Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone Requirement, 28382-28386 [2018-13046]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28382
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO § 165.943—Continued
[Datum NAD 1983]
Event
Location
(8) Superior 4th of July Fireworks Display.
All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of
no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′28″N, 092°03′38″
W.
All waters of the Lake Superior North Channel between Bayfield and LaPointe, WI
within an imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°48′50″ N,
090°48′44″ W, moving southeast to 46°46′44″ N, 090°47′33″ W, then moving
northeast to 46°46′52″ N, 090°47′17″ W, then moving northwest to 46°49′03″ N,
090°48′25″ W, and finally returning to the starting position.
All waters of Superior Bay in Superior, WI within the arc of a circle with a radius of
no more than 1,120 feet from the launch site at position 46°43′28″ N, 092°03′47″
W.
All waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin, Northern Section in Duluth, MN within an
imaginary line created by the following coordinates: 46°46′36″ N, 092°06′06″ W,
moving southeast to 46°46′32″ N, 092°06′01″ W, then moving northeast to
46°46′45″ N, 092°05′45″ W, then moving northwest to 46°46′49″ N, 092°05′49″
W, and finally returning to the starting position.
(9) Point to LaPointe Swim ..
(10) Lake Superior Dragon
Boat Festival Fireworks
Display.
(11) Superior Man Triathlon
Dated: June 13, 2018.
E.E. Williams,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port Duluth.
[FR Doc. 2018–13055 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0566; FRL–9979–48–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue
Burning; Revision to Ozone
Requirement
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to Idaho’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) related to
agricultural crop residue burning. The
Director of the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
submitted the revisions to EPA on
September 22, 2017. IDEQ
supplemented the original submission
with photochemical modeling analyses
on October 23, 2017. The revisions
change the ambient ozone concentration
level at which IDEQ may approve a
permittee’s request to burn. This final
action is being taken for the reasons set
out in EPA’s proposed action in this
matter. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act
or CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective July
19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Jun 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
Event date
On or around July 4th.
Early August.
Late August.
Late August.
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0566. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. 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, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Randall Ruddick at (206) 553–1999, or
ruddick.randall@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to EPA.
comment period for this proposal ended
on February 21, 2018. EPA received
public comments on the proposed
rulemaking. Summaries of the
comments as well as EPA’s responses to
adverse comments are in Section II of
this rulemaking action. After
consideration of the comments, we do
not believe any changes in the rationale
or conclusions in the proposed approval
are appropriate.
Table of Contents
Comment
EPA received public comments
arguing that the NAAQS are not
adequately protective of public health in
the context of crop residue burning and
should not be relied upon as the basis
for approval of the proposed crop
residue burning SIP revisions. One
commenter stated that because the PM2.5
NAAQS takes the form of a 24-hour
average that it allows ‘‘spikes’’ of
emissions that are sufficient to ‘‘kill
citizens, especially children with
undeveloped lungs, the elderly, and
anyone with underlying heart or lung
diseases.’’ Another commenter urged
EPA to disapprove the proposed SIP
revisions, citing studies that they assert
demonstrate negative human health
impacts to exposure to ozone at levels
below the NAAQS.
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On September 22, 2017, the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP
provisions regulating open burning of
crop residue in the state to EPA for
approval. On January 22, 2018, the EPA
proposed to approve all of the revisions
requested in the September 22, 2017
submittal. We are taking final action for
the reasons explained in the January 22,
2018 notification of proposed approval
(83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed
approval for further explanation and the
basis for our finding. The public
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments on a variety
of issues related to the proposed
approval of Idaho’s crop residue
burning SIP revisions. Out of a total of
ten comments received, three were
supportive of EPA’s approval of the SIP
revisions, four were adverse to the
EPA’s proposed approval, and three
were determined to be not germane to
this action. A full copy of all comments
received is available in the docket for
final action.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Response
These comments relate to the
adequacy of the PM2.5 and ozone
NAAQS, and are therefore outside of the
scope of this action. The CAA contains
provisions that specifically address the
establishment and review of the
NAAQS. To briefly summarize, under
sections 108 and 109 of the Act, EPA
issues ‘‘air quality criteria’’ and
establishes NAAQS for certain air
pollutants. CAA section 109(d)(1)
requires EPA to periodically review, and
if appropriate, revise the air quality
criteria to reflect advances in scientific
knowledge on the effects of the
pollutant on public health and welfare,
and to periodically review, and if
appropriate revise, the NAAQS, based
on the revised air quality criteria.
Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary
(health-based) standard as one ‘‘the
attainment and maintenance of which in
the judgment of the Administrator,
based on such criteria and allowing an
adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite
to protect the public health.’’ In setting
primary NAAQS that are ‘‘requisite’’ to
protect public health, as provided in
section 109(b), EPA’s task is to establish
standards that are neither more nor less
stringent than necessary for these
purposes. See generally Whitman v.
American Trucking Associations, 531
U.S. 457, 465–472, 475–76 (2001).
Pursuant to those provisions, EPA
completed its last review of the ozone
NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October
26, 2015). With respect to the primary
standard, in that review EPA
determined that the NAAQS should be
revised to provide the requisite
protection of public health (80 FR
65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly,
based on careful consideration of the
extensive information in the record,
including a thorough review of
scientific evidence and information
about ozone-related health effects,
quantitative assessments that estimated
public health risks associated with just
meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and
various alternative standards that were
considered, advice from EPA’s Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), and public comments
received in response to the proposal, the
Administrator revised the level of the
primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts
per million, and retained the other
elements of the prior standard
(indicator, form, and averaging time) (80
FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so
doing, she concluded that the revised
primary standard is requisite to protect
public health, including the health of atrisk populations, with an adequate
margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Jun 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
26, 2015).1 EPA provided notice and an
opportunity for public comment on the
proposal for this action (79 FR 75234,
December 17, 2014) and there was an
opportunity to file petitions for judicial
review pursuant to CAA section 307.
Similarly, EPA completed its last
periodic review of the PM NAAQS in
2012, and published notice of its
decision to revise the PM NAAQS in
2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013).
With regard to the primary NAAQS for
PM2.5, in that review EPA revised the
annual PM2.5 standard, including by
lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms
per cubic meter (mg/m3) so as to provide
increased protection against health
effects associated with long- and shortterm exposures (including premature
mortality, increased hospital admissions
and emergency department visits, and
development of chronic respiratory
disease), and retained the 24-hour PM2.5
standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR
3086, January 15, 2013).2 The
Administrator concluded that with the
revisions in that review the suite of
standards would be requisite to protect
public health with an adequate margin
of safety against health effects
potentially associated with long- and
short-term PM2.5 exposures (78 FR 3164,
January 15, 2013). EPA provided notice
and an opportunity for public comment
on the proposal for this action (77 FR
38890, June 29, 2012) and there was an
opportunity to file petitions for judicial
review pursuant to CAA section 307.
Since then, EPA has initiated the next
periodic review of the air quality criteria
and NAAQS for PM (see 79 FR 71764,
December 3, 2014; 81 FR 22977–78,
April 19, 2016).
These actions revising the primary
NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the
related conclusions that the 2012 PM
NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are
requisite to protect the public health
with an adequate margin of safety, are
beyond the scope of this action. This
action concerns a SIP submission under
CAA section 110, and under section
110(a) such plans are to ‘‘provide[ ] for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of the primary NAAQS.
1 A more detailed summary of the considerations
in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in
public comments and EPA’s responses, can be
found in the Federal Register notification for the
final action (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015), and
in the Response to Comments document, which can
be found in the docket for that action (Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0699).
2 A more detailed summary of the considerations
in that review, as well as of the issues raised in in
public comments and EPA’s responses, can be
found in the Federal Register notification for the
final action (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), and in
the Response to Comments document, which can be
found in the docket for that action (Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28383
EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the
NAAQS when taking action on
proposed SIP modifications related to
that pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably
focuses on a determination of whether
a SIP amendment will ensure
attainment and maintenance with the
NAAQS as the relevant and applicable
standard for approvals of SIP revisions
under CAA section 110.
In the matter at hand, Idaho requested
a revision to the ozone concentration
level at which IDEQ may authorize
(authorization level) agricultural crop
residue burning (CRB). The requested
revision does not change the
authorization levels for any other
NAAQS and all other CRB requirements
remain unchanged. For the reasons
provided in our proposal for this action,
we conclude that approval of Idaho’s
submitted SIP revisions will not
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the Clean Air
Act. 83 FR 2955, January 22, 2018.
Comment
Several commenters expressed
concern about Idaho’s failure to evaluate
how an increase in ozone emissions
from crop residue burning would
interact with other pollutants to impact
public health. The commenters argued
that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate
that its proposed SIP revisions will not
increase risks to public health. Several
commenters objected to the SIP revision
on the basis that the changes are not in
the public interest and constitutes a
weakening of a health-based standard.
Commenters cited both impacts to
public health associated with crop
residue burning from both ozone and
fine particles (PM2.5). One commenter
asserted that Idaho did not consider the
cumulative public health impacts of
frequent or multiple exposures to PM
from sources including both CRB and
wildfires. They argue that Idaho did not
adequately consider other pollutants
(such as PM or CO) described as ‘‘byproducts’’ of biomass burning, and more
specifically did not consider the
combined effects of PM2.5, CO and
ozone, as well as toxics such as
‘‘benzene, PAH’s [sic] and others’’ that
are in the air as a result of either CRB
or from wildfires. One commenter
argued that in the absence of
‘‘conclusive studies of the effects of
breathing all these substances at once,
. . . maintaining the 75% of all NAAQS
is the only proven way’’ to protect
public health. The Idaho Conservation
League (ICL) argued that Idaho’s SIP
submission ‘‘failed to provide sufficient
justification that remaining CAA
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
28384
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
requirements would not be violated’’
and specifically cited section 101 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)) to
support its assertion.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Response
As explained in EPA’s notice of
proposed rulemaking in this matter,
whether or not a SIP revision will
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA is
the relevant basis for approval or
disapproval. SIPs, under CAA section
110, implement the NAAQS contained
in CAA section 109 which are specific
to the six criteria pollutants: Carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) such as benzene and PAHs, in
general, are not regulated under Title I
of the CAA and are not relevant to EPA
determinations of whether or not a SIP
revision meets the relevant
requirements of the Act. Contrary to the
arguments raised by these commenters,
EPA does not have authority under the
CAA to consider whether a proposed
SIP revision will result in a general
increased risk to public health (whether
it be from one pollutant considered in
isolation or the synergistic effects of
human exposure to multiple pollutants
interacting with one another) so long as
the state can demonstrate that the SIP
will result in the attainment or
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.
ICL cites CAA section 101(b)(1) in
support of its assertion that Idaho’s SIP
submission does not meet the
requirements of the CAA, and that Idaho
had not provided a sufficient
justification that CAA requirements not
related to the ozone NAAQS would not
be violated. CAA section 101(b)(1)
provides a declaration of one of the
purposes of Title I of the Act, namely
‘‘to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation’s air resources so as to
promote the public health and welfare
and the productive capacity of its
population.’’ EPA disagrees with the
commenter’s assertion that CAA section
101(b)(1) authorizes EPA to disapprove
a SIP revision based on the cumulative
impacts of pollutants in evaluating a
state’s implementation plan under Title
I.
Comment
One commenter disputed Idaho’s
assertion that raising the burn
authorization trigger from 75% to 90%
of the ozone NAAQS will facilitate
authorizing burning on days when the
conditions for pollutant dispersion are
better. Multiple commenters asserted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Jun 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
that Idaho did not consider alternative
options to crop residue burning,
including the option of simply not
authorizing burns on days when the
NAAQS will exceed the current 75%
burning authorization level (e.g., making
no changes to the current SIP-approved
rules). The commenters cited the
current 75% of the NAAQS SIP limit to
be the product of a compromise of
interests, and one that anticipated that
monitored averages would not be an
adequate gauge of actual PM2.5 or other
criteria pollutant exposure, and thus
provided a margin of safety to public
health that the proposed SIP revision
would eliminate. One commenter stated
that the ozone monitoring network in
Idaho could be ‘‘more robust.’’
Response
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Failure to consider
alternatives to the proposed SIP revision
is not a basis for disapproval. Even if the
existing SIP burning threshold was
originally established as a consensusbased standard at the state level taking
into account the factors identified by the
commenters, EPA cannot substitute its
judgement or policy preferences for
Idaho’s lawfully submitted SIP revision
so long as the SIP revision is consistent
with the CAA’s requirements. As
explained in EPA’s notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA concludes that Idaho
has adequately demonstrated that the
SIP revision will not interfere with
continued attainment of the ozone
NAAQS in Idaho. Potential effects of the
revision on attainment and maintenance
is limited to the ozone NAAQS because
the SIP submission does not alter any
requirements related to other criteria
pollutants. Under such circumstances,
nothing in the CAA prohibits a state
from modifying its SIP requirements to
address its current air quality
management needs.
As explained in EPA’s notification of
proposed approval, EPA concludes that
Idaho has adequately demonstrated that
it will continue to attain the ozone
NAAQS after raising its ozone burning
threshold. To the extent that the
commenter is raising concerns about the
adequacy of the Idaho ozone monitoring
network to detect ozone NAAQS
violations, it is relevant to note that EPA
regularly assesses the adequacy of
states’ monitoring networks for all
pollutants pursuant to its review of each
state’s Annual Network Monitoring
Plan. EPA’s most recent evaluation of
the Idaho ozone monitoring network
was addressed in its November 8, 2017,
approval letter (included in the docket
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for this action). EPA’s approval letter
identified areas where an ozone monitor
may need to be added in the future. EPA
will continue to monitor the adequacy
of the ozone monitoring network to
determine if the network must be
expanded to comply with 40 CFR part
58 requirements.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving, and incorporating
by reference where appropriate in
Idaho’s SIP, all revisions requested by
Idaho on September 22, 2017 to the
following provisions:
• IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 (Burn
Approval Criteria, state effective
February 28, 2018); and
• Idaho Code 39–114 (Open Burning
of Crop Residue, state effective February
28, 2018).
We have determined that the
submitted SIP revisions are consistent
with section 110 and part C of Title I of
the CAA.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is approving
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, we are incorporating by reference
the provisions described above in
Section III. Final Action and set forth
below, as amendments to 40 CFR part
52. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 10 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
V. 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,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this final 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);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
28385
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other
area where 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).
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 CAA section 307(b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by August 20, 2018. 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 CAA
section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
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: June 7, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 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 by:
a. In paragraph (c), under table
entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Idaho
Regulations and Statutes’’:
■ i. Revising entry ‘‘621’’;
■ ii. Removing entry ‘‘Section 1 of
House bill 557, codified at Idaho Code
Section 39–114’’; and
■ iii. Adding an entry at the end of the
table.
■ b. In paragraph (e), under the table
entitled ‘‘EPA-Approved Idaho
Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures’’, adding an entry
at the end of the table.
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 52.670
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Incorporation
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS AND STATUTES
State citation
Title/subject
EPA approval
date
State effective date
Explanations
Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
*
*
*
621 ....................................... Burn Determination .............
*
*
*
2/28/2018, 4/2/2008
*
*
*
*
6/19/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation]; 8/1/
2008, 73 FR 44915.
*
*
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
State Statutes
Section 3 of Senate Bill
1009, codified at Idaho
Code Section 39–114.
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Open Burning of Crop Residue.
*
20:20 Jun 18, 2018
2/28/2018
6/19/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
(e) * * *
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
*
*
28386
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State submittal date
*
9/22/2017, 10/23/2017
*
*
*
Open Burning of Crop ResState-wide ...........................
idue State Implementation
Plan Revisions.
[FR Doc. 2018–13046 Filed 6–18–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1801, 1803, 1804, 1815,
and 1852
NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Technical amendments.
AGENCY:
NASA is making technical
amendments to the NASA FAR
Supplement (NFS) to provide needed
editorial changes.
DATES: Effective: June 19, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Geoffrey Sage, NASA, Office of
Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy
Division, via email at geoffrey.s.sage@
nasa.gov, or telephone (202) 358–2420.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. Background
As part of NASA’s retrospective
review of existing regulations NASA is
conducting periodic reviews of the
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to ensure
the accuracy of information
disseminated to the acquisition
community. This rule makes
administrative changes to the NFS to
correct typographical errors as well as
inadvertent omissions from prior
rulemaking actions. A summary of
changes follows:
• Section 1801.105–1, paragraph
(b)(iii), is revised to update the internet
link to ‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/
procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ’’.
• Section 1803.906, paragraph (d), is
revised by replacing the word ‘‘Unites’’
with the word ‘‘United’’.
• Section 1804.170 is revised to
remove the paragraph designations ‘‘(a)’’
and ‘‘(b)’’ and combine the two
paragraphs.
• Section 1815.203–72 is revised to
remove the redundant words ‘‘and
RFOs’’.
• Section 1815.305–70, paragraph
(a)(3), is revised by replacing the word
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Jun 18, 2018
Jkt 244001
EPA approval
date
*
*
6/19/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
‘‘eficiencies’’ with the word
‘‘deficiencies’’.
• Section 1852.215–79 is revised by
replacing the clause reference ‘‘52.215–
21’’ with the clause reference ‘‘52.215–
9’’.
• Section 1852.216–76 is revised to
remove the words ‘‘, e.g., issuance of
unilateral modification by contracting
officer’’ from paragraph (c).
• Section 1852.245–71 is revised to
provide space for a contracting officer to
‘‘check’’ if property and services are
provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(11).
• Section 1852.247–71 is revised by
replacing the word ‘‘Mammals’’ with the
word ‘‘Mammal’’ in paragraph (a).
List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 1801,
1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852
Government procurement.
Comments
*
Original submission and
supplemental modeling
analyses
PART 1804–ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
1804.170
[Amended]
4. Revise section 1804.170 to read as
follows:
■
1804.170
Contract effective date.
‘‘Contract effective date’’ means the
date agreed upon by the parties for
beginning the period of performance
under the contract. In no case shall the
effective date precede the date on which
the contracting officer or designated
higher approval authority signs the
document. Costs incurred before the
contract effective date are unallowable
unless they qualify as precontract costs
(see FAR 31.205–32) and the clause
prescribed at 1831.205–70 is used.
PART 1815—CONTRACTING BY
NEGOTIATION
1815.203–72
Geoffrey Sage,
NASA FAR Supplement Manager.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1803,
1804, 1815, and 1852 are amended as
follows:
1815.305–70
[Amended]
■
5. Amend section 1815.203–72 by
removing the words ‘‘and RFOs’’.
1. The authority citation for parts
1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
PART 1801—FEDERAL ACQUISITION
REGULATIONS SYSTEM
1801.105–1
[Amended]
2. Amend section 1801.105–1 by
removing ‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/
office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm’’
from paragraph (b)(iii) and adding
‘‘https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/
procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ’’ in its place.
■
PART 1803—IMPROPER BUSINESS
PRACTICES AND PERSONAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1803.906
[Amended]
3. Amend section 1803.906 by
removing from paragraph (d) ‘‘Unites’’
and adding ‘‘United’’ in its place.
■
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[Amended]
6. Amend section 1815.305–70 by
removing from paragraph (a)(3) the
word ‘‘eficiencies’’ and adding
‘‘deficiencies’’ in its place.
■
PART 1852—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
1852.215–79
[Amended]
7. Amend section 1852.215–79 by—
a. In the clause heading, removing
‘‘(DEC 1988)’’ and adding ‘‘(JUN 2018)’’
in its place; and
■ b. Removing ‘‘52.215–21’’ and adding
‘‘52.215–9’’ in its place.
■
■
1852.216–76
[Amended]
8. Amend section 1852.216–76 by—
a. In the clause heading, removing
‘‘(APR 2012)’’ and adding ‘‘(JUN 2018)’’
in its place; and
■ b. Removing from paragraph (c) ‘‘, e.g.,
issuance of unilateral modification by
contracting officer’’.
■
■
1852.245–71
[Amended]
9. Amend section 1852.245–71 by
revising the date of the clause and
■
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28382-28386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13046]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566; FRL-9979-48-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone
Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
related to agricultural crop residue burning. The Director of the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted the revisions to
EPA on September 22, 2017. IDEQ supplemented the original submission
with photochemical modeling analyses on October 23, 2017. The revisions
change the ambient ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may approve
a permittee's request to burn. This final action is being taken for the
reasons set out in EPA's proposed action in this matter. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective July 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Ruddick at (206) 553-1999, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On September 22, 2017, the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP provisions regulating
open burning of crop residue in the state to EPA for approval. On
January 22, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve all of the revisions
requested in the September 22, 2017 submittal. We are taking final
action for the reasons explained in the January 22, 2018 notification
of proposed approval (83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed approval for
further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment
period for this proposal ended on February 21, 2018. EPA received
public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Summaries of the comments
as well as EPA's responses to adverse comments are in Section II of
this rulemaking action. After consideration of the comments, we do not
believe any changes in the rationale or conclusions in the proposed
approval are appropriate.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received comments on a variety of issues related to the
proposed approval of Idaho's crop residue burning SIP revisions. Out of
a total of ten comments received, three were supportive of EPA's
approval of the SIP revisions, four were adverse to the EPA's proposed
approval, and three were determined to be not germane to this action. A
full copy of all comments received is available in the docket for final
action.
Comment
EPA received public comments arguing that the NAAQS are not
adequately protective of public health in the context of crop residue
burning and should not be relied upon as the basis for approval of the
proposed crop residue burning SIP revisions. One commenter stated that
because the PM2.5 NAAQS takes the form of a 24-hour average
that it allows ``spikes'' of emissions that are sufficient to ``kill
citizens, especially children with undeveloped lungs, the elderly, and
anyone with underlying heart or lung diseases.'' Another commenter
urged EPA to disapprove the proposed SIP revisions, citing studies that
they assert demonstrate negative human health impacts to exposure to
ozone at levels below the NAAQS.
[[Page 28383]]
Response
These comments relate to the adequacy of the PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS, and are therefore outside of the scope of this action. The
CAA contains provisions that specifically address the establishment and
review of the NAAQS. To briefly summarize, under sections 108 and 109
of the Act, EPA issues ``air quality criteria'' and establishes NAAQS
for certain air pollutants. CAA section 109(d)(1) requires EPA to
periodically review, and if appropriate, revise the air quality
criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of
the pollutant on public health and welfare, and to periodically review,
and if appropriate revise, the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality
criteria. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary (health-based) standard
as one ``the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the
Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin
of safety, [is] requisite to protect the public health.'' In setting
primary NAAQS that are ``requisite'' to protect public health, as
provided in section 109(b), EPA's task is to establish standards that
are neither more nor less stringent than necessary for these purposes.
See generally Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457,
465-472, 475-76 (2001).
Pursuant to those provisions, EPA completed its last review of the
ozone NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). With respect to
the primary standard, in that review EPA determined that the NAAQS
should be revised to provide the requisite protection of public health
(80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly, based on careful
consideration of the extensive information in the record, including a
thorough review of scientific evidence and information about ozone-
related health effects, quantitative assessments that estimated public
health risks associated with just meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and
various alternative standards that were considered, advice from EPA's
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and public comments
received in response to the proposal, the Administrator revised the
level of the primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts per million, and
retained the other elements of the prior standard (indicator, form, and
averaging time) (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so doing, she
concluded that the revised primary standard is requisite to protect
public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an
adequate margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015).\1\ EPA
provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the proposal
for this action (79 FR 75234, December 17, 2014) and there was an
opportunity to file petitions for judicial review pursuant to CAA
section 307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A more detailed summary of the considerations in that
review, as well as of the issues raised in in public comments and
EPA's responses, can be found in the Federal Register notification
for the final action (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015), and in the
Response to Comments document, which can be found in the docket for
that action (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, EPA completed its last periodic review of the PM NAAQS
in 2012, and published notice of its decision to revise the PM NAAQS in
2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). With regard to the primary NAAQS
for PM2.5, in that review EPA revised the annual
PM2.5 standard, including by lowering the level to 12.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) so as to provide increased
protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term
exposures (including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions
and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory
disease), and retained the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013).\2\ The Administrator
concluded that with the revisions in that review the suite of standards
would be requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety against health effects potentially associated with long- and
short-term PM2.5 exposures (78 FR 3164, January 15, 2013).
EPA provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the
proposal for this action (77 FR 38890, June 29, 2012) and there was an
opportunity to file petitions for judicial review pursuant to CAA
section 307. Since then, EPA has initiated the next periodic review of
the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM (see 79 FR 71764, December 3,
2014; 81 FR 22977-78, April 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A more detailed summary of the considerations in that
review, as well as of the issues raised in in public comments and
EPA's responses, can be found in the Federal Register notification
for the final action (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), and in the
Response to Comments document, which can be found in the docket for
that action (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These actions revising the primary NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the
related conclusions that the 2012 PM NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are
requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of
safety, are beyond the scope of this action. This action concerns a SIP
submission under CAA section 110, and under section 110(a) such plans
are to ``provide[ ] for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement''
of the primary NAAQS. EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the NAAQS
when taking action on proposed SIP modifications related to that
pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably focuses on a determination of whether
a SIP amendment will ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS
as the relevant and applicable standard for approvals of SIP revisions
under CAA section 110.
In the matter at hand, Idaho requested a revision to the ozone
concentration level at which IDEQ may authorize (authorization level)
agricultural crop residue burning (CRB). The requested revision does
not change the authorization levels for any other NAAQS and all other
CRB requirements remain unchanged. For the reasons provided in our
proposal for this action, we conclude that approval of Idaho's
submitted SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. 83 FR 2955,
January 22, 2018.
Comment
Several commenters expressed concern about Idaho's failure to
evaluate how an increase in ozone emissions from crop residue burning
would interact with other pollutants to impact public health. The
commenters argued that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate that its
proposed SIP revisions will not increase risks to public health.
Several commenters objected to the SIP revision on the basis that the
changes are not in the public interest and constitutes a weakening of a
health-based standard. Commenters cited both impacts to public health
associated with crop residue burning from both ozone and fine particles
(PM2.5). One commenter asserted that Idaho did not consider
the cumulative public health impacts of frequent or multiple exposures
to PM from sources including both CRB and wildfires. They argue that
Idaho did not adequately consider other pollutants (such as PM or CO)
described as ``by-products'' of biomass burning, and more specifically
did not consider the combined effects of PM2.5, CO and
ozone, as well as toxics such as ``benzene, PAH's [sic] and others''
that are in the air as a result of either CRB or from wildfires. One
commenter argued that in the absence of ``conclusive studies of the
effects of breathing all these substances at once, . . . maintaining
the 75% of all NAAQS is the only proven way'' to protect public health.
The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) argued that Idaho's SIP submission
``failed to provide sufficient justification that remaining CAA
[[Page 28384]]
requirements would not be violated'' and specifically cited section 101
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)) to support its assertion.
Response
As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking in this matter,
whether or not a SIP revision will interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA is the relevant basis for
approval or disapproval. SIPs, under CAA section 110, implement the
NAAQS contained in CAA section 109 which are specific to the six
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
such as benzene and PAHs, in general, are not regulated under Title I
of the CAA and are not relevant to EPA determinations of whether or not
a SIP revision meets the relevant requirements of the Act. Contrary to
the arguments raised by these commenters, EPA does not have authority
under the CAA to consider whether a proposed SIP revision will result
in a general increased risk to public health (whether it be from one
pollutant considered in isolation or the synergistic effects of human
exposure to multiple pollutants interacting with one another) so long
as the state can demonstrate that the SIP will result in the attainment
or maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.
ICL cites CAA section 101(b)(1) in support of its assertion that
Idaho's SIP submission does not meet the requirements of the CAA, and
that Idaho had not provided a sufficient justification that CAA
requirements not related to the ozone NAAQS would not be violated. CAA
section 101(b)(1) provides a declaration of one of the purposes of
Title I of the Act, namely ``to protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare
and the productive capacity of its population.'' EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that CAA section 101(b)(1) authorizes EPA to
disapprove a SIP revision based on the cumulative impacts of pollutants
in evaluating a state's implementation plan under Title I.
Comment
One commenter disputed Idaho's assertion that raising the burn
authorization trigger from 75% to 90% of the ozone NAAQS will
facilitate authorizing burning on days when the conditions for
pollutant dispersion are better. Multiple commenters asserted that
Idaho did not consider alternative options to crop residue burning,
including the option of simply not authorizing burns on days when the
NAAQS will exceed the current 75% burning authorization level (e.g.,
making no changes to the current SIP-approved rules). The commenters
cited the current 75% of the NAAQS SIP limit to be the product of a
compromise of interests, and one that anticipated that monitored
averages would not be an adequate gauge of actual PM2.5 or
other criteria pollutant exposure, and thus provided a margin of safety
to public health that the proposed SIP revision would eliminate. One
commenter stated that the ozone monitoring network in Idaho could be
``more robust.''
Response
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Failure to
consider alternatives to the proposed SIP revision is not a basis for
disapproval. Even if the existing SIP burning threshold was originally
established as a consensus-based standard at the state level taking
into account the factors identified by the commenters, EPA cannot
substitute its judgement or policy preferences for Idaho's lawfully
submitted SIP revision so long as the SIP revision is consistent with
the CAA's requirements. As explained in EPA's notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that
the SIP revision will not interfere with continued attainment of the
ozone NAAQS in Idaho. Potential effects of the revision on attainment
and maintenance is limited to the ozone NAAQS because the SIP
submission does not alter any requirements related to other criteria
pollutants. Under such circumstances, nothing in the CAA prohibits a
state from modifying its SIP requirements to address its current air
quality management needs.
As explained in EPA's notification of proposed approval, EPA
concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that it will continue
to attain the ozone NAAQS after raising its ozone burning threshold. To
the extent that the commenter is raising concerns about the adequacy of
the Idaho ozone monitoring network to detect ozone NAAQS violations, it
is relevant to note that EPA regularly assesses the adequacy of states'
monitoring networks for all pollutants pursuant to its review of each
state's Annual Network Monitoring Plan. EPA's most recent evaluation of
the Idaho ozone monitoring network was addressed in its November 8,
2017, approval letter (included in the docket for this action). EPA's
approval letter identified areas where an ozone monitor may need to be
added in the future. EPA will continue to monitor the adequacy of the
ozone monitoring network to determine if the network must be expanded
to comply with 40 CFR part 58 requirements.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference where appropriate
in Idaho's SIP, all revisions requested by Idaho on September 22, 2017
to the following provisions:
IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 (Burn Approval Criteria, state
effective February 28, 2018); and
Idaho Code 39-114 (Open Burning of Crop Residue, state
effective February 28, 2018).
We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent
with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is approving regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above
in Section III. Final Action and set forth below, as amendments to 40
CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 10 office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).
V. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
final 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);
is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory
[[Page 28385]]
action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
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 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where 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).
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 CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by August 20, 2018. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, 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: June 7, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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 by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), under table entitled ``EPA-Approved Idaho
Regulations and Statutes'':
0
i. Revising entry ``621'';
0
ii. Removing entry ``Section 1 of House bill 557, codified at Idaho
Code Section 39-114''; and
0
iii. Adding an entry at the end of the table.
0
b. In paragraph (e), under the table entitled ``EPA-Approved Idaho
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'', adding an
entry at the end of the table.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Idaho Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
621............................ Burn Determination 2/28/2018, 4/2/2008 6/19/2018, [Insert .................
Federal Register
citation]; 8/1/
2008, 73 FR 44915.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3 of Senate Bill 1009, Open Burning of 2/28/2018 6/19/2018, [Insert .................
codified at Idaho Code Section Crop Residue. Federal Register
39-114. citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 28386]]
EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State submittal date EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Open Burning of Crop Residue State-wide........ 9/22/2017, 10/23/ 6/19/2018, [Insert Original
State Implementation Plan 2017 Federal Register submission and
Revisions. citation]. supplemental
modeling
analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-13046 Filed 6-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
