Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 46707-46709 [2014-18810]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0708, FRL–9914–90–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Kristin Hall at: (206) 553–6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the Idaho
State Implementation Plan (SIP) as
meeting the infrastructure requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010, and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010.
Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, the CAA requires states to
submit a plan for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of such
NAAQS. The plan is required to address
basic program elements, including but
not limited to regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority,
and adequate resources necessary to
implement, maintain and enforce the
standards. These elements are referred
to as infrastructure requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR–
2013–0708. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information
may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or
other information the disclosure of
which is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in
hard copy form. Publicly available
docket materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste,
and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The
EPA requests that you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Aug 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110 of the CAA specifies the
general requirements for states to submit
SIPs to implement, maintain and
enforce the NAAQS and the EPA’s
actions regarding approval of those SIPs.
On September 16, 2013, Idaho made two
SIP submissions to the EPA
demonstrating that the Idaho SIP meets
the infrastructure requirements of the
CAA for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. Idaho’s submissions addressed
the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
elements for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). On
April 17, 2014, we proposed approval of
Idaho’s September 16, 2013,
submissions (79 FR 21669). An
explanation of the CAA requirements
and implementing regulations that are
met by these SIP submissions, a detailed
explanation of the submissions, and the
EPA’s reasons for the proposed action
were provided in the notice of proposed
rulemaking on April 17, 2014, and will
not be restated here (79 FR 21669). The
public comment period for our
proposed action ended on May 19, 2014,
and we received one anonymous
comment via the www.regulations.gov
Web site.
II. Response to Comment
Comment: ‘‘Due to the recent
Supreme Court decision in EME Homer
City v. EPA, the EPA should disapprove
the State’s submission with regard to
Interstate Transport. This is because,
due to the decision, a State’s SIP is
obligated to ‘contain adequate
provisions . . . prohibiting . . . any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the State from emitting
any air pollutant in amounts which will
. . . contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State with
respect to any’ [such primary or
secondary] NAAQS. Even though the
lower court’s stay of CSAPR may still be
in effect, the fact remains that a state is
required to submit something that
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46707
addresses Interstate Transport. Since the
State of Idaho did not submit anything
for Interstate Transport the EPA is left
with no other option than to disapprove
the state’s submission since it does not
address Interstate Transport. Since this
decision was handed down after this
rule was published the EPA should
withdraw this proposed rule and repropose with a disapproval of the
Interstate Transport section.’’
Response: We disagree with the
commenter. In this rulemaking the EPA
is not taking any final action with
respect to the provisions in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which address
emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state. Idaho did not make a SIP
submission to address the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
thus there is no such submission upon
which the EPA could take action under
CAA section 110(k). The EPA did not
propose to take any action with respect
to Idaho’s obligations pursuant to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and is not, in
this rulemaking action, taking any such
action. Further, the EPA could not, as
the commenter urges, act to disapprove
a SIP that has not been submitted to the
EPA.
The EPA also disagrees with the
commenters’ assertion that the EPA
should disapprove Idaho’s submissions
because they do not address the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Section 110(k)(3) of
the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve
a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in
part, depending on the extent to which
such plan meets the requirements of the
CAA. This authority to approve the
states’ SIP submissions in separable
parts was included in the 1990
Amendments to the CAA to overrule a
decision in the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit holding that the EPA
could not approve individual measures
in a plan submission without either
approving or disapproving the plan as a
whole. See S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 22,
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408
(discussing the express overruling of
Abramowitz v. U.S. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071
(9th Cir. 1987)). The authority provided
by the 1990 Amendments to act on
particular plan revisions has been
recognized by the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. See Hall v. U.S. EPA,
273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. August 29,
2001).
As such, the EPA interprets its
authority under CAA section 110(k)(3)
as affording the EPA the discretion to
approve or conditionally approve
individual elements of Idaho’s
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
46708
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this 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
this action does not involve technical
standards; and does not provide the
EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate,
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable
and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and the 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. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
1 On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
Transport Rule, see EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and
ordering the EPA to continue implementing CAIR
in the interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C.
Circuit’s ruling and upheld the EPA’s approach in
infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
separate and apart from any action with
respect to the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA
views discrete infrastructure SIP
requirements, such as the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as
severable from the other infrastructure
elements and interprets CAA section
110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on
individual severable measures in a plan
submission. In short, we believe we
have discretion under CAA section
110(k) to act upon the various
individual elements of the State’s
infrastructure SIP submittals, separately
or together, as appropriate.
We note that the EPA is reviewing the
recent Supreme Court case reversing
and remanding the EME Homer City
decision.1 We are evaluating the
opinion’s impact on states’ CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. We are
working with state partners, including
Idaho, to assess next steps to address
interstate transport of pollution,
including interstate transport SIP
requirements for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Final Action
The EPA is approving the Idaho SIP
as meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Specifically, we find that the Idaho SIP
meets the following CAA section
110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A),
(B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M). This action is being
taken under section 110 of the CAA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Aug 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 10, 2014. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 29, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N—Idaho
2. Section 52.670 is amended in
paragraph (e) in the table entitled ‘‘EPAApproved Idaho Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures’’ by adding two entries at the
end to read as follows:
■
§ 52.670
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
the Transport Rule. EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., No. 12–1182, 572 U.S. ____slip op.
(2014).
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
46709
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic
or non-attainment area
*
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS.
*
State-wide .....................
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
State-wide .....................
[FR Doc. 2014–18810 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–2012–0567; FRL–9914–94–
Region–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Indiana PSD Increments
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a component of a state
implementation plan (SIP) submission
from Indiana addressing EPA’s
requirements for the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program.
The proposed rulemaking associated
with today’s final action was published
on August 19, 2013.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0567. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
SUMMARY:
State
submittal
date
EPA approval date
Comments
*
9/16/2013
*
8/11/2014 [Insert FR citation].
9/16/2013
8/11/2014 [Insert FR citation].
*
*
This action addresses the following
CAA elements or portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).
This action addresses the following
CAA elements or portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).
e.g., Confidential Business Information
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone Andy Chang at (312)
886–0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258,
chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of the SIP
submissions?
A. What state SIP submissions does this
rulemaking address?
B. Why did the state make these SIP
submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background of the SIP
submissions?
A. What state SIP submissions does this
rulemaking address?
This final rulemaking addresses a
portion of a July 12, 2012, submission
and a December 12, 2012, supplemental
submission from the Indiana
Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEM). These submissions were made
to satisfy certain EPA requirements for
the state’s PSD program.
B. Why did the state make these SIP
submissions?
On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the
final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule
established several components for
making PSD permitting determinations
for PM2.5, including a system of
‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism
used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for
a pollutant. These increments are
codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40
CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the
table below.
TABLE 1: PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Annual
arithmetic mean
Class I ..........................................................................................................................................................
Class II .........................................................................................................................................................
Class III ........................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Aug 08, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
24-hour max
1
4
8
11AUR1
2
9
18
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46707-46709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18810]
[[Page 46707]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0708, FRL-9914-90-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Idaho State Implementation Plan (SIP) as meeting the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) on January 22, 2010, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) on June 2, 2010. Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is
promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements, including but not limited
to regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to implement, maintain and enforce the
standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0708. All documents in the
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at: (206) 553-6357,
hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110 of the CAA specifies the general requirements for
states to submit SIPs to implement, maintain and enforce the NAAQS and
the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. On September 16,
2013, Idaho made two SIP submissions to the EPA demonstrating that the
Idaho SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Idaho's submissions
addressed the following CAA section 110(a)(2) elements for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). On
April 17, 2014, we proposed approval of Idaho's September 16, 2013,
submissions (79 FR 21669). An explanation of the CAA requirements and
implementing regulations that are met by these SIP submissions, a
detailed explanation of the submissions, and the EPA's reasons for the
proposed action were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on
April 17, 2014, and will not be restated here (79 FR 21669). The public
comment period for our proposed action ended on May 19, 2014, and we
received one anonymous comment via the www.regulations.gov Web site.
II. Response to Comment
Comment: ``Due to the recent Supreme Court decision in EME Homer
City v. EPA, the EPA should disapprove the State's submission with
regard to Interstate Transport. This is because, due to the decision, a
State's SIP is obligated to `contain adequate provisions . . .
prohibiting . . . any source or other type of emissions activity within
the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will . . .
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State with respect to any' [such primary or
secondary] NAAQS. Even though the lower court's stay of CSAPR may still
be in effect, the fact remains that a state is required to submit
something that addresses Interstate Transport. Since the State of Idaho
did not submit anything for Interstate Transport the EPA is left with
no other option than to disapprove the state's submission since it does
not address Interstate Transport. Since this decision was handed down
after this rule was published the EPA should withdraw this proposed
rule and re-propose with a disapproval of the Interstate Transport
section.''
Response: We disagree with the commenter. In this rulemaking the
EPA is not taking any final action with respect to the provisions in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which address emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in any other state. Idaho did not make a SIP submission to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and thus
there is no such submission upon which the EPA could take action under
CAA section 110(k). The EPA did not propose to take any action with
respect to Idaho's obligations pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and is not, in this rulemaking action, taking any
such action. Further, the EPA could not, as the commenter urges, act to
disapprove a SIP that has not been submitted to the EPA.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the EPA
should disapprove Idaho's submissions because they do not address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Section 110(k)(3) of
the CAA authorizes the EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in
full, or approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the
extent to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This
authority to approve the states' SIP submissions in separable parts was
included in the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that the EPA could
not approve individual measures in a plan submission without either
approving or disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228,
at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling
of Abramowitz v. U.S. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)). The
authority provided by the 1990 Amendments to act on particular plan
revisions has been recognized by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. See Hall v. U.S. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. August 29,
2001).
As such, the EPA interprets its authority under CAA section
110(k)(3) as affording the EPA the discretion to approve or
conditionally approve individual elements of Idaho's
[[Page 46708]]
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, separate and apart from any action with respect
to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010
NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA views discrete
infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other infrastructure
elements and interprets CAA section 110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on
individual severable measures in a plan submission. In short, we
believe we have discretion under CAA section 110(k) to act upon the
various individual elements of the State's infrastructure SIP
submittals, separately or together, as appropriate.
We note that the EPA is reviewing the recent Supreme Court case
reversing and remanding the EME Homer City decision.\1\ We are
evaluating the opinion's impact on states' CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. We are working with state partners,
including Idaho, to assess next steps to address interstate transport
of pollution, including interstate transport SIP requirements for the
2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule, see EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), and
ordering the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim.
However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and
remanded the D.C. Circuit's ruling and upheld the EPA's approach in
the Transport Rule. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-
1182, 572 U.S. --------slip op. (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Action
The EPA is approving the Idaho SIP as meeting the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2 and
2010 SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, we find that the Idaho SIP
meets the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for
the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). This
action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address,
as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the 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. The 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2014. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 29, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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. Section 52.670 is amended in paragraph (e) in the table entitled
``EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures'' by adding two entries at the end to read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 46709]]
EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or non- submittal EPA approval date Comments
attainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure State-wide.......... 9/16/2013 8/11/2014 [Insert FR This action
Requirements for the 2010 NO2 citation]. addresses the
NAAQS. following CAA
elements or
portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure State-wide.......... 9/16/2013 8/11/2014 [Insert FR This action
Requirements for the 2010 SO2 citation]. addresses the
NAAQS. following CAA
elements or
portions thereof:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-18810 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
