.
679................................... Averaging Period.............. 4/11/2006
700................................... Particulate Matter Process 5/3/2003 More recent state rule
Weight Limitations. effective date.
725................................... Rules for Sulfur Content of 5/8/2009
Fuels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rules on Which No Action Is Taken
EPA is taking no action on the following rules:
58.01.01.008, Definitions for Purposes of Section 300 through 386
58.01.01.199, Electric Generating Unit Construction Prohibition
58.01.01.210, Demonstration of Preconstruction Compliance with Toxic
Standards
[[Page 72724]]
58.01.01.225, Permit to Construct Processing Fee
58.01.01.228, Appeals
58.01.01.313, 317, 387-399, 395, Procedures and Requirements for Tier I
Operating Permits
58.01.01.410, Appeals
58.01.01.175-181, Procedures and Requirements for Permits Establishing
a Facility Emissions Cap
58.01.01.861, Standards of Performance of Hospital/Medical/Infectious
Waste Incinerators
C. Scope of Action
Idaho has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce IDAPA
Chapter 58 within ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.\5\
Therefore, EPA proposes that this SIP approval not extend to ``Indian
Country'' in Idaho. See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include
enforceable emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate
authority under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6)
(nonattainment SIPs shall include enforceable emission limits). This is
consistent with EPA's previous approval of Idaho's PSD program, in
which EPA specifically disapproved the program for sources within
Indian Reservations in Idaho because the State had not shown it had
authority to regulate such sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also
consistent with EPA's approval of Idaho's title V air operating permits
program. See 61 FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval
does not extend to Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 (October 4,
2001) (full approval does not extend to Indian Country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Indian country'' is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1)
All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe
even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a
reservation. In Idaho, Indian country includes, but is not limited
to, the Coeur d'Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley Reservation, the
Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
and the Nez Perce Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce
Treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide 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 the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 25, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 10, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator Region 10.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--Idaho
0
2. In Sec. 52.670(c), the table in paragraph (c) is amended:
0
a. By revising entries 006 and 007.
0
b. By revising entry 107.
0
c. By revising entry 200.
0
d. By revising entries 133 though 135.
0
e. By revising entry 155.
0
f. By revising entries 201 and 202.
0
g. By revising entries 204 through 206.
0
h. By revising entry 209.
0
i. By revising entry 213.
0
j. By revising entry 220.
0
k. By revising entry 222.
0
l. By revising entries 400 through 402.
[[Page 72725]]
0
m. By revising entry 404.
0
n. By revising entry 460.
0
o. By revising entries 511 through 513.
0
p. By revising entries 560 and 561.
0
q. By revising entry 575.
0
r. By revising entry 581.
0
s. By revising entry 679.
0
t. By revising entry 700.
0
u. By revising entry 725.
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Idaho Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01--Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
006............................. General Definitions 4/11/06, 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where Except Section
3/20/97, 5/1/94..................... the document begins] 006.55(b) (re:
state air toxics
in definition of
``modification'').
007............................. Definitions for the 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 6/30/95, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Purposes of 5/1/95, 5/1/94...................... the document begins]
Sections 200
through 225 and
400 through 461.
* * * * * * *
107............................. Incorporations by 5/8/09, 3/30/07, 3/20/04, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where Except Section
Reference. 7/1/97, 5/1/94...................... the document begins] 107.03(g) through
(n) and (p).
* * * * * * *
133............................. Start-up, Shutdown 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
and Scheduled the document begins]
Maintenance
Requirements.
134............................. Upset, Breakdown 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
and Safety the document begins]
Requirements.
135............................. Excess Emission 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Reports. the document begins]
* * * * * * *
155............................. Circumvention...... 4/11/06.............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
the document begins]
* * * * * * *
200............................. Procedures and 4/2/2008............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Requirements for the document begins]
Permits to
Construct.
201............................. Permit to Construct 7/1/02............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Required. the document begins]
202............................. Application 4/6/05, 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Procedures. 5/1/94.............................. the document begins]
* * * * * * *
204............................. Permit Requirements 4/2/08, 3/30/07, 4/6/05, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
for New Major 4/5/00, 5/1/94...................... the document begins]
Facilities or
Major
Modifications in
Nonattainment
Areas.
205............................. Permit Requirements 4/2/08, 3/30/07, 4/6/05.............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
for New Major the document begins]
Facilities or
Major
Modifications in
Attainment or
Unclassifiable
Areas.
206............................. Optional Offsets 4/6/05............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
for Permits to the document begins]
Construct.
[[Page 72726]]
* * * * * * *
209............................. Procedures for 4/11/06, 4/6/05, 5/3/03, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Issuing Permits. 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 3/19/99,............ the document begins]
3/23/98, 5/1/94.....................
* * * * * * *
213............................. Pre-Permit 4/11/06, 5/3/03, 4/5/00, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Construction. 3/23/98............................. the document begins]
* * * * * * *
220............................. General Exemption 4/11/06, 4/5/00...................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Criteria for the document begins]
Permit to
Construct
Exemptions.
* * * * * * *
222............................. Category II 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Exemptions. 7/1/97.............................. the document begins]
* * * * * * *
400............................. Procedures and 7/1/02............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Requirements for the document begins]
Tier II Operating
Permits.
401............................. Tier II Operating 4/6/05, 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where Except 401.01.a
Permit. 5/1/94.............................. the document begins] (bubbles) and
401.04 (compliance
date extension).
402............................. Application 7/1/02, 5/1/94, 4/5/00, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Procedures. 7/1/02.............................. the document begins]
* * * * * * *
404............................. Procedure for 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94, 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Issuing Permits. 7/1/02.............................. the document begins]
* * * * * * *
460............................. Requirements for 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94.............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Emission Reduction the document begins]
Credits.
* * * * * * *
511............................. Applicability...... 4/11/06.............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
the document begins]
512............................. Definitions........ 4/11/06, 5/1/94, 4/5/00.............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
the document begins]
513............................. Requirements....... 4/11/06.............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
the document begins]
* * * * * * *
560............................. Notification to 4/11/06.............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Sources. the document begins]
[[Page 72727]]
561............................. General Rules...... 4/11/06, 5/1/94, 3/15/02............. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
the document begins]
* * * * * * *
575............................. Air Quality 4/11/06.............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Standards and Area the document begins]
Classification.
* * * * * * *
581............................. Prevention of 4/11/06, 5/3/03, 7/1/97, 5/1/94...... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Significant the document begins]
Deterioration
(PSD) Increments.
* * * * * * *
679............................. Averaging Period... 4/11/06, 5/1/94...................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
the document begins]
* * * * * * *
700............................. Particulate Matter 5/3/03, 4/5/00....................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Process Weight the document begins]
Limitations.
* * * * * * *
725............................. Rules for Sulfur 5/8/09, 5/1/94....................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page number where
Content of Fuels. the document begins]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-29628 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P