Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 7489-7491 [2016-02846]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 28, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016–02844 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0751; FRL–9942–06–
Region 9]
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule in
the Federal Register on December 2,
2015, proposing to approve a revision to
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The
December 2, 2015 proposal provided for
a 30-day public comment period ending
January 4, 2016. One document in the
docket for this proposal was not listed
at www.regulations.gov until after the
comment period had closed. EPA is
reopening the comment period for 15
days to ensure the public has an
opportunity to review and comment on
all material in the docket.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
February 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2015–0751 at
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
For either manner of submission, the
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
This
document reopens the public comment
period established in the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on
December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75442) (FRL–
9939–64–Region 9). In that document,
EPA solicited comments on a proposed
rule to approve revisions to the
SJVUAPCD’s Rule 4702 (Internal
Combustion Engines) and referenced a
technical support document (TSD)
containing further information about the
rule. Due to an administrative error, the
TSD was not available on
www.regulations.gov until after the
close of the comment period on January
4, 2016. Although EPA did not receive
any public comments on this proposal
or any requests for the TSD, EPA is
reopening the comment period for
another 15 days to ensure that the
public has an opportunity to review and
comment on all material in the docket.
Accordingly, any comments on this
proposed rule must be received on or
before February 29, 2016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7489
Dated: February 2, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016–02845 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0855; FRL–9942–14–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
submittal by the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ)
demonstrating that the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain
interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010.
Specifically, the Idaho DEQ reviewed
monitoring and modeling data to show
that sources within Idaho do not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any
other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2015–0855 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
7490
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information that is
restricted by statute from disclosure.
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 at https://www.regulations.gov
or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, 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
information please contact John Chi at
(206) 553–1185, or chi.john@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On January 22, 2010, the EPA
established a primary NO2 NAAQS at
100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged
over one hour, supplementing the
existing annual standard (75 FR 6474).
Within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised standard, states must
submit SIPs meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often
referred to as infrastructure
requirements. On December 24, 2015,
the Idaho DEQ submitted a SIP revision
to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements. The submittal included
monitoring and modeling data analysis
to demonstrate that sources within
Idaho do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and 2010
sulfur dioxide NAAQS in any other
state. This action addresses the 2010
NO2 NAAQS only. We intend to address
the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS in a
separate, future action.
II. Evaluation
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires
state SIPs to contain adequate
provisions prohibiting any source or
other type of emissions activity within
a state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state.
In the December 24, 2015 submittal,
the Idaho DEQ reviewed air quality
monitoring data for the United States
and found that all monitored areas in
the country met the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
for the design value period 2008
through 2010. The Idaho DEQ also
reviewed estimated background
concentrations for the 1-hour NO2
standard for the design value period
2009 through 2011. The modeled design
values for that period were well below
the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb. The
Idaho DEQ concluded that based on
monitoring data and modeled
background concentrations Idaho does
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
in any other state.
In addition to reviewing Idaho’s
submittal, the EPA reviewed more
recent monitoring data for NO2
throughout the United States. Using
previous EPA methodology,1 EPA
evaluated specific monitors identified as
having nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems, which we refer
to as ‘‘receptors.’’ EPA identifies
nonattainment receptors as any monitor
that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the
most recent three-year period.
Meanwhile, EPA identifies NO2
maintenance receptors as any monitor
that violated the NO2 NAAQS in either
of the prior monitoring cycles (2010–
2012 and 2011–2013), but attained in
the most recent monitoring cycle (2012–
2014). During the three most recent
design value periods of 2010 through
2012, 2011 through 2013, and 2012
through 2014, we found no monitors
violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the
United States.2 Using this methodology,
the EPA found no monitors meeting the
criteria as a nonattainment receptor
and/or as a maintenance receptor.
Further, we note that available
information indicates that monitored
values are well below the 100 ppb
1-hour NO2 NAAQS in states bordering
Idaho. The highest design value in
bordering states for the most recent
period is 68 ppb, at Utah County, Utah,
as shown in the table below.
TABLE 1—1-HOUR NO2 NAAQS DESIGN VALUES IN STATES BORDERING IDAHO
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
State
County
MT ....................................................
NV ....................................................
OR ....................................................
UT ....................................................
UT ....................................................
UT ....................................................
UT ....................................................
WY ...................................................
WY ...................................................
WY ...................................................
WY ...................................................
WY ...................................................
Rosebud ....................................................................................................
Washoe .....................................................................................................
Multnomah .................................................................................................
Cache ........................................................................................................
Carbon .......................................................................................................
Salt Lake ...................................................................................................
Utah ...........................................................................................................
Campbell ...................................................................................................
Fremont .....................................................................................................
Sublette .....................................................................................................
Sweetwater ................................................................................................
Uinta ..........................................................................................................
1 See NO SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
X
1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
Site
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2012–2014 DV
(ppb)
300870001
320310016
410510080
490050004
490071003
490353006
490490002
560050892
560130099
560350101
560370300
560410101
2 https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
7
54
35
49
31
55
68
35
5
22
20
12
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
The EPA also reviewed regulatory
provisions to control future new sources
of nitrogen oxide emissions in Idaho.
We note that on April 17, 2014, we
approved Idaho’s NO2 infrastructure SIP
(79 FR 21669). In that action, we stated
that Idaho generally regulates emissions
of nitrogen oxides through its SIPapproved new source review permitting
programs and operating permit
regulations. Idaho’s new source review
permitting rules are found at IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 228. These rules
help ensure that no new or modified
source of nitrogen oxides will cause or
contribute to violation of the NO2
NAAQS. In addition, Idaho’s Tier II
operating permit regulations at IDAPA
58.01.01.400 through 410 require that to
obtain an operating permit, the
applicant must demonstrate the source
will not cause or significantly contribute
to a violation of any ambient air quality
standard. These rules state that Idaho
DEQ will require a Tier II source
operating permit if Idaho DEQ
determines emission rate reductions are
necessary to attain or maintain any
ambient air quality standard or
applicable prevention of significant
deterioration increment.
Based on our review of the Idaho
submittal, air quality monitoring data,
and provisions in the current Federallyapproved Idaho SIP regulating new
sources, we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that emissions from Idaho do
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
We also do not expect the monitors in
states bordering Idaho, identified in
Table 1 above, to have difficulty
maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
emissions from Idaho do not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS in any other state.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA has reviewed the December
24, 2015 submittal from the Idaho DEQ
demonstrating that sources in Idaho do
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any
other state. We have also reviewed
recent monitoring data and regulatory
provisions in the Federally-approved
Idaho SIP. Based on our review, we are
proposing to find that the Idaho SIP
meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Feb 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• 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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a
Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7491
Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 27, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016–02846 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15 and 74
[OET Docket Nos. 14–165, 14–166 and 12–
268; Report No. 3037]
Petitions for Reconsideration of Action
in a Rulemaking Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
Petitions for Reconsideration
(Petitions) have been filed in the
Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding
by Howard S. Shapiro, on behalf of
Audio-Technica U.S., Inc., Laura
Stefani, on behalf of Sennheiser
Electronic Corp., Paul Margie, on behalf
of Google Inc., Paula Boyd, on behalf of
Microsoft Corporation, Stephen E.
Coran, on behalf of Wireless Internet
Service Providers Association, Rick
Kaplan, on behalf of National
Association of Broadcasters, Lawrence J.
Movshin, on behalf of WMTS Coalition,
Catherine Wang, on behalf of Shure
Incorporated, Ari Q. Fitzgerald, on
behalf GE Healthcare, Gordon Moore, on
behalf of Lectrosonics, Inc. and
Telecommunications Law Professionals
PLLC, on behalf of Carlson Wireless
Technologies, Inc. and Cal.net, Inc.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions
must be filed on or before February 29,
2016. Replies to an opposition must be
filed on or before March 25, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hugh Van Tuyl, Policy and Rules
Division, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418–7506, email:
Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov. Paul Murray,
Policy and Rules Division, Offiice of
Engineering and Technology, (202) 418–
0688, email: Paul.Murray@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of Commission’s document,
Report No. 3037, released January 12,
2016. The full text of the Petitions is
available for viewing and copying in
Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC or may be accessed
online via the Commission’s Electronic
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12FEP1.SGM
12FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7489-7491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02846]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0855; FRL-9942-14-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a submittal by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(Idaho DEQ) demonstrating that the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
promulgated for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010.
Specifically, the Idaho DEQ reviewed monitoring and modeling data to
show that sources within Idaho do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NO2
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0855 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
[[Page 7490]]
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
that is restricted by statute from disclosure. 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 at https://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region
10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 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: For information please contact John
Chi at (206) 553-1185, or chi.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Evaluation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2
NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour,
supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR 6474). Within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, states must
submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2),
often referred to as infrastructure requirements. On December 24, 2015,
the Idaho DEQ submitted a SIP revision to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. The submittal included monitoring and
modeling data analysis to demonstrate that sources within Idaho do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS
in any other state. This action addresses the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
only. We intend to address the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS in a separate,
future action.
II. Evaluation
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity within a state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any
other state.
In the December 24, 2015 submittal, the Idaho DEQ reviewed air
quality monitoring data for the United States and found that all
monitored areas in the country met the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for
the design value period 2008 through 2010. The Idaho DEQ also reviewed
estimated background concentrations for the 1-hour NO2
standard for the design value period 2009 through 2011. The modeled
design values for that period were well below the 1-hour NO2
NAAQS of 100 ppb. The Idaho DEQ concluded that based on monitoring data
and modeled background concentrations Idaho does not significantly
contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in any other state.
In addition to reviewing Idaho's submittal, the EPA reviewed more
recent monitoring data for NO2 throughout the United States.
Using previous EPA methodology,\1\ EPA evaluated specific monitors
identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which
we refer to as ``receptors.'' EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as
any monitor that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the most
recent three-year period. Meanwhile, EPA identifies NO2
maintenance receptors as any monitor that violated the NO2
NAAQS in either of the prior monitoring cycles (2010-2012 and 2011-
2013), but attained in the most recent monitoring cycle (2012-2014).
During the three most recent design value periods of 2010 through 2012,
2011 through 2013, and 2012 through 2014, we found no monitors
violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the United States.\2\ Using
this methodology, the EPA found no monitors meeting the criteria as a
nonattainment receptor and/or as a maintenance receptor. Further, we
note that available information indicates that monitored values are
well below the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in states bordering
Idaho. The highest design value in bordering states for the most recent
period is 68 ppb, at Utah County, Utah, as shown in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\2\ https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
Table 1--1-Hour NO2 NAAQS Design Values in States Bordering Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014 DV
State County Site (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT............................................ Rosebud......................... 300870001 7
NV............................................ Washoe.......................... 320310016 54
OR............................................ Multnomah....................... 410510080 35
UT............................................ Cache........................... 490050004 49
UT............................................ Carbon.......................... 490071003 31
UT............................................ Salt Lake....................... 490353006 55
UT............................................ Utah............................ 490490002 68
WY............................................ Campbell........................ 560050892 35
WY............................................ Fremont......................... 560130099 5
WY............................................ Sublette........................ 560350101 22
WY............................................ Sweetwater...................... 560370300 20
WY............................................ Uinta........................... 560410101 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7491]]
The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new
sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in Idaho. We note that on April 17,
2014, we approved Idaho's NO2 infrastructure SIP (79 FR
21669). In that action, we stated that Idaho generally regulates
emissions of nitrogen oxides through its SIP-approved new source review
permitting programs and operating permit regulations. Idaho's new
source review permitting rules are found at IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through
228. These rules help ensure that no new or modified source of nitrogen
oxides will cause or contribute to violation of the NO2
NAAQS. In addition, Idaho's Tier II operating permit regulations at
IDAPA 58.01.01.400 through 410 require that to obtain an operating
permit, the applicant must demonstrate the source will not cause or
significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality
standard. These rules state that Idaho DEQ will require a Tier II
source operating permit if Idaho DEQ determines emission rate
reductions are necessary to attain or maintain any ambient air quality
standard or applicable prevention of significant deterioration
increment.
Based on our review of the Idaho submittal, air quality monitoring
data, and provisions in the current Federally-approved Idaho SIP
regulating new sources, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that
emissions from Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We also do not expect the monitors in
states bordering Idaho, identified in Table 1 above, to have difficulty
maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We believe it is reasonable
to conclude that emissions from Idaho do not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA has reviewed the December 24, 2015 submittal from the Idaho
DEQ demonstrating that sources in Idaho do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NO2
NAAQS in any other state. We have also reviewed recent monitoring data
and regulatory provisions in the Federally-approved Idaho SIP. Based on
our review, we are proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 27, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-02846 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
